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:

“They’ve spent trillions of dollars on things having to do with the Green New Scam. It’s a scam,” said Donald Trump in his recent convention speech. His running mate J.D. Vance echoed the sentiment, saying in his speech that the country needs “a leader who rejects Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s Green New Scam.”
To get the reference, you would have had to understand that they were talking about the Green New Deal — which most Americans probably recall dimly, if at all — and have some sense of both what was in it and why you shouldn’t like it. Neither Trump nor Vance explained or elaborated; it was one of many attacks at the Republican convention that brought cheers from the delegates but were likely all but incomprehensible to voters who aren’t deeply versed in conservative memes and boogeymen.
But here’s the irony. The Green New Deal never made the transition from a general statement of goals to a concrete and comprehensive policy plan. It wasn’t enacted through Congress. And today, most Democrats, even those who supported it in the past, seldom mention it by name. Yet without too many people noticing, the Green New Deal has been enormously successful.
From the beginning, it was envisioned as both a set of policy objectives and a public relations campaign, starting with the name. By invoking Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, its advocates intended to communicate three essential messages. First, climate change is an urgent crisis on the scale of the Great Depression, one that demands a government response without delay. Second, the plan itself is hugely ambitious, seeking to marshal vast resources across multiple federal agencies to confront the problem. And third, the programs it envisions would be as transformative and lasting in their effects as those of the New Deal, putting millions to work, creating economic security, and providing direct benefits to Americans’ lives.
But the plan itself was not really a plan at all. The legislation filed in 2019 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey is a mere 14 pages long. It articulates five goals:
1. Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions
2. Creating millions of high-wage jobs
3. Investing in sustainable infrastructure
4. Securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment
5. Promoting environmental justice
The rest of the document name-checks a variety of areas where future programs will be targeted (manufacturing, housing, transportation, agriculture, etc.) and principles those programs should embody (support for unions, community involvement, opposition to corporate monopolies). In the years since, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey, along with other advocates, have attached the Green New Deal name to other, more detailed proposals (e.g. the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act).
So not only does the Green New Deal remain somewhat abstract and hypothetical, most Democrats don’t even bring it up anymore. Which is why it sounds so absurd when Republicans attack it as though it were an enacted law; every time the crumbling Texas energy grid fails, foes of the clean energy transition rush to Fox News to say the Green New Deal is the culprit.
If you wanted to be generous, you could say the Republican critics are not lying, just using the phrase “Green New Deal” — or in Trump and Vance’s formulation, “Green New Scam” — as a shorthand to refer to any and all efforts to address climate change. In that sense, they might actually be on to something.
To understand why, we should go back to the Green New Deal’s high point as a topic of political debate: the 2020 Democratic presidential primary campaign. Most of the two dozen Democrats running for the nomination supported it, and many — including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris — were cosponsors of the legislation. When Joe Biden released his first campaign climate plan in 2019, it read, “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.” A year later he put out an updated plan that backed away from the Green New Deal moniker but won praise from climate advocates for its ambition, including pledges to spend $2 trillion and reduce carbon emissions from power plants to zero by 2035.
That change foreshadowed where most elected officials in the Democratic Party would move: Most of them wound up setting aside the Green New Deal name, but they adopted its policy goals. What was originally thought by many to be a pie-in-the-sky idea advanced by those on the left edge of the party became something almost any Democrat with serious ambitions has to be on board with, however they might describe it. Democratic senators and governors may not all agree on every particular, but they have come around to the Green New Deal’s fundamental approach: aggressive, ambitious government action on climate, with the emphasis on carrots rather than sticks to produce tangible benefits the public will support.
And just as Green New Deal advocates hoped, Democrats have not allowed Republicans to sucker them into endless arguments about cost. When Republicans make preposterous claims (for instance, that it will cost $100 trillion to implement all the plan’s profligate schemes), Democrats tend to dismiss it and move on, accepting that climate action entails investing money up front, and that it’s worth it.
As for Biden, as he heads toward the end of his presidency he’s gotten lots of deserved praise for his commitment and achievements in addressing climate. While this might not be the way he would describe it, there’s no question that between the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the efforts of agencies including the EPA and Department of Energy, he has made progress on all five of the Green New Deal’s goals.
Net-zero emission targets? Check. Focus on well-paid green jobs? Check. Sustainable infrastructure? Check. Clean air and water? Check. Environmental justice? Check. One might question whether the steps his administration has taken in these areas have been effective or sufficient, but no one can say Biden hasn’t pursued the Green New Deal’s objectives.
The Green New Deal may not have been signed into law in its pure form, but it did what its advocates hoped: It captured the conversation around climate and was adopted to a great extent by an entire political party. And much of what it sought has found its way into law and policy. So while Trump may call it a scam, it looks a lot like a triumph.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
1. Suffolk County, New York – Rarely do I get to say battery fire fears can be quelched but we have a very good example brewing in the Empire State.
2. Loudon County, Virginia – I can’t believe it: Data Center Alley is going to enact a moratorium.
3. Pulaski County, Arkansas – Entergy has dropped the lawsuit it filed against an Arkansas newspaper over the publication of a power deal with Google.
4. Darlington County, South Carolina – We conclude this week’s Hotspots with a focus on a GOP-leaning county rejecting a renewables moratorium.
A conversation with Sam Lyman of the Bitcoin Policy Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Sam Lyman, head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute. Originally focused on cryptocurrency, Lyman’s organization has expanded to policy and messaging development around data centers, most notably providing research many AI boosters cite to claim foreign influence is driving opposition to new hyperscale projects. Last week, the think tank released a new report calling for a novel solution to the data center permitting bottleneck: direct cash payments from data center projects to individuals involved with building them, as well as residents nearby facilities once they’re operating.
I reached out to BPI and asked for a chat with Lyman about the data center dividend proposal. I also tried to get to the bottom of where this increasingly relevant think tank stands on the general idea of a national data center law. The conversation was immensely informative. So here it is, in a lightly abridged and edited format.
Let’s start with the data center dividend proposal. Walk my readers through it.
Data center dividends came from the idea that, ideally in the AI revolution, we want all Americans to benefit. Especially rural Americans. You look at the landscape today, the majority of AI data centers are being built in rural America. It’s critical they’ll benefit from the massive wealth AI will unlock.
There’s lots of ways to make that happen. People point to the jobs AI data centers will build out, for example. But with data center dividends, we take the logic of the Alaska Permanent Fund and we apply it to America’s rural counties, which are sitting on a proverbial gold mine right now but lack any kind of public mechanism allowing them to benefit from that in a maximal way.
If you look at the tax revenue these data centers create, which is astronomical, how do we distribute this tax revenue in a way where it has the most tangible impact on the families living there? We believe data center dividends are the best way to do that – after allocating money for schools, public safety, and infrastructure, it allows these counties with tens of millions of dollars left over to distribute them as they see fit. They should distribute that money to the men and women who make those data centers happen in the first place.
The most effective form of a dividend would take a direct payment: a cash payment, a physical check, a direct deposit. Or the form of credits paying back property taxes, utility bills, an endowment for scholarships. There’s a number of different forms this can take.
Hopefully this gets the conversation going about how we can make these work for everybody.
Who do you want to see set up this dividend mechanism? How’s your approach to implementation?
The report is addressed to county commissioners. I’m thinking of commissioners who represent both sides of the political spectrum facing this huge backlash. Many of them want to do good by their communities and their voters, even if it means doing a data center, in places where it’s difficult to explain right now. Dividends make this indisputably clear.
I tried to put myself in the shoes of an enterprising county commissioner who sees the merits in the data center buildout and wants to break out of the political storm. It’s important to note data centers can be a huge economic boon for communities, in ways that can impact lives positively.
Have any communities – counties, as you noted – taken this idea up yet? Are there any models for this proposal?
The best analogue is West Feliciana, Louisiana, which is the case study we feature. West Feliciana made an agreement with a data center developer where in lieu of taxes, they make direct payments of about $90 million a year to the parish. That triples the community’s tax budget every year. It leaves ample room not only for essential services but dividends afterwards. Louisiana then passed a law – Act 434 – that allowed West Feliciana to remit some of those payments to residents as a tax credit. This bill first provided the opportunity for the parish to even remit those payments as cash, but it was changed in the legislature to make it a credit. That’s the closest we’ve gotten so far.
As far as reaching out to individual counties, we’re a think tank. We put ideas into the universe. We haven’t had anyone reach out to us since the publication of the report so far but we’re hoping they will.
Your report does lay out how there’s a bottleneck in development and this could help with easing it. Do you see an impetus to put ideas like the dividend out there right now, in light of the increased data center scrutiny in this year’s midterms?
Our publication is irrespective of the midterms. But it is tied to the fact that a bottleneck facing the data center buildout includes it becoming a politicized issue. We’re of the belief these projects shouldn't be political at all. One way to break through the noise is by showing how they can benefit those involved in construction and residents who live there. Data centers are critical infrastructure; other forms of critical infrastructure aren’t being politicized. Our efforts are to demonstrate how these shouldn’t be political.
When it comes to the future of AI data center regulation, this proposal is obviously geared towards incentivizing a resolution to the bottleneck through using resources produced from data centers – namely, new investment.
Where does your organization stand on the increased push for environmental or siting regulation on AI data centers?
I’m not familiar with what you might be referring to there.
I mean, there’s all kinds of proposals at the federal level and in states for everything from being required to pay for infrastructure upgrades to being required to use closed-loop cooling to siting restrictions, like temporary moratoria.
What I’m asking is, what else do you as an organization believe when it comes to regulating AI data center development at the federal level? State level?
We believe data centers should work for the communities where they’re being built. That’s important. So the concept of BYOP – Bring Your Own Power – we very much support that idea. We think the Ratepayer Protection Pledge is a great proposal because ultimately we want data centers, with them being critical infrastructure, to not only strengthen our national security but strengthen the communities where they’re being built.
Some states are rejecting data centers. We think that’s a mistake because it's something that’ll ultimately short-change the people who live there. For the states that do decide to build data centers, it's up to them what regulations make data centers more sustainable over time.
There’s increased public discussion for policy on AI development – as an organization, do you see any role in the federal government making policy here with a national data center law?
We think AI will be key to America’s prosperity over the long-term. We have concerns about the regulation of open-source artificial intelligence; bitcoin is a form of open-source software and open-source money. We believe intelligence should be something available to all Americans. That’s our concern with talk about regulating AI right now, it feels like a ploy for regulatory capture.
But what about national policy on AI data centers? Does your think tank support the national legislature doing a federal data center bill or is that something best for localities or states?
It depends on the bill. Are you talking about Sen. Bernie Sanders’ national moratorium?
With a permitting deal seemingly on the horizon, Republican Gabe Evans and Democrat Scott Peters may be about to see their partnership pay off.
The fate of permitting reform legislation that could smooth the way to all kinds of new and improved energy infrastructure — including transmission lines and renewables — is currently hostage to opaque discussions between Senate committee chairs. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told a Rhode Island business group earlier this week that “we’re actually in a pretty good place on permitting reform,” and that there was “maybe another week of negotiations.” Whitehouse’s Republican counterpart on the EPW committee, West Virginia Senator Shelly Moore-Capito, told Semafor on Friday that any bill has “got to pop out of here in the next 48 hours.”
If that’s going to happen, it will be because Republicans and Democrats have decided it’s worth it to get along. Any deal will eventually have to be voted on by the House, which has already produced several bills on a bipartisan basis, and even passed one — the SPEED Act — late last year.
Two of the busier House members on this issue are Scott Peters, a Democratic former environmental lawyer from San Diego, and Gabe Evans, a first term Colorado Republican representing a suburban and rural district north of Denver that includes wind farms and crude oil production. “The district that I represent truly is an all of the above energy district,” Evans told me.
Their latest effort is a bill aimed at smoothing out permitting for transmission development, especially interregional transmission. Last week, the two congressmen unveiled the CLEAR Act, seeking to apply a stricter set of standards for lawsuits against transmission projects that aligned with how natural gas and hydropower projects are treated under the Federal Power Act (it’s much harder to sue to stop these projects). Earlier this year, the two also sponsored the CERTAIN Act, a more comprehensive streamlining of federal permitting for energy infrastructure projects.
“We’re proud to have a lot of our work as the foundation for this, and I think if they send us over something that includes this, it’s got a really good chance of passing in the House,” Peters told me. Evans added that bringing forward bipartisan bills “gives a little bit more impetus to the Senate to know that the House is looking for these things.”
While the Senate’s deal will be up to the senators, Peters told me he envisions a broad permitting package that could include reforms to the National Environmental Policy Act to shorten permitting timelines, preventing the president from nixing individual projects, and reform Section 401 of the Clean Water Act which effectively devolves power to tribes and states to block a variety of interstate projects. “I think it’s coming together pretty well,” Peters said. “Obviously, we’re waiting for white smoke from the Senate.”
A permitting reform package may be one of the last major bills several bipartisan-minded House members get to vote on.
Election day is about six weeks off, and while Peters will likely have an easy time getting reelected for this eighth term, Evans is in a tough race. His purple-hued district is a target for the House Democratic campaign arm, which is hoping to flip it to former Colorado House of Representatives member Manny Rutinel, who worked as a lawyer at the environmental group Earthjustice. The Cook Political Report rates the race as toss-up, and Nate Silver gives Rutinel a roughly 75% to win.
But Rutinel won’t be getting any campaign help from Peters.
When I asked Peters about the timing of releasing a bill that could boost an endangered Republican’s bipartisan bona fides less than two months before an election, Peters told me that he and Evans had been working on it “for a while,” and that “my colleagues know that I’ve worked with Republicans to get problems solved.”
He said he wasn’t “participating in Gabe’s election” and wasn’t giving any money to his campaign, but also that he wouldn’t campaign Evans’ challenger, despite the opportunity to bolster his own caucus.
Peters is not shy about praising Evans. “What I appreciate about Gabe is that it takes a little bit of initiative to separate yourself from the majority — particularly when you’re in the trifecta — and do your own thing. He’s been a good partner in helping find ways to reduce process and make things go faster,” he told me.
Evans told me that he and Peters met early in this Congress, as Evans was getting settled into his new office in the Longworth building. “We’ve built the relationship over the last two years with a lot of the different areas that we’ve collaborated on.”
“I always try to meet the members of my committee and find out who will work with me. And I was fortunate to find Gabe,” Peters said.
“I do want to win the majority in the next Congress,” Peters went on, but “the norm should be that we figure out ways to work together to solve problems, and, you know, we’ll let the voters of Colorado 8 decide who to send me.”
Evans, for his part, told me that he had to work with Democrats to get anything passed as a member of a minuscule Republican minority in the Colorado statehouse, and that the 40-plus members of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus have agreed not to campaign against each other. “There’s 385 other members that you can go pick fights with,” he said.