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:
The whales will be fine.

Donald Trump loves eagles and whales and therefore he wants to protect them — from clean energy development.
Trump may, however, be relieved to hear that many of his concerns about wind and solar energy are unfounded. Here’s what he gets right and wrong.
Pointing out the window to the Atlantic Ocean at one point, one attendee said, the former president claimed that offshore wind turbines break down when they are exposed to saltwater … [April 17, 2024]
Fact check: Let’s just get this out of the way: offshore wind turbines are designed to withstand saltwater exposure. People have been building things in saltwater for a long, long time. From the oldest known ships constructed 6,000 years ago out of papyrus reeds to Norway’s Troll A platform — a reinforced concrete offshore natural gas platform and the tallest structure ever moved by humankind — we’ve learned a few things about resisting salt corrosion.
This scene occurred during a fundraising dinner with oil and gas executives at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort reported on by The Washington Post, which also pointed out this obvious fact. That said, to the former president’s credit, “the ocean is indeed a difficult environment” for construction and engineering, Eric Hines, a civil and environmental engineering professor and the director of the offshore wind energy graduate program at Tufts University, told me. But the lifespan of offshore structures can range from a few years to more than a century.
According to Hines, most offshore wind farms today are built to have “approximately 25-year service lives,” but the design is always evolving. His department, for example, is working on developing advanced underwater foundations that are built to last more than a century and double as artificial reefs.
“I like the concept of solar, but it’s not powerful like what we need to fire up our factories.” [Dec. 16, 2023]
Fact check: “That question is actually a little bit tricky,” Baker, the assistant professor of engineering at the University of Colorado, told me, when I asked him whether solar alone could power a factory — but it’s also not really what we should be asking. “One thing I’ve noticed people do a lot is they’ll just compare efficiency of power generation,” Baker explained. But “it’s not just about the efficiency — it’s about other things, too, like solar’s ability to be distributed. You can’t put a nuclear fission power plant in your house — you know, not yet — but you can put solar panels, so that’s a huge benefit. It offers some resiliency that other sources just can’t offer.”
It’s true that solar power is less efficient than other sources of energy, including wind, and that it requires a lot of surface area, which could be an undue burden for a manufacturer. But at the same time, “I don’t know if anybody is proposing to power an entire factory based off of solar,” Baker said.“Their windmills are causing whales to die in numbers never seen before. Nobody does anything about that. They’re washing up on shore. I saw it this weekend: Three of them came up! You wouldn’t see it once a year; now they’re coming up on a weekly basis. The windmills are driving them crazy. They’re driving the whales, I think, a little batty.” [Sept. 25, 2023]
Fact check: If you ever want to feel ridiculous, try asking a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration if windmills are making whales “a little batty.”
NOAA actively studies how “sound, vessel, and other human activities” impact marine life, Lauren Gaches, the director of NOAA Fisheries Public Affairs, told me over email. “At this point, there is no scientific evidence that noise resulting from offshore wind site characterization surveys could potentially cause mortality of whales,” she said.
An ongoing “unusual mortality event” for humpback whales has resulted in 200 whale deaths between 2016 and June 2023 along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida — that much is true. But “there are no known links between recent large whale mortalities and ongoing offshore wind surveys,” Gaches told me. NOAA’s fact page on whales and offshore wind explains that of “roughly 90 whales examined, about 40% had evidence of human interaction, either ship strike or entanglement.”
There has been some chatter about underwater surveying work disrupting whales, which may be true in the case of oil and gas surveys, which use seismic air guns to penetrate deep into the ocean floor. The surveying equipment used for offshore wind is, by contrast, used in 15-second bursts and limited to a specific area, “so the likelihood of an animal encountering and coming right into that sound beam is quite low,” Erica Staaterman, the deputy director for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s Center for Marine Acoustics, said on a NOAA-hosted call with the press early last year.
As Ben Laws, the deputy chief of NOAA’s Permits and Conservation Division in the Office of Protected Resources, said on the same call, “There is no information that would support any suggestion that any of the equipment that’s being used in support of wind development for these site characterization surveys could directly lead to the death of a whale.”
“If you go out hunting and you happen to shoot a bald eagle, they put you in jail, like, for five years, right? They kill thousands of them with these windmills; nothing happens.” [Jan. 28, 2023]
“If you want to see a bird cemetery, go under a windmill sometime. You’ll see birds like you never saw. If you love birds, you’ll start to weep.” [Dec. 16, 2023]
Fact check: Trump has had a vendetta against wind turbines since long before he ever ran for president. “Wind farms are killing many thousands of birds,” reads one illustrative tweet from 2012. “They make hunters look like nice people!”
Lewis Grove is the director of wind and energy policy at the American Bird Conservancy, and he told me that while it’s “not necessarily as simple as Mr. Trump painted it out to be, wind turbines absolutely kill birds.”
But the context here is extremely important. Jason Ryan, a spokesperson for the American Clean Power Association, a leading renewable energy trade group, pointed me to research from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that shows wind farms “represent just 0.03% of all human-related bird deaths in the U.S.” Grove likewise told me that, for the most part, bird deaths due to wind turbines do “not have population-level impacts.”
There are exceptions, such as an infamous wind farm in California’s Altamont Pass built in 1981 that “just happened to be in a place that was really heavily used by golden eagles,” Grove told me. Because golden eagle populations were already very low, having 100 or so killed a year by turbines was “unsustainable.” Even in a case like this, though, it behooves one to look at the whole picture: “They found it was a few individual turbines that were causing the damage,” Grove said. These days, around 60 golden eagles a year are killed in Alameda County, the Alameda Post reports, and the operating company must pay steep penalties for eagle deaths.
What’s more, “climate change is one of the greatest threats birds face, with two-thirds of North American species at risk of extinction due to our warming planet,” Jon Belak, senior manager of science and data analysis at The National Audubon Society, told me in a statement. “We need to build more wind and solar facilities to help slow the rise in global temperatures and protect birds and their habitats from a changing climate.”
Wind farms may not have population-level impacts on birds, but fracking does — “the onset of shale oil and gas production reduces subsequent bird population counts by 15%,” even after accounting for factors like weather and other land-use changes, according to one just-published, peer-reviewed study.
“Remember the windmills? ‘Darling, darling, I want to watch the president, I love him so much. I want to watch him on television tonight.’ ‘I’m sorry, but the wind isn’t blowing, you’ll have to wait ‘til another time.’ Windmills.” [March 26, 2022]
Fact check: “I mean, it’s possible with any mix of generation that if supply and demand aren’t equal, your TV will go out. That’s just physics,” Kyri Baker, an assistant professor of engineering at the University of Colorado, told me when I asked her if Trump’s scenario had any merit. In other words, a power outage could happen whether your electricity is coming from coal or natural gas or anything else. The difference, she said, is that “wind is by nature variable, intermittent. But it’s also not reliant on fuel like natural gas or coal plants or even nuclear plants are.”
What happens on days when there is no wind? “Grids are extremely regulated,” Baker explained to me. “There’s so many layers of redundancy that aim specifically to not have [an outage] happen.” A grid is made up of diverse electricity sources (for my visual learners, Canary imagines what a net-zero grid could look like here), as well as measures like offline backup generators, which can kick in if need be, so service isn’t disrupted.
Battery storage is another huge part of this equation. While they’re still fairly cutting-edge as climate technology goes, high-capacity batteries that can manage grid-scale energy needs are getting better and more plentiful.
“Stop with all of the windmills all over the place that are ruining the atmosphere.” [Jan. 20, 2022]
Fact check: Wind turbines do not damage the literal atmosphere.
But maybe Trump meant atmosphere as in “sense of place”? Most Americans don’t seem to think windmills are “ruining” anything. In a recent Heatmap poll, nearly eight in 10 Americans said they want the government to make it easier to build new wind farms. The Washington Post similarly found last year that about 70% of Americans said they wouldn’t mind living near a wind farm.
As my colleague Robinson Meyer has written, “American laws today give even a small, well-resourced minority plenty of tools to block a project” like a wind farm, and “what’s more, once that small group starts campaigning against a project, the public’s broad but shallow support for, say, a general technology can crater. That’s what happened recently in New Jersey, where a once broadly pro-wind public has turned against four proposed offshore wind farms.”
“It’s a very expensive form — probably the most expensive form of energy.” [Jan. 20, 2022]
Fact check: Wind in general is not the most expensive form of energy, but offshore wind is very expensive — for now.
Of the energy sources we’re currently used to, nuclear is usually cited as having the highest levelized cost of electricity — that is, it has the highest average cost per unit of electricity generated after construction, maintenance, and operation have been taken into account. Peaker plants — gas-powered plants that run just during times of peak demand — usually come in second.
Offshore wind is costly, with the levelized cost of electricity from a subsidized U.S. offshore wind project increasing “to $114.20 per megawatt-hour in 2023, up almost 50% from 2021 levels in nominal terms,” BloombergNEF reports. Many of the factors making offshore wind so expensive — including permitting delays, high interest rates, and supply chain issues — will abate with time. Meanwhile, onshore wind is one of the cheapest forms of electricity available and has boasted a “lower LCOE than gas plants since 2015,” Sustainable Energy in America reports.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The startup and the city announced the contract on Tuesday.
The City of New York announced on Tuesday that it will partner with curbside charging startup it’s electric to expand the city’s PlugNYC electric vehicle charging network from 88 curbside charge points today to around 700 by 2030.
“To put in perspective how important this is,” Tiya Gordon, it’s electric’s co-founder and COO, told me. “London and New York City have similar populations. But London has around 27,000 curbside EV chargers while New York City has just 88 so this is a major opportunity for expansion.”
The $60.2 million contract, which covers both installation and five years of operation, is part of New York’s Green Rides Initiative, which aims to replace all rideshare vehicles on the city’s streets with either zero-emission or wheelchair-accessible alternatives by 2030. The program began in 2021 with a pilot in partnership with electric utility Con Edison and EV charging startup FLO. Phase one of the new agreement will involve replacing those chargers with it’s electric models by early 2027, followed by a second phase that will involve installing 600 additional chargers across the city’s five boroughs — the largest municipal curbside charging buildout in the country to date.
The new charging stations will have four chargers apiece for a total of nearly 150 new stations, are just the first step towards addressing this explosion in demand. Each station will come equipped with Level 2 chargers, which can charge a vehicle to 100% of its battery level within seven hours. The city says it will encourage off-peak or overnight charging through “pricing [focused] on affordability while encouraging reasonable turnover,” such as the pilot program’s time-differentiated pricing structure. Where feasible, the stations will beature docking connections to charge e-bikes.
As of February, approximately 13% of New York City’s rideshare vehicles were electric, but that number is growing as both Uber and Lyft’s aim to electrify their entire U.S. fleets by 2030. According to Gordon, commuting to rapid charging stations throughout the city and waiting for a station to become available while on shift costs drivers 30% of their income. Rapid chargers exacerbate the problem; they slow down significantly once the charge reaches 80% to prevent the EV battery from overheating, forcing drivers to either wait for significantly longer or make more frequent stops to charge.
“They’re losing a lot of their income in driving to the limited number of public fast charging stations in New York City — because there’s just two in Brooklyn, two in Manhattan, and a few at the airports,” Gordon said. “Access to curbside charging solves the majority of their problems as they can charge off-shift with a Level 2 charger on the curbside overnight.”
To enable drivers to charge while not on shift, the city will select locations where a greater concentration of rideshare drivers live, especially in outer boroughs far away from the suburban driveways or paid parking garages that typically house charging stations. Incorporating input from drivers, the Department of Transportation has already selected 10 neighborhoods across the city, including Stapleton in Staten Island and Unionport in the Bronx.
it’s electric itself is headquartered in the Brooklyn Navy Yard and manufactures its sleek, futuristic charging stations in Long Island City, Queens. Gordon first conceived of the company while walking through Brooklyn during the Covid-19 pandemic with her co-founder, Nathan King, commiserating over the struggle to find an affordable, convenient place to charge an EV. As the company grew, Gordon and King chose to keep manufacturing local not only to avoid tariff or supply chain complications, but also to deliver jobs in New York City across the entire value chain of an electric charging station — manufacturing, installation, operations, and maintenance. The company contracts with manufacturer Boyce Technologies, which also supplies the Help Point kiosks in the city’s subway system.
it’s electric’s design eliminates a bottleneck that often delays the construction of EV charging stations: the utility interconnection and permitting process. Instead of tapping into the grid, its chargers taps into the electricity supply in nearby buildings via a shallow conduit just below the sidewalk, leveraging spare electrical capacity. The charging stations meter and pay for their own electricity use, and in exchange for the building’s surplus power, it’s electric shares its revenue with building owners. While the first tranche of charging stations the company launches in New York City will be traditional utility-connected chargers, the NYC Department of Transportation confirmed to me that it may use the capacity-sharing design in future expansions.
Though it’s electric has installed these capacity-sharing chargers in major U.S. cities including Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Detroit, and Washington D.C., the New York City project represents a major step up in scale — the 700 chargers it will deliver for New York City comprise almost half of the 2,000 chargers in its current pipeline. To support these projects and hire additional staff, the company also announced on Tuesday that it has raised a new bridge round of seed funding led by Halogen Ventures, bringing its total funding to $15 million.
Gordon thinks the expansion of EV charging in New York City is significant not just for her company, but for the EV industry on the whole. “It signals to the world that the U.S. is not backing down from electrification and is still moving forward in meaningful ways,” she told me. Next, Gordon is eyeing the global market. “The technology that we have really differentiates us because we can power our chargers from a variety of sources — the utility connection, an adjacent building, or even wooden utility poles overhead. The next announcements from it’s electric will center around our expansion from NYC to other countries.”
On a Russia-Ukraine truce, Dems’ climate shift, and Ambler Road
Current conditions: Temperatures in Laredo, Texas, are soaring past 103 degrees Fahrenheit amid a heat wave scorching the Southern and Central United States • Tropical Storm Norbert is weakening in the Pacific right as another depression is strengthening into Tropical Storm Odalys • South Africa’s KwaZulu-Natal is facing severe thunderstorms with winds of up to 50 miles per hour.
President Donald Trump declared a truce Monday morning between Russia and Ukraine over energy infrastructure, claiming that both countries had agreed to stop attacking refineries, pipelines, and power plants going forward despite those facilities representing frequent targets since the war began in 2022. In a post on his Truth Social platform, the U.S. leader said record-high diesel prices were “mostly caused by the Russia/Ukraine war, not Iran,” suggesting prices would come down now that “Ukraine has agreed to not hit Russian energy targets” and “Russia has agreed to do likewise.” Neither Kyiv nor Moscow has confirmed the pact, according to Reuters.
Meanwhile, the price of Brent crude, the global oil benchmark set out of Europe, briefly surpassed $109 per barrel before coming back down to $106 by the time the market closed Monday. West Texas Intermediate, out of the U.S., hit about $102, while Murban crude from the United Arab Emirates shot up 10% to $131 per barrel. The latest surge came after Saudi Arabia halted shipments via its East-West Pipeline, the main conduit through which the kingdom has exported oil since the Strait of Hormuz’s closure stopped tankers from leaving the Persian Gulf.
The average fuel surcharge for grain shipments on U.S. railways more than doubled over the past year, in the latest sign of how soaring energy prices will spur inflation of food costs. The surcharge skyrocketed 153% to 48 cents per rail car-mile by the second week of September, according to a Reuters analysis of U.S. Department of Agriculture data. The surcharges accounted for 11% of the total rail transportation costs for shipping corn and soybeans, compared to 5% a year ago. Railroads collected about $3 billion in fuel surcharges in the second quarter of this year, covering 90% of diesel costs. The situation highlights why now is “the worst time for diesel to get expensive,” my colleague Matthew Zeitlin wrote last month, since harvest season is around the corner and most farming equipment runs on the fuel.
House Democrats are out with their first new climate agenda since the Green New Deal’s glory days of 2020. This time, however, it’s more of what the top Democrat behind the proposal called “a workable plan for long term economic and job growth” than an emissions-cutting blitz. My colleague Emily Pontecorvo has a detailed breakdown of what’s in it, but here are the five big takeaways:
“We’re not introducing a bill after this,” Representative Kathy Castor, the Florida Democrat who oversaw the project to draft the agenda, told Emily. “We’re providing it to policymakers in Washington for them to build the bipartisan support you need to get something across the finish line. The Trump administration is going to be there for two more years. What can we get done now that would have bipartisan support?”
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
The U.S. needs $110 billion to build 45 gigawatts of new power generation through 2030 to meet the surging demand from data centers, according to a Moody’s Ratings analysis. More than 30 gigawatts of that supply is slated to come from natural gas-fired plants, with solar and storage making up much of the rest and nuclear restarts accounting for less than 5%, Bloomberg reported. That all sounds like a lot. But consider that the U.S. started this year on track to add 86 gigawatts of new generation, much of which it from solar and storage, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In other words, we deployed nearly twice as much new generation in the past year as we would need for data centers through the end of this decade.
The nation’s largest operator of nuclear and geothermal power plants, Constellation Energy, certainly sees gas as the likelier near-term source of power generation in New England. On Monday, Utility Dive reported that the utility giant plans to buy the 609-megawatt Rhode Island State Energy Center from Shell Energy for $715 million. It’s easy to see why gas looks like a safe bet. Three Massachusetts utilities are now suing Hydro-Quebec, the state-owned utility in Canada’s French-speaking province, over a shortfall in deliveries during particularly hot days this summer — while Hydro-Quebec is, in turn, suing for payments it says the American power companies owe, according to Canary Media. That electricity drama is unfolding as New Englanders prepare to “pay through the nose to stay warm this winter” as the price of heating fuel soars, Matthew wrote last week.

Almost exactly a year ago, Trump issued an executive order approving the long-stalled federal project to build a road through the Alaskan wilderness to support production of minerals from the remote Ambler Mining District. Now the U.S. government is taking a 10% stake in Trilogy Metals, the 50% co-owner of a joint venture with the Australian miner South32 focused on extracting copper, zinc, and other metals from the site. As part of the deal, the company said in a press release, the Department of Defense “committed to work in good faith to help facilitate financing required for construction of the proposed 211-mile, industrial-use-only Ambler Road.”
The Pentagon also inked a $450 million deal with The Elmet Group, an integrated miner and processor, with $150 million earmarked for Toronto-based Blue Moon Metals’ tungsten mine in Nevada, Mining.com reported.
There’s still an open debate about how much of the nuclear supply chain Saudi Arabia would be allowed to control under the kingdom’s coveted deal with the Trump administration. Whether the Saudis should enrich — or, even more worrying from a nonproliferation standpoint, recycle — nuclear fuel will generate heated discussion in the years to come. But it looks increasingly likely that the oil-rich nation will mine at least some of its own uranium. “Exploration and geological studies at the Jabal Sayid project in Madinah have revealed estimated resources of around 110 million tonnes of ore with high concentrations of rare earth minerals, especially the heavy elements, alongside promising concentrations of uranium,” Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman, the kingdom’s energy minister, told Arab News.
A new set of policy proposals from House illustrates a marked change in rhetoric since 2020.
Nine House Democrats from the Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition published a sweeping federal policy blueprint on Tuesday called the Thriving Economy Project. While it is explicitly not a policy platform, it is the first window we’ve gotten into how lawmakers are thinking about their next set of climate moves in the post-One Big Beautiful Bill Act era.
The last time House Democrats published a major energy and environment policy document was in 2020, when the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis released the aptly titled report “Solving the Climate Crisis.” The Thriving Economy Project covers many of the same themes as that 2020 platform — energy, agriculture, disaster recovery, innovation. It even contains some of the same policy proposals. But as the contrast in titles suggests, the approach is markedly different.
The 2026 version doesn’t call itself climate policy at all. Though it contains plenty of proposals to support cleaner energy and reduced emissions, it frames them in terms of affordability, economic opportunity, resilience, and competitiveness, rather than as a means to stop planetary warming. The words “climate change” aren’t entirely absent, but they appear primarily as the context for proposals to improve disaster preparedness, response, and recovery, or to adapt infrastructure to higher seas and hotter days.
This isn’t a huge shock. We’ve written quite a bit at Heatmap about how climate change advocacy is shifting away from talking about the crisis directly to messaging about the benefits of actions that just so happen to cut carbon or shore up communities against disasters. When I compared the number of times certain words and phrases appeared in the 2020 package versus this new one, the evidence of that rhetorical shift was decisive.
Mentions of “climate change” dropped from more than 500 to 22. Whereas the 2020 package cited the “climate crisis” more than 150 times, the new report casually references it in just four places. In 2020, Democrats framed their entire platform around hitting “net-zero” by 2050, citing the goal 139 times. Net-zero appears just once in the new package in a chapter about investing in innovation. According to the International Energy Agency’s “Net Zero Roadmap,” it says, about a third of the emissions reductions required to get there “will come from technologies still under development.”
While lawmakers took a stand six years ago to fight for “environmental justice,” that term is wholly absent from the new report. Instead of pushing for policies that improve outcomes for “communities of color,” a phrase which appears just five times in the Thriving Economy Project, it focuses on building “thriving communities” and improving outcomes for “low income” and “underserved” populations.
It’s easy to be cynical about the political calculation these rhetorical shifts reflect, but the two policy platforms were also written for different audiences. Florida Representative Kathy Castor, a Democrat who led the creation of both versions, told me that the goal of the Thriving Economy Project was to come up with policies that could be adopted in the next two years. “This effort is driven by solving problems ASAP where we think there can be bipartisan support,” she said. The 2020 document, by contrast, was a wishlist for a future Democrat-led Congress and administration. Much of what was in it later became part of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the IRA, but has since been dismantled under Trump.
The increased frequency of certain other terms — such as “energy security,” “cybersecurity,” and “geopolitical” — is also a reminder that between the war over Ukraine, the war in Iran, and the AI race, a lot really has changed since 2020.
Just because the report is not explicitly about climate change doesn’t mean it’s not a climate policy document, however. When I asked Sean Casten, a Democratic representative from Illinois who also worked on the project, whether he considered the policies to be about addressing climate change, he responded that there was no way to talk about energy or home insurance and not talk about climate. “You also don’t necessarily have to use the word climate to talk about all of those things, right?” he added.