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:
For now at least, USAID’s future looks — literally — dark.
Elon Musk has put the U.S. Agency for International Development through the woodchipper of his de facto department this week in the name of “efficiency.” The move — which began with a Day One executive order by President Trump demanding a review of all U.S. foreign aid that was subsequently handed off to Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency — has resulted in the layoff or furloughing of hundreds of USAID employees, as well as imperiled the health of babies and toddlers receiving medical care in Sudan, the operations of independent media outlets working in or near despotic regimes, and longtime AIDS and malaria prevention campaigns credited with saving some 35 million lives. (The State Department, which has assumed control of the formerly independent agency, has since announced a “confounding waiver process … [to] get lifesaving programs back online,” ProPublica reports.) Chaos and panic reign among USAID employees and the agency’s partner organizations around the globe.
The alarming shifts have also cast enormous uncertainty over the future of USAID’s many clean energy programs, threatening to leave U.S. allies quite literally in the dark. “There are other sources of foreign assistance — the State Department and the Defense Department have different programs — but USAID, this is what they do,” Tom Ellison, the deputy director for the Center for Climate and Security, a nonpartisan think tank, told me. “It is central and not easily replaced.”
In addition to “saving and improving lives around the world in an altruistic sense,” USAID has “a lot of benefits for U.S. national interests and national security,” Ellison went on. Though USAID dates back to the Cold War, its Power Africa initiative launched under President Barack Obama in 2013, and energy investment projects around the world followed. Of its $42.8 billion budget request for 2025, the agency had earmarked $4.1 billion for global infrastructure and investment programs, including energy security and excluding its additional targeted energy investment in Ukraine.
Some of these benefits are immediate and obvious. For example, USAID invested $422 million in new energy infrastructure in Ukraine, including more than a thousand generators and a solar and battery storage project, all to brace against Russia’s weaponized flow of fossil fuels. (USAID was also reviewing the deployment of Musk’s Starlink Satellite Terminals to the Ukrainian government prior to his gutting of the agency, per The Lever.)
But USAID is in the power business for other strategic reasons, too. USAID initiatives such as assisting Georgia and Kosovo in running their first renewable energy auctions help to secure energy stability and independence among countries where Russia is trying to gain sway. By the same token, rural electrification efforts in Africa help the U.S. remain a leader on the continent even as China is looking to make inroads. “China’s infrastructure and assistance programs around the world, like the Belt and Road Initiative — they consider that very explicitly a lever to peel U.S. allies away,” Ellison said. “Russian propagandists are already cheering the potential shutdown of USAID or a cut to their programs, for those reasons.”
Likewise, USAID has also rolled out energy projects in Indonesia, helping to deploy rooftop solar plants at airports and investing $200 million into a geothermal plant and two hydropower plants. Such efforts in the Indo-Pacific “pay dividends in strengthening relationships with allies and partners critical to that competition with China,” the Council on Strategic Risks, the parent institute of the Center for Climate and Security, wrote in a memo Tuesday.
That’s part of what makes the USAID whiplash so severe. Not only is the concern and uncertainty of the agency’s shutdown in complete opposition to the administration’s purported goal of “efficiency,” but Trump’s knee-jerk reaction to anything that suggests the idea of a U.S. handout — much less one that includes programs explicitly addressing “climate change” — runs counter to his stated goals of protecting U.S. troops and national security interests. USAID programs “are very cost-effective investments in terms of being a cent or less on the U.S. taxpayer dollars,” Ellison told me. “They’re paying for themselves over and over again in terms of humanitarian or military spending averted in the future.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
On EU EVs, Exxon’s CCS projects, and Australia’s election
Current conditions: Spring rainshowers and thunderstorms will move over the Central and Eastern U.S. at the start of the week • The Eta Aquarids meteor shower, the result of debris from Halley’s Comet, peaks Monday night and Tuesday morning in the Northern Hemisphere • It’s another sunny day in Rio de Janeiro, where authorities are investigating an attempted attack on Lady Gaga’s Sunday outdoor concert at Copacabana Beach.
First quarter new car registrations for the European Union are in, revealing that March was the second-best month ever for BEVs on the continent, up 24% year-over-year with 245,000 units sold, Clean Technica reports. While the Tesla Model Y and Model 3 remained the top-selling electric vehicles for the month, Model Y deliveries were down 41% year-over-year. “The name Tesla has become toxic for many, limiting its appeal, so don’t expect the Model Y’s performance to go back to the sky-high results it once had,” Clean Technica writes. The Model 3, meanwhile, was up 6% year-over-year in March, but down 14% over the whole quarter.
The Renault 5, in third place for the month, delivered just over 8,000 units, marking “a new record for the French model” that could be even higher for April as it benefits from “Tesla’s off-peak month.” The Volkswagen ID.4, sitting in the fifth place spot with almost 7,600 deliveries, saw a remarkable 52% growth year-over-year. Also creeping up the charts was the BYD Song, which had the best result ever in Q1 for a BYD model in Europe.
ExxonMobil characterized carbon capture and storage as “probably the biggest thing we’re investing in this year” during its first quarter earnings call on Friday. “We have the permanent storage, we’ve drilled the wells, we’ve got the monitoring put in place, and so we’re feeling very good about how that business is progressing,” Kathryn Mikells, Exxon’s chief financial officer and senior vice president, said on the call, adding that low-carbon projects amount to “$30 billion of our total [capital expenditure] from 2024 through 2030,” or about 10% of the company’s total capital expenditure. Earlier in the week, energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie said ExxonMobil’s low-carbon investments place it ahead of Shell and BP.
Darren Woods, Exxon’s president and chief executive officer, also shared an update on the company’s planned Baytown Blue Hydrogen project. The project was announced in 2022 and would be the world’s largest such facility if developed; it aims to eventually produce 1 billion cubic feet of low-carbon hydrogen per day. Acknowledging there’s “some debate today with the Trump administration” and that “policy may change,” Woods said, “our expectation is the things that we need to drive low-carbon hydrogen will probably stay in place.” He added that he expects to make a final investment decision on the project “hopefully … later this year.”
A view of a proposed nuclear facility in Port Augusta, Australia.Brook Mitchell/Getty Images
Australia’s center-left Labor Party retained power in the national election on Saturday, securing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese a second term in office. He is the first Australian prime minister to win consecutive re-election in two decades, and is expected to secure the largest win for his party since 1946 — a landslide victory many have credited to the conservative coalition leader’s association with President Trump.
Though the Australian campaigns, like Canada’s, did not center around climate issues, “few voters have as much power over climate change as an Australian citizen,” The New York Times writes, noting that the country has the highest per capital greenhouse gas emissions among democracies and that it is one of the biggest exporters of coal and natural gas, which it mainly ships to Asia. During the campaign, the Labor Party pitched voters on quickly deploying wind, solar, and pumped storage hydropower to reduce domestic emissions, while the conservative coalition made a pitch for building new nuclear reactors over the next 10 years. “This was an energy referendum,” Amanda McKenzie, the CEO of Australia’s Climate Council, said. “Nuclear bombed at the ballot, with Australians dubbing it toxic.” Australian Conservation Foundation CEO Kelly O’Shanassy added that the landslide for Labor means the door has not just closed on nuclear — “it is welded shut.”
Soil testing by the Los Angeles Timeshas found that properties that burned in the Los Angeles fires in January have elevated levels of arsenic, lead, and mercury — in some cases, levels that are “three times higher than the state benchmark.” That is true even of properties remediated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with dangerous contaminants potentially present in “thousands” of the county’s now-empty lots.
Soil testing is a precautionary measure that has followed every major California wildfire since 2007, the Times writes, due to the known toxicity of fire-scorched properties. In my interview earlier this year with Ruben Juarez, one of the lead researchers of the Maui Wildfire Exposure Study, a multi-year effort to track the 2023 Lahaina fire’s physical and mental health impacts on residents, he told me that “60% of participants may have poor lung health, and 40% may have mild to severe lung obstruction. We believe this is associated with the exposure to ash and the [inadequate] personal protective equipment individuals wore when they returned to the fire site.”
The Federal Emergency Management Agency “now insists it’s not the agency’s responsibility to meet California’s health standards for private properties,” the Times writes, and has said its current clean-up procedures are “sufficient to rid properties of fire-related contamination.” Rachel Morello-Frosch, an environmental health scientist and professor at the University of California Berkeley, described FEMA’s attitude as “no data, no problem,” calling the government’s failure to properly clean up contaminated properties in Altadena a “quintessential environmental justice issue.” Read the Times’ full findings here.
Two major American scientific societies have announced their intention to produce peer-reviewed studies on climate change in the wake of the Trump administration’s retreat from funding such research. “This effort aims to sustain the momentum of the sixth National Climate Assessment, the authors and staff of which were dismissed earlier this week by the Trump administration, almost a year into the process,” the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union said in their joint statement on Friday. The Trump administration laid off nearly 400 scientists from working on the NCA, which is mandated by Congress and due in 2027. “Our economy, our health, our society are all climate-dependent,” AMS President David Stensrud said, per The Guardian. “While we cannot replace the NCA, we at AMS see it as vital to support and help expand this collaborative scientific effort for the benefit of the U.S. public and the world at large.”
Hawaii passed a first-of-its-kind law on Friday that will increase the tax on hotels, vacation rentals, and cruise ships to raise money for climate resiliency projects. Officials say the new tax could generate as much as $100 million for the fund annually.
The administration can’t have it both ways on the Clean Air Act.
The Trump administration filed lawsuits this week against four states that are pursuing compensation from oil and gas companies for climate change-related damages. But Trump’s separate aim to revoke the government’s “endangerment finding,” the conclusion that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and should therefore be regulated under the Clean Air Act, could directly undercut the legal basis for the suits.
In each of the cases, the Trump administration is arguing that the Clean Air Act preempts the states’ actions. But if the Environmental Protection Agency rules that the Clean Air Act does not, in fact, require the federal regulation of greenhouse gases, that argument could fall apart.
Two of the lawsuits target Vermont and New York for their new “climate superfund” laws that require the companies responsible for the greatest amount of emissions over the last three decades to pay into a fund supporting adaptation and disaster response. The Department of Justice is also suing Hawaii and Michigan to block them from suing fossil fuel companies for damages for climate change-related harms. Neither state had actually filed such a lawsuit yet, although both had expressed interest in doing so. (Hawaii went ahead and filed its suit on Thursday night.)
“I just want to start by saying that these lawsuits by the government are totally unprecedented,” Rachel Rothschild, an assistant professor of Law at Michigan State University, told me when we hopped on the phone. To her knowledge, never before has the federal government tried to preemptively stop a state from filing a liability case against companies.
In an executive order in early April, Trump had directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to “stop the enforcement” of state climate laws and actions that “may be unconstitutional” or “preempted by federal law.” The order singled out lawsuits against oil companies as well as climate superfund laws, calling both a form of “extortion” and a “threat to economic and national security.”
Nevermind that climate change is a major threat to economic and national security, and states have filed these lawsuits and created these laws because they are scrambling to find ways to pay to address the unprecedented damages brought by the increasing severity of wildfires and floods.
Even before Trump took office, Rothschild said, the federal government had warned states that they were going to need to take more responsibility for preparing for and responding to increasing natural disasters. “[States] do not have the resources alone to address this problem,” said Rothschild. “These companies have engaged in an activity that causes external harms that they’ve not taken into account as part of their business practices, they’'re imposing all the costs of those harms on states and citizens, and they should be liable to help us deal with the resulting problems. That’s a very normal activity for tort suits.”
Dozens of states have filed similar lawsuits seeking damages from oil companies. (A Justice Department press release did not say why it was singling out states that had not taken any legal action yet rather than targeting those that had.) Many of these lawsuits have been stuck in a holding pattern for years, though. “Climate superfund” laws are a new legal strategy, modeled on the federal superfund program, that some states are testing to get oil companies to pay up.
The DOJ’s lawsuits claim that states cannot fine oil companies for their emissions because that authority lies with the federal government under the Clean Air Act. That argument is underpinned by the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding, which stems from a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that greenhouse gases are a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act, and therefore the EPA must determine whether these emissions pose a threat to public health. The court said that if the agency finds there is enough scientific evidence to say greenhouse gases are harmful, it must develop regulations to rein them in. EPA officially made this finding in 2009.
This was a big headache for Trump during his first term. He wasn’t allowed to simply repeal Barack Obama’s greenhouse gas rules — by law, he had to replace them. If he’s able to reverse the endangerment finding, however, he could undo climate protection rules and that would be that.
At the same time, he’d make oil companies much more vulnerable. “There is great concern that reversing the finding would open the door to a lot more nuisance lawsuits against all types of energy companies,” Jeff Holmstead, a partner with Bracewell, a lobbying firm, told E&E News. “It would eliminate one of the best arguments that oil companies have used to get lawsuits against them dismissed,” he added.
EPA administrator Lee Zeldin will face an uphill battle in reversing the finding, as there is a mountain of scientific evidence that greenhouse gases cause dangerous climate change. But Zeldin may instead try to argue that the EPA did not consider the cost of addressing these emissions when it made the initial finding — and that the costs of reining them in outweigh the costs of emitting freely.
Legal experts are skeptical this argument will go anywhere, either. In 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court found that the EPA’s endangerment finding should be based on science, not economics. Cost-benefit analyses and other policy considerations are relevant if the EPA finds that greenhouse gases do, in fact, pose a threat, but they “do not inform the ‘scientific judgment’” that the law requires the EPA to make, the judge ruled. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s decision last year to overturn “Chevron deference,” a decades-long precedent that gave agencies broad authority to interpret their statutory mandates, could also hurt Zeldin’s case.
Rothschild, for her part, is confident that states’ superfund laws and tort suits are defensible regardless of what happens to the endangerment finding. These actions have nothing to do with the Clean Air Act, she argued, because they are not an attempt to regulate emissions. “They're trying to impose liability for local, environmental, and public health harms from past activities,” she said.
One thing is for certain: Between states’ lawsuits suing oil companies, oil companies’ countersuits, the DOJ’s new lawsuits against states, and probably future suits against any actions the Trump administration takes on endangerment, there’s going to be a whole lot of new case law about greenhouse gases over the next four years.
The fundamentals are the same — it’s the tone that’s changed.
At some point in the past month, the hydrogen fuel cell developer Plug Power updated its website. Beneath a carousel explaining the hydrogen ecosystem and solutions for transporting fuel, the company’s home page now contains a section titled “Hydrogen at Work.”
“Hydrogen is key to energy independence, providing clean, reliable power while reducing reliance on imported fuels,” the text in this new box reads. “Plug’s hydrogen and fuel cell solutions strengthen the energy grid and enhance national security, positioning the U.S. as a leader in the global energy transition.”
It is fairly ordinary website copy, but to a keen reader, the text jumps out as an obvious Trump 2.0 tell. Plug Power — like many green economy companies — has pivoted to meet the political and economic moment, where “energy independence” and “energy dominance” are in and “climate” and “sustainability” are out.
“I am actually shocked every time I look at the website of a climate tech company that still uses the language from 12 months ago, from four months ago — that doesn’t do them any good,” Peter Atanasoff, the managing director and vice president of Scratch Media and Marketing, which helps B2B technology companies and climate tech businesses achieve growth and recognition, told me.
The shift in language is more significant than just brands chasing the latest buzzwords.
The first Trump administration saw broad-based pushback from the business community against Trump’s more inflammatory positions, especially by consumer-facing brands that played to the pussy hat-wearing, brunch-and-protest attitudes of the time. The CEOs of Facebook (now Meta), Nike, and Google issued statements of disappointment when the U.S. pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2017, and Tesla CEO Elon Musk even dropped out of the president’s business council over the decision. It was, needless to say, a very different time.
During Trump’s second term, he promised “retribution.” Many of the more moderate voices from his first administration are long gone, and there’s a palpable fear among nonprofits and businesses of drawing the wrong kind of attention from Washington, losing grant funding for saying the wrong thing. “The real trigger” for resulting differences in branding between the first and second Trump administrations has been “the change of tone and change of economic policy,” Atanasoff told me. “It is explicit opposition to any of these technologies."
The administration has launched an all-out assault not just on climate policy, but also on the very language of the energy transition. In a February memo obtained by E&E News, the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed 34 words to be erased from official documentation, including “global warming,” “carbon footprint,” “net zero,” and even “green.” As I’ve covered for Heatmap, farmers applying for Department of Agriculture grants have been encouraged to resubmit proposals with climate-focused language removed and “refocus … on expanding American energy production.” And at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, scientists have quickly learned to pivot to talking about “air pollution” rather than emissions, contending with a banned-words list of their own.
Lobbyists and clean energy companies that want to be in the administration’s good graces have adapted, as well. That has changed the tenor of green business at large. Alexander Bryden, who runs the Washington, D.C. office of Browning Environmental Communications, told me over email that tweaking brand language is “typical after any change of administration, particularly when there are significant shifts in policy.” But especially for organizations in the public eye, “it’s more important than ever to highlight the historic and potential economic benefits of environmental solutions — and show how they are supported by, and benefit, people across the political spectrum.”
The actual fundamentals of green business haven’t changed, though. On the contrary, in the first quarter of 2025, venture capitalists and private equity firms invested more than $5 billion in climate tech startups in the U.S., a 65% increase from the same period a year earlier, according to PitchBook data. While there are certainly obstacles like supply chain uncertainty and tariffs to contend with, especially for clean energy manufacturing, on the whole “it’s still a great time to start a climate startup,” Tommy Leep, the founder of the software-focused venture firm Jetstream, told my colleague Katie Brigham last November. His caveat? “Just don’t call it a climate startup.”
Roger Ballentine, the president of the management consulting service Green Strategies and the chairman of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Bill Clinton, explained this thinking to me. “It’s what I refer to as climate capitalism, which is the realization that by incorporating climate change and its risks and opportunities into your business strategy, you’re actually going to be a more successful, more profitable, and more competitive company,” he said. Even with the recent economic turbulence, “That hasn’t changed. That’s not going to change.”
Where you do see adjustments, however, is “around the edges,” per Ballentine. Companies are attempting to match the frequency of the administration and, in turn, the broader policy ecosystem — a frequency that tends to be aggressive, assertive, and heavy on words like “dominance” and “security.” It might also take the form of decreasing the volume at which companies had previously shouted their climate bona fides.
Anya Nelson, the senior vice president of public relations at Scratch M+M, said her team has also advised touting “American-made production” in brand messaging, and reframing copy to focus on “the positive impacts and immediate business benefits” of the companies, rather than more idealistic messaging about climate goals that may have had stronger resonance during the Biden administration.
At this point, you may have noticed that I haven’t quoted any corporate brand officers. That’s not because I didn’t try to talk to any. (Even Plug Power, my example at the beginning of this story, didn’t respond to a request for comment on the change in their messaging.) Though the sudden prevalence of terms like “energy dominance” becomes conspicuous once you start to look for them, no one wants to draw the wrong kind of attention from the administration. It’s part of a greater trend of clamming up that my colleagues and I have experienced across sectors in our reporting, and at a time when even the word “green” can give you a black mark, I can’t say I don’t understand.
Ballentine, the Green Strategies president, dismissed reading too much into how language itself changes under President Trump. “If yesterday a new technology company was touting itself as a climate solution, and now it’s touting itself as a way to achieve energy dominance — I don’t care,” he said.
His thinking was more pragmatic. “Good business remains good business,” Ballentine went on. “Around the edges, will things change? Yes. General belt tightening? Yes. Fundamental change of direction? No.”
It might sound like branding agencies are encouraging companies to “play along” with the administration, but Nelson of Scratch M+M stressed that wasn’t what she was trying to say. At the end of the day, “your end goal is to be a viable company, right?” she said. “To be a thriving company that is going to change the world, first and foremost, you need to make sure you don’t go out of business.” The message might be more accurately summarized as “read the room.”