You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Adorable as they are, Japanese kei cars don’t really fit into American driving culture.

It’s easy to feel jaded about America’s car culture when you travel abroad. Visit other countries and you’re likely to see a variety of cool, quirky, and affordable vehicles that aren’t sold in the United States, where bloated and expensive trucks and SUVs dominate.
Even President Trump is not immune from this feeling. He recently visited Japan and, like a study abroad student having a globalist epiphany, seems to have become obsessed with the country’s “kei” cars, the itty-bitty city autos that fill up the congested streets of Tokyo and other urban centers. Upon returning to America, Trump blasted out a social media message that led with, “I have just approved TINY CARS to be built in America,” and continued, “START BUILDING THEM NOW!!!”
He’s right: Kei cars are neat. These pint-sized coupes, hatchbacks, and even micro-vans and trucks are so cute and weird that U.S. car collectors have taken to snatching them up (under the rules that allow 25-year-old cars to be imported to America regardless of whether they meet our standards). And he’s absolutely right that Americans need smaller and more affordable automotive options. Yet it’s far from clear that what works in Japan will work here — or that the auto execs who stood behind Trump last week as he announced a major downgrading of upcoming fuel economy standards are keen to change course and start selling super-cheap economy cars.
Americans want our cars to do everything. This country’s fleet of Honda CR-Vs and Chevy Silverados have plenty of space for school carpools and grocery runs around town, and they’re powerful and safe enough for road-tripping hundreds of miles down the highway. It’s a theme that’s come up repeatedly in our coverage of electric vehicles. EVs are better for cities and suburbs than internal combustion vehicles, full stop. But they may never match the lightning-fast road trip pit stop people have come to expect from their gasoline-powered vehicles, which means they don’t fit cleanly into many Americans’ built-in idea of what a car should be.
This has long been a problem for selling Americans on microcars. We’ve had them before: As recently as a dozen years ago, extra-small autos like the Smart ForTwo and Scion iQ were available here. Those tiny cars made tons of sense in the United States’ truly dense urban areas; I’ve seen them strategically parked in the spaces between homes in San Francisco that are too short for any other car. They made less sense in the more wide-open spaces and sprawling suburbs that make up this country. The majority of Americans who don’t struggle with street parking and saw that they could get much bigger cars for not that much more money weren’t that interested in owning a car that’s only good for local driving.
The same dynamic exists with the idea of bringing kei cars for America. They’re not made to go faster than 40 or 45 miles per hour, and their diminutive size leaves little room for the kind of safety features needed to make them highway-legal here. (Can you imagine driving that tiny car down a freeway filled with 18-wheelers?) Even reaching street legal status is a struggle. While reporting earlier this year on the rise of kei car enthusiasts, The New York Times noted that while some states have moved to legalize mini-cars, it is effectively illegal to register them in New York. (They interviewed someone whose service was to register the cars in Montana for customers who lived elsewhere.)
If the automakers did follow Trump’s directive and stage a tiny car revival, it would be a welcome change for budget-focused Americans. Just a handful of new cars can be had for less than $25,000 in the U.S. today, and drivers are finally beginning to turn against the exorbitant prices of new vehicles and the endless car loans required to finance them. Individuals and communities have turned increasingly to affordable local transportation options like golf carts and e-bikes for simply getting around. Tiny cars could occupy a space between those vehicles and the full-size car market. Kei trucks, which take the pickup back to its utilitarian roots, would be a wonderful option for small businesses that just need bare-bones hauling capacity.
Besides convincing size-obsessed Americans that small is cool, there is a second problem with bringing kei cars to the U.S., which is figuring out how to make little vehicles fit into the American car world. Following Trump’s declaration that America should get Tokyo-style tiny cars ASAP, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said “we have cleared the deck” of regulations that would prevent Toyota or anyone else from selling tiny cars here. Yet shortly thereafter, the Department of Transportation clarified that, “As with all vehicles, manufacturers must certify that they meet U.S. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, including for crashworthiness and passenger protection.”
In other words, Ford and GM can’t just start cranking out microcars that don’t include all the airbags and other protections necessary to meet American crash test and rollover standards (not without a wholesale change to our laws, anyway). As a result, U.S. tiny cars couldn’t be as tiny as Japanese ones. Nor would they be as cheap, which is a crucial issue. Americans might spend $10,000 on a city-only car, but probably wouldn’t spend $20,000 — not when they could just get a plain old Toyota Corolla or a used SUV for that much.
It won’t be easy to convince the car companies to go down this road, either. They moved so aggressively toward crossovers and trucks over the past few decades because Americans would pay a premium for those vehicles, making them far more profitable than economy cars. The margins on each kei car would be much smaller, and since the stateside market for them might be relatively small, this isn’t an alluring business proposition for the automakers. It would be one thing if they could just bring the small cars they’re selling elsewhere and market them in the United States without spending huge sums to redesign them for America. But under current laws, they can’t.
Not to mention the whiplash effect: The Trump administration’s attacks on EVs left the carmakers struggling to rearrange their plans. Ford and Chevy probably aren’t keen to start the years-long process of designing tiny cars to please a president who’ll soon be distracted by something else.
Trump’s Tokyo fantasy is based in a certain reality: Our cars are too big and too expensive. But while kei cars would be fantastic for driving around Boston, D.C., or San Francisco, the rides that America really needs are the reasonably sized vehicles we used to have — the hatchbacks, small trucks, and other vehicles that used to be common on our roads before the Ford F-150 and Toyota RAV4 ate the American car market. A kei truck might be too minimalist for mainstream U.S. drivers, but how about a hybrid revival of the El Camino, or a truck like the upcoming Slate EV whose dimensions reflect what a compact truck used to be? Now that I could see.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Current conditions: New Orleans is expecting light rain with temperatures climbing near 90 degrees Fahrenheit as the city marks the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina • Torrential rains could dump anywhere from 8 to 12 inches on the Mississippi Valley and the Ozarks • Japan is sweltering in temperatures as high as 104 degrees.
President Donald Trump struck a deal with the governors of Northeast states such as Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania to direct the nation’s largest grid operator to hold an emergency power auction that will force technology giants to pay for the construction of new power plants, according to Bloomberg. The effort, set to be announced Friday, will urge PJM Interconnection to hold a reliability power auction giving tech companies and data center hyperscalers the chance to bid on 15-year contracts for new electricity generation, according to Bloomberg. If it works according to plan, Bloomberg notes, “it could be mammoth in scale, delivering contracts that would support the construction of some $15 billion worth of new power plants.”
The move comes days after Trump teased forthcoming reforms on Truth Social in which he said companies would be encouraged to build their own generation, as I wrote earlier this week.
A federal court lifted President Donald Trump’s stop-work order on the Empire wind project off the coast of New York, marking the administration’s second defeat this week as his latest attempt to halt construction of offshore turbines on the East Coast flounders. District Judge Carl Nichols — whom my colleague Jael Holzman noted is a Trump appointee — sided with Norwegian energy giant Equinor Thursday morning, granting its request to lift the Department of the Interior’s order to terminate construction.
The ruling comes just days after another federal judge found that the national security concerns the Interior Department cited to justify the work stoppage were insufficient to halt another already-permitted project midway through construction. That judge, too, allowed the Danish developer Orsted’s Revolution Wind project in New England to move forward, as Jael explained here. And the lawsuits just keep coming. Now yet another New England project, Vineyard Wind, has sued the administration.
Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:

Ford and BYD are in discussions on a partnership in which the American carmaker would buy batteries from the Chinese auto giant for some of the former’s hybrid-vehicle models, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday night. The newspaper cautioned that the talks are ongoing and a deal may not materialize, but a tie-up would mark the most significant beachhead China’s leading automaker has gained in the U.S. market yet. It’s worth revisiting how BYD got so big, which Heatmap’s Shift Key podcast dove deep into back in April. A month earlier, my colleague Robinson Meyer explained how the company’s promise of charging a car’s batteries in five minutes was just the latest example of the company “shocking the world.”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Type One Energy, the fusion power startup backed by Bill Gates, is raising a $250 million Series B round at a $900 million valuation, TechCrunch reported. The company is pursuing an approach to fusion known as magnetic confinement. The design is called a stellarator, in which magnets are arranged in a doughnut shape that’s twisted and turned according to the demands of the plasma. Type One signed a deal with the Tennessee Valley Authority last year to build a fusion power plant at the site of a former coal station.
It’s yet another sign, as Heatmap’s Katie Brigham wrote in 2024, that “it is finally, possibly, almost time for fusion.” There are plenty of startups in the mix. Thea Fusion, as Katie has covered, is raising millions for a simplified stellarator design. Avalanche Energy, meanwhile, is pursuing fusion microreactors. But as I wrote last month, the race may really be with China, which is outspending the whole world on fusion.
The Chinese-Canadian solar manufacturer Canadian Solar declared a “decisive victory” in a patent fight against its Singapore-based rival Maxeon. After a nearly two-year legal fight, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ruled in Canadian Solar’s favor this week, dismissing Maxeon’s claims of alleged infringement of intellectual property as “invalid.” In a statement to PV Magazine, Canadian Solar president Colin Parkin said “we firmly oppose the misuse or weaponization of patents — particularly those lacking patentability or practical value.” The ruling clears the way for the manufacturer to expand its presence in the U.S. as the company looks to capitalize on new restrictions from the Trump administration on imported panels. Maxeon, however, told Reuters it’s still considering an appeal.
Tucked in a valley that contains pollution, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia’s coal-smoked capital city, has some of the dirtiest air in the world. When you visit, you can see the smog from a distance on the way from the airport. A solution may be on the way: The country is considering working with Russia to build its first nuclear power plant, a small modular reactor-based facility somewhere in the middle of the city. Last month, the Kremlin-owned Rosatom touted plans to build an SMR plant in Yakutia, part of Russian Siberia. Now Moscow is in talks with its former suzerainty to build the same style facility in Ulaanbaatar, NucNet reported Thursday. Mongolia has a leg up in one area: The country previously mined uranium during the Soviet era, and has large deposits that could be tapped again for a domestic fuel source.
Uptake of electric vehicles may have slowed, but internal combustion is still fading.
We know it’s going to be a tough year for fully electric vehicles. 2026 brings with it the absence of tax credits that helped to make EVs cost-competitive with combustion cars and cheap oil to demotivate drivers from switching away from gasoline, factors that have cast a gloom over the upcoming year. And according to one of the world’s biggest automotive suppliers, it’s going to be a tough decade.
Bosch, the German industrial colossus, makes components for both gas and electric cars while also selling refrigerators, power drills, and parts for just about every kind of machine in your life. At CES in Las Vegas earlier this month, the company delivered an ugly prognosis for pure EVs. It predicts that by 2035, 70% of the vehicles sold in the United States still will come with a combustion engine of some kind.
A lot of wiggle room lives within that statement. It did not say, for instance, that seven of 10 cars sold in 2035 will still be gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks that barely top 20 miles per gallon on the highway. Instead, the wording allows for a variety of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and extended-range electric vehicles (EREVs) — the kind whose on-board gas engine is there to recharge the battery that sends power to the electric motors — that are more climate-friendly than traditional internal combustion engines.
Even so, the Bosch declaration turns the electric optimism of the recent past on its head. Not so long ago, 2035 was the date by which both the state of California and the European Union were to ban the sale of gas cars entirely. Both places are reconsidering their stances as the 2030s approach and EVs face political and economic headwinds. Automakers are adjusting to the new reality in turn by scaling back their electrification goals. For America’s enormous market of full-size pickups, for example, EREVs have become the new hot topic as expensive, fully electric trucks failed to make a big dent.
Thus the negative forecast. But there’s reason to believe the future won’t, in fact, be quite so combustion-dependent, and that the reality of 2035 lies somewhere between Bosch’s prediction and the broken dream of complete electrification.
Here in California, that 30/70 split is the stuff of the present, not the future. The state hit a record in the third quarter of 2025, with 29.1% of new car sales being zero emissions vehicles. That number carries some caveats, most importantly that it coincided with America’s rush to buy EVs before the expiration of the federal tax credit, which pushed EV sales to new heights. (EV sales sank, predictably, at the end of last year once the same slate of vehicles effectively cost $7,500 more overnight.)
Still, as America’s biggest automotive market, the car-mad Golden State traditionally has tremendous pull in deciding the direction of the industry in America — one big reason the Trump administration has launched legal attacks against its pollution rules that push carmakers toward more efficient vehicles. And even with the sour narrative for EVs in 2026, the electric market here isn’t going anywhere, not when gas prices remain among the nation’s highest and the pervasiveness of electric cars has long since pushed EVs past the unfamiliarity barrier that makes people distrust a new technology. Thriving markets abroad and in pockets of the U.S. mean the legacy automakers won’t turn away from EVs entirely, not even as Detroit giants GM and Ford anticipate billions of dollars of losses from resetting their business plans to keep up with Trump’s fossil fuels love affair.
In addition, the conditions of today aren’t the conditions of tomorrow (and I’m not just talking about the possibility that a different regime will come to power in America sometime in the next decade). The death of the EV tax credit felt like a huge blow given that electric cars have long struggled with affordability. As we’ve noted, however, this year marks the arrival of many new models in the $30,000 range that come close to competing directly with gas. If battery production costs continue to shrink, dragging EV prices down with them, then those trends will push back against the economic factors that are pushing down EV adoption.
A lot can change with charging in a decade, too. When I bought my Tesla Model 3 seven years ago, it was really the only choice — Tesla’s already-decent Supercharger network made it possible to own its EV as our only vehicle, something I couldn’t say for anything else on the market. In 2026, electric vehicles by a variety of manufacturers come with Tesla’s NACS plug as their native standard, giving them access to a host of Tesla charging stations. Charging depots of all kinds continue to pop up even with the Trump administration's attempts to kill funding for them. The potential anxiety for new drivers continues to drop, and will be even lower by 2035 as the charger map fills in.
Still, there’s little doubt that some drivers who would have or could have chosen a fully electric vehicle in the coming years will settle for some kind of hybrid instead, especially if they perceive the cost math to be easier on the combustion side. That still counts for something, especially if that hybrid purchase displaces a pure fossil fuel-burner. But the advantages of driving electric will become more familiar to millions of Americans as more of their friends and neighbors opt in.
As for EV drivers themselves, more than 90% say they’ll never return to gas-burning cars after experiencing the EV life. Add it all up and there’s every reason to believe that, while EVs won’t take over America by 2035, they won’t quit at a 30% share, either.
Agriculture startups are suddenly some of the hottest bets in climate tech, according to the results of our Insiders Survey.
Innovations in agriculture can seem like the neglected stepchild of the climate tech world. While food and agriculture account for about a quarter of global emissions, there’s not a lot of investment in the space — or splashy breakthroughs to make the industry seem that investible in the first place. In transportation and energy, “there is a Tesla, there is an EnPhase,” Cooper Rinzler, a partner at Breakthrough Energy Ventures, told me. “Whereas in ag tech, tell me when the last IPO that was exciting was?”
That may be changing, however. Multiple participants in Heatmap’s Insiders Survey cited ag tech companies Pivot Bio and Nitricity — both of which are pursuing alternate approaches to conventional ammonia-based fertilizers — as among the most exciting climate tech companies working today.
Studies estimate that fertilizer production and use alone account for roughly 5% of global emissions. That includes emissions from the energy-intensive Haber–Bosch process, which synthesizes ammonia by combining nitrogen from the air with hydrogen at extremely high temperatures, as well as nitrous oxide released from the soil after fertilizer is applied. N2O is about 265 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 100-year timeframe and accounts for roughly 70% of fertilizer-related emissions, as soil microbes convert excess nitrogen that crops can’t immediately absorb into nitrous oxide.
“If we don’t solve nitrous oxide, it on its own is enough of a radiative force that we can’t meet all of our goals,” Rinzler said, referring to global climate targets at large.
Enter what some consider one of the most promising agricultural innovations, perhaps since the invention of the Haber–Bosch process itself over a century ago — Pivot Bio. This startup, founded 15 years ago, engineers soil microbes to convert about 400 times more atmospheric nitrogen into ammonia than non-engineered microbe strains naturally would. “They are mini Haber–Bosch facilities, for all intents and purposes,” Pivot Bio’s CEO Chris Abbott told me, referring to the engineered microbes themselves.
The startup has now raised over $600 million in total funding and is valued at over $2 billion. And after toiling in the ag tech trenches for a decade and a half, this will be the first full year the company’s biological fertilizers — which are applied to either the soil or seed itself — will undercut the price of traditional fertilizers.
“Farmers pay 20% to 25% less for nitrogen from our product than they do for synthetic nitrogen,” Abbott told me. “Prices [for traditional fertilizers] are going up again this spring, like they did last year. So that gap is actually widening, not shrinking.”
Peer reviewed studies also show that Pivot’s treatments boost yields for corn — its flagship crop — while preliminary data indicates that the same is true forcotton, which Pivot expanded into last year. The company also makes fertilizers for wheat, sorghum, and other small grains.
Pivot is now selling these products in stores where farmers already pick up seeds and crop treatments, rather than solely through its independent network of sales representatives, making the microbes more likely to become the default option for growers. But they won’t completely replace traditional fertilizer anytime soon, as Pivot’s treatments can still meet only about 20% to 25% of a large-scale crop’s nitrogen demand, especially during the early stages of plant growth, though it’s developing products that could push that number to 50% or higher, Abbott told me.
All this could have an astronomical environmental impact if deployed successfully at scale. “From a water perspective, we use about 1/1000th the water to produce the same amount of nitrogen,” Abbott said. From an emissions perspective, replacing a ton of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer with Pivot Bio’s product prevents the equivalent of around 11 tons of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. Given the quantity of Pivot’s fertilizer that has been deployed since 2022, Abbott estimates that scales to approximately 1.5 million tons of cumulative avoided CO2 equivalent.
“It’s one of the very few cases that I’ve ever come across in climate tech where you have this giant existing commodity market that’s worth more than $100 billion and you’ve found a solution that offers a cheaper product that is also higher value,” Rinzler told me. BEV led the company’s Series B round back in 2018, and has participated in its two subsequent rounds as well.
Meanwhile, Nitricity — a startup spun out of Stanford University in 2018 — is also aiming to circumvent the Haber–Bosch process and replace ammonia-based and organic animal-based fertilizers such as manure with a plant-based mixture made from air, water, almond shells, and renewable energy. The company said that its proprietary process converts nitrogen and other essential nutrients derived from combusted almond shells into nitrate — the form of nitrogen that plants can absorb. It then “brews” that into an organic liquid fertilizer that Nitricity’s CEO, Nico Pinkowski, describes as looking like a “rich rooibos tea,” capable of being applied to crops through standard irrigation systems.
For confidentiality reasons, the company was unable to provide more precise technical details regarding how it sources and converts sufficient nitrogen into a usable form via only air, water, and almond shells, given that shells don’t contain much nitrogen, and turning atmospheric nitrogen into a plant-ready form typically involves the dreaded Haber–Bosch process.
But investors have bought in, and the company is currently in the midst of construction on its first commercial-scale fertilizer factory in Central California, which is expected to begin production this year. Funding for the first-of-a-kind plant came from Trellis Climate and Elemental Impact, both of which direct philanthropic capital toward early-stage, capital-intensive climate projects. The facility will operate on 100% renewable power through a utility-run program that allows customers to opt into renewable-only electricity by purchasing renewable energy certificates,
Pinkowski told me the new plant will represent a 100‑fold increase in Nitricity’s production capacity, which currently sits at 80 tons per year from its pilot plant. “In comparison to premium conventional fertilizers, we see about a 10x reduction in emissions,” Pinkowski told me, factoring in greenhouse gases from both production and on-field use. “In comparison to the most standard organic fertilizers, we see about a 5x reduction in emissions.”
The company says trial data indicates that its fertilizer allows for more efficient nitrogen uptake, thus lowering nitrous oxide emissions and allowing farmers to cut costs by simply applying less product. According to Pinkowski, Nitricity’s current prices are at parity or slightly lower than most liquid organic fertilizers on the market. And that has farmers really excited — the new plant’s entire output is already sold through 2028.
“Being able to mitigate emissions certainly helps, but it’s not what closes the deal,” he told me. “It’s kind of like the icing on the cake.”
Initially, the startup is targeting the premium organic and sustainable agriculture market, setting it apart from Pivot Bio’s focus on large commodity staple crops. “You saw with the electrification of vehicles, there was a high value beachhead product, which was a sports car,” Pinkowski told me. “In the ag space, that opportunity is organics.”
But while big-name backers have lined up behind Pivot and Nitricity, the broader ag tech sector hasn’t been as fortunate in its friends, with funding and successful scale-up slowing for many companies working in areas such as automation, indoor farming, agricultural methane mitigation, and lab-grown meat.
Everyone’s got their theories for why this could be, with Lara Pierpoint of Trellis telling me that part of the issue is “the way the federal government is structured around this work.” The Department of Agriculture allocates relatively few resources to technological innovation compared to the Department of Energy, which in turn does little to support agricultural work outside of its energy-specific mandate. That ends up meaning that, as Pierpoint put it, ”this set of activities sort of falls through the cracks” of the government funding options, leaving agricultural communities and companies alike struggling to find federal programs and grant opportunities.
“There’s also a mismatch between farmers and the culture of farming and agriculture in the United States, and just even geographically where the innovation ecosystems are,” Emily Lewis O’Brien, a principal at Trellis who led the team’s investment in Nitricity, told me of the social and regional divides between entrepreneurs, tech investors and rural growers. “Bridging that gap has been a little bit tricky.”
Still, investors remain optimistic that one big win will help kick the money machines into motion, and with Pivot Bio and Nitricity, there are finally some real contenders poised to transform the sector. “We’re going to wake up one day and someone’s going to go, holy shit, that was fast,” Abbott told me. “And it’s like, well you should have been here for the decade of hard work before. It’s always fast at the end.”