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:
Smoke from unseasonable wildfires is choking the eastern seaboard. Yet Democratic leaders aren’t drawing the obvious lessons, and Republicans remain in denial.
The air in New York City this week has been measured as the worst of any major city in the entire world. At time of writing, its air quality index was measured at 332 — well into the most extreme category of “hazardous,” or nearly twice as bad as second-place Dubai, and the worst figure ever recorded since the EPA started keeping track in 1999.
While New York City had it exceptionally bad, the air was also wretched in Boston, my home city of Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. Conditions are expected to remain grim through the weekend. The reason for this is a combination of severe wildfires breaking out all across Canada, and unfortunate regional wind patterns swirling the smoke all over the eastern U.S.
One would think this would make a perfect moment to illustrate the dangers of climate change. Not only is it a clear and present danger to the health of the American people that is almost certainly related to climate change — seemingly every couple months another study comes out finding that air pollution is much worse than previously thought — it also illustrates that only coordinated international action can address the problem.
But so far one would be wrong. President Biden has not taken the opportunity to build public support for his signature climate legislation, nor have other Democratic leaders. Republicans, with their habitual focus on doing the most obnoxious and stupid possible thing in every circumstance, had been planning to pass a bill “protecting” gas stoves, but failed because the so-called Freedom Caucus is mad about the debt ceiling deal. The mind reels.
Now, one must include the usual caveat that it’s impossible to say whether or not this particular spree of wildfires was specifically caused by climate change. However, we can say that higher temperatures make this kind of thing much more likely, by raising temperatures that make combustion easier and drying out the forests. We can also say that this Canadian wildfire season is wildly worse than what is typical at this time of year. According to the Canadian government, previously this early in the season there have been, on average, 1,624 fires that have burned about a quarter million hectares. This year we’ve seen over 2,200 fires that have burned over three million hectares. With months left in the summer this has already been one of the worst fire seasons on record.
There are some aspects of climate disasters that one might conceivably keep out of the country. Climate refugees can be left to rot and die, and seawalls might be built around threatened cities (not in Florida). Smoke is not like this. You can’t build a wall that prevents air from circulating across the 8,900 mile border between Canada and the U.S. And while rich people might buy fancy air purifiers or respirators, those are poor substitutes for fresh outdoor air and blue skies. Everybody loses when New York City turns into Blade Runner 2049.
So on the Republican side, all this illustrates the grievance perpetual motion machine that has made the party utterly incapable of rational thought. The gas stove measure mentioned above was supposedly meant to stop the government from banning that type of cooking device. There are just a few problems here. The first is that there is no prospect whatsoever of such a ban actually happening. One stray comment from a commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission about the potential of such a ban has been blown ludicrously out of proportion so that conservative elites like Ron DeSantis can howl about being the victims of imaginary liberal oppression.
Second, the argument for replacing gas stoves with electric is based primarily on the fact that lighting an open flame in your home is terrible for air quality. Gas stoves release benzene, nitrogen dioxide, and other toxins that increase the risk of developing respiratory illness, particularly for children. Moreover, induction electric stoves are cleaner, faster, and more accurate in their temperature control than gas ones. There’s no reason to prefer gas, aside from price — hence the Inflation Reduction Act’s subsidies for electric stoves.
But even that doesn’t plumb the depths of Freedom Caucus madness. They were all in favor of the gas stove bill, and only blocked it because the debt ceiling compromise wasn’t as close to their ransom demand for raising the ceiling. That demand included a repeal of the IRA’s core structure: the enormous tax credits for renewable investment and production. That not only would create more air pollution directly by prolonging the life of carbon fuel power plants, it also would accelerate climate change, creating more smoke-spewing wildfires. On the very day when America’s largest population complex is choking under a plume of unprecedented wildfire smoke, conservative Republicans are angrily demanding more deadly coal and natural gas pollution, more deadly galloping wildfires, and more deadly stove pollution in the home.
This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this kind of suicidal political insanity. During the pandemic, we saw literally tens of thousands of loyal Republican base voters and numerous right-wing regional radio hosts die because they believed lunatic propaganda about the COVID vaccines. If the Freedom Caucus has their druthers, many thousands more will die from preventable respiratory illnesses.
On the Democratic side, let me emphasize that the East Coast smoke problem is not a “both sides” situation. Failing to point out that you’re doing the right thing, as Biden and congressional Democrats have done with the IRA, is not remotely as bad as trying to do the wrong thing while that thing is causing mass asthma attacks among schoolchildren.
That said, it is still negligent not to draw the obvious conclusion in public, loudly and repeatedly. Adam Johnson at The Columndetails how on Tuesday, all the major TV evening news broadcasts covered the smoke disaster without so much as mentioning the possibility of climate change. If Biden and other Democratic leaders had been bringing it up over and over again, that likely would have been very different.
And just in terms of political messaging, it is vitally important to bring home to the average American that this smoke plume is just a tiny sample of what unchecked climate change is going to do. If America and the rest of the world don’t undertake unprecedented, sustained decarbonization efforts over the next several decades, this current haze will seem like paradise compared to what is coming.
Polling shows that few Americans are familiar with the provisions of the IRA, and those that have are skeptical of what it might accomplish. As David Roberts points out on the Volts podcast, because of how the law delegates spending, how much it can achieve is to a great degree up to the efforts of states and localities. Republicans might be out of their gourds, but Democrats should be taking every opportunity to sell their most significant accomplishment in generations.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
It was a curious alliance from the start. On the one hand, Donald Trump, who made antipathy toward electric vehicles a core part of his meandering rants. On the other hand, Elon Musk, the man behind the world’s largest EV company, who nonetheless put all his weight, his millions of dollars, and the power of his social network behind the Trump campaign.
With Musk standing by his side on Election Day, Trump has once again secured the presidency. His reascendance sent shock waves through the automotive world, where companies that had been lurching toward electrification with varying levels of enthusiasm were left to wonder what happens now — and what benefits Tesla may reap from having hitched itself to the winning horse.
Certainly the federal government’s stated target of 50% of U.S. new car sales being electric by 2030 is toast, and many of the actions it took in pursuit of that goal are endangered. Although Trump has softened his rhetoric against EVs since becoming buddies with Musk, it’s hard to imagine a Trump administration with any kind of ambitious electrification goal.
During his first go-round as president, Trump attacked the state of California’s ability to set its own ambitious climate-focused rules for cars. No surprise there: Because of the size of the California car market, its regulations helped to drag the entire industry toward lower-emitting vehicles and, almost inevitably, EVs. If Trump changes course and doesn’t do the same thing this time, it’ll be because his new friend at Tesla supports those rules.
The biggest question hanging over electric vehicles, however, is the fate of the Biden administration’s signature achievements in climate and EV policy, particularly the Inflation Reduction Act’s $7,500 federal consumer tax credit for electric vehicles. A Trump administration looks poised to tear down whatever it can of its predecessor’s policy. Some analysts predict it’s unlikely the entire IRA will disappear, but concede Trump would try to kill off the incentives for electric vehicles however he can.
There’s no sugar-coating it: Without the federal incentives, the state of EVs looks somewhat bleak. Knocking $7,500 off the starting price is essential to negate the cost of manufacturing expensive lithium-ion batteries and making EVs cost-competitive with ordinary combustion cars. Consider a crucial model like the new Chevy Equinox EV: Counting the federal incentive, the most basic $35,000 model could come in under the starting price of a gasoline crossover like the Toyota RAV4. Without that benefit, buyers who want to go electric will have to pay a premium to do so — the thing that’s been holding back mass electrification all along.
Musk, during his honeymoon with Trump, boasted that Tesla doesn’t need the tax credits, as if daring the president-elect to kill off the incentives. On the one hand, this is obviously false. Visit Tesla’s website and you’ll see the simplest Model 3 listed for $29,990, but this is a mirage. Take away the $7,500 in incentives and $5,000 in claimed savings versus buying gasoline, and the car actually starts at about $43,000, much further out of reach for non-wealthy buyers.
What Musk really means is that his company doesn’t need the incentives nearly as bad as other automakers do. Ford is hemorrhaging billions of dollars as it struggles to make EVs profitably. GM’s big plan to go entirely electric depended heavily on federal support. As InsideEVsnotes, the likely outcome of a Trump offensive against EVs is that the legacy car brands, faced with an unpredictable electrification roadmap as America oscillates between presidents, scale back their plans and lean back into the easy profitably of big, gas-guzzling SUVs and trucks. Such an about-face could hand Tesla the kind of EV market dominance it enjoyed four or five years ago when it sold around 75% of all electric vehicles in America.
That’s tough news for the climate-conscious Americans who want an electric vehicle built by someone not named Elon Musk. Hundreds of thousands of people, myself included, bought a Tesla during the past five or six years because it was the most practical EV for their lifestyle, only to see the company’s figurehead shift his public persona from goofy troll to Trump acolyte. It’s not uncommon now, as Democrats distance themselves from Tesla, to see Model 3s adorned with bumper stickers like the “Anti-Elon Tesla Club,” as one on a car I followed last month proclaimed. Musk’s newest vehicle, the Cybertruck, is a rolling embodiment of the man’s brand, a vehicle purpose-built to repel anyone not part of his cult of personality.
In a world where this version of Tesla retakes control of the electric car market, it becomes harder to ditch gasoline without indirectly supporting Donald Trump, by either buying a Tesla or topping off at its Superchargers. Blue voters will have some options outside of Tesla — the industry has come too far to simply evaporate because of one election. But it’s also easy to see dispirited progressives throwing up their hands and buying another carbon-spewing Subaru.
Republicans are taking over some of the most powerful institutions for crafting climate policy on Earth.
When Republicans flipped the Senate, they took the keys to three critical energy and climate-focused committees.
These are among the most powerful institutions for crafting climate policy on Earth. The Senate plays the role of gatekeeper for important legislation, as it requires a supermajority to overcome the filibuster. Hence, it’s both where many promising climate bills from the House go to die, as well as where key administrators such as the heads of the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency are vetted and confirmed.
We’ll have to wait a bit for the Senate’s new committee chairs to be officially confirmed. But Jeff Navin, co-founder at the climate change-focused government affairs firm Boundary Stone Partners, told me that since selections are usually based on seniority, in many cases it’s already clear which Republicans are poised to lead under Trump and which Democrats will assume second-in-command (known as the ranking member). Here’s what we know so far.
This committee has been famously led by Joe Manchin, the former Democrat, now Independent senator from West Virginia, who will retire at the end of this legislative session. Energy and Natural Resources has a history of bipartisan collaboration and was integral in developing many of the key provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act — and could thus play a key role in dismantling them. Overall, the committee oversees the DOE, the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, so it’s no small deal that its next chairman will likely be Mike Lee, the ultra-conservative Republican from Utah. That’s assuming that the committee's current ranking member, John Barrasso of Wyoming, wins his bid for Republican Senate whip, which seems very likely.
Lee opposes federal ownership of public lands, setting himself up to butt heads with Martin Heinrich, the Democrat from New Mexico and likely the committee’s next ranking member. Lee has also said that solving climate change is simply a matter of having more babies, as “problems of human imagination are not solved by more laws, they’re solved by more humans.” As Navin told me, “We've had this kind of safe space where so-called quiet climate policy could get done in the margins. And it’s not clear that that's going to continue to exist with the new leadership.”
This committee is currently chaired by Democrat Tom Carper of Delaware, who is retiring after this term. Poised to take over is the Republican’s current ranking member, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia. She’s been a strong advocate for continued reliance on coal and natural gas power plants, while also carving out areas of bipartisan consensus on issues such as nuclear energy, carbon capture, and infrastructure projects during her tenure on the committee. The job of the Environment and Public Works committee is in the name: It oversees the EPA, writes key pieces of environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, and supervises public infrastructure projects such as highways, bridges, and dams.
Navin told me that many believe the new Democratic ranking member will be Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, although to do so, he would have to step down from his perch at the Senate Budget Committee, where he is currently chair. A tireless advocate of the climate cause, Whitehouse has worked on the Environment and Public Works committee for over 15 years, and lately seems to have had a relatively productive working relationship with Capito.
This subcommittee falls under the broader Senate Appropriations Committee and is responsible for allocating funding for the DOE, various water development projects, and various other agencies such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
California’s Dianne Feinstein used to chair this subcommittee until her death last year, when Democrat Patty Murray of Washington took over. Navin told me that the subcommittee’s next leader will depend on how the game of “musical chairs” in the larger Appropriations Committee shakes out. Depending on their subcommittee preferences, the chair could end up being John Kennedy of Louisiana, outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, or Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. It’s likewise hard to say who the top Democrat will be.
Inside a wild race sparked by a solar farm in Knox County, Ohio.
The most important climate election you’ve never heard of? Your local county commissioner.
County commissioners are usually the most powerful governing individuals in a county government. As officials closer to community-level planning than, say a sitting senator, commissioners wind up on the frontlines of grassroots opposition to renewables. And increasingly, property owners that may be personally impacted by solar or wind farms in their backyards are gunning for county commissioner positions on explicitly anti-development platforms.
Take the case of newly-elected Ohio county commissioner – and Christian social media lifestyle influencer – Drenda Keesee.
In March, Keesee beat fellow Republican Thom Collier in a primary to become a GOP nominee for a commissioner seat in Knox County, Ohio. Knox, a ruby red area with very few Democratic voters, is one of the hottest battlegrounds in the war over solar energy on prime farmland and one of the riskiest counties in the country for developers, according to Heatmap Pro’s database. But Collier had expressed openness to allowing new solar to be built on a case-by-case basis, while Keesee ran on a platform focused almost exclusively on blocking solar development. Collier ultimately placed third in the primary, behind Keesee and another anti-solar candidate placing second.
Fighting solar is a personal issue for Keesee (pronounced keh-see, like “messy”). She has aggressively fought Frasier Solar – a 120 megawatt solar project in the country proposed by Open Road Renewables – getting involved in organizing against the project and regularly attending state regulator hearings. Filings she submitted to the Ohio Power Siting Board state she owns a property at least somewhat adjacent to the proposed solar farm. Based on the sheer volume of those filings this is clearly her passion project – alongside preaching and comparing gay people to Hitler.
Yesterday I spoke to Collier who told me the Frasier Solar project motivated Keesee’s candidacy. He remembered first encountering her at a community meeting – “she verbally accosted me” – and that she “decided she’d run against me because [the solar farm] was going to be next to her house.” In his view, he lost the race because excitement and money combined to produce high anti-solar turnout in a kind of local government primary that ordinarily has low campaign spending and is quite quiet. Some of that funding and activity has been well documented.
“She did it right: tons of ground troops, people from her church, people she’s close with went door-to-door, and they put out lots of propaganda. She got them stirred up that we were going to take all the farmland and turn it into solar,” he said.
Collier’s takeaway from the race was that local commissioner races are particularly vulnerable to the sorts of disinformation, campaign spending and political attacks we’re used to seeing more often in races for higher offices at the state and federal level.
“Unfortunately it has become this,” he bemoaned, “fueled by people who have little to no knowledge of what we do or how we do it. If you stir up enough stuff and you cry out loud enough and put up enough misinformation, people will start to believe it.”
Races like these are happening elsewhere in Ohio and in other states like Georgia, where opposition to a battery plant mobilized Republican primaries. As the climate world digests the federal election results and tries to work backwards from there, perhaps at least some attention will refocus on local campaigns like these.