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 self-described “ecosocialist” ran an ultra-disciplined campaign for New York City mayor. Once he’s in office, the climate issue could become unavoidable.

Zohran Mamdani, the New York state assemblyman, democratic socialist, and Democratic nominee, was elected mayor of New York City on Tuesday night.
Many factors fueled his longshot rise to Gracie Mansion — a congested primary field, a gleam-in-his-eyes approach to new media, and an optimistic left-wing worldview rendered newly credible by global tumult — but perhaps above all was a nonstop, months-long performance of bravura message discipline. Since the Democratic primary began in earnest earlier this year, Mamdani has harped in virtually every public appearance on what he has described as New York’s “affordability crisis,” promising to lower the city’s cost of living for working-class residents.
He hammered that message even as the election required him to play a shifting set of roles. During the primary, he set himself apart from a field overflowing with progressives by showcasing his differences with the Democratic Party. During the general election, he became the consummate Democrat, earning the votes of the party’s most loyal voters even as the former governor and one-time old-guard Democrat Andrew Cuomo ran an independent bid. Fittingly, Mamdani’s victory speech Tuesday night alluded to and remixed lines from socialists and liberal Democrats alike — including Cuomo’s father, New York’s former governor Mario Cuomo.
“A great New Yorker once said that while you campaign in poetry, you govern in prose,” Mamdani said, paraphrasing the elder Cuomo. “If that must be true, let the prose we write still rhyme, and let us build a shining city for all.”
So given all the notes he struck during the campaign, it is revealing to consider those Mamdani left unplayed. One in particular stands out: Throughout the long mayoral campaign, Mamdani rarely spoke about climate change — often doing so only when directly asked.
This might not seem meaningful on its face. Mamdani had a lot of issues he could focus on, after all. (He also spoke intermittently about, say, K-12 education, even though as mayor he will oversee the nation’s largest school district.)
But in light of his biography, Mamdani’s relative reticence on climate change stands out. During his early career in the state legislature, Mamdani defined himself in part through his climate activism, and by his view that New York should be “leading the country in our fight against the climate crisis,” as he said in a 2022 press release. He helmed some of the most aggressive recent activist efforts to shut down, block, and replace fossil fuel infrastructure in Gotham. They provide a window into where his mayoralty could go — and also illustrate the fraught politics of climate change in Year 1 of Trump 2.0.
From his first days in the New York State Assembly in 2021, Mamdani placed himself at the forefront of the debate over the future of fossil fuels in New York’s energy system. “When I ran for this office, it was on a platform of housing, justice, and energy for all,” he said in a statement soon after his election.
Many of his biggest policy proposals as a legislator focused on climate change. He backed the Build Public Renewables Act, a bill that empowers New York’s state power agency to develop wind and solar projects in order to meet the state’s climate goals. He resisted NRG Energy’s push to replace an aging natural gas peaker plant in Astoria, Queens, with a newer power plant that would still burn gas. And he opposed the expansion of natural gas pipelines into the state while cosponsoring the Clean Futures Act, which would, he said, ban all new natural gas power plants across New York.
Climate change was the issue, he said, at the very heart of his political identity. In July 2022, after the state assembly expired without a vote on the Build Public Renewables Act and amid a heat wave in New York, he called for a special session to pass the bill, deeming climate change a “human catastrophe.”
“There are a number of bills that I would love to pass tomorrow. I’m not calling for a special session for all of them,” he told Spectrum News. “The reason we have to call for this one is because climate change is not waiting.”
In its fight against the Queens power plant, his legislative office — working alongside the Stop NRG Coalition, an alliance of local residents, the Democratic Socialists of America, and traditional environmentalists such as Earthjustice and the Sierra Club — called 36,000 households and sent more than 7,800 postcards asking residents to reject the plant, Mamdani later said. Ultimately, locals filed more than 6,000 comments to oppose the proposed plant; when the New York Department of Environmental Conservation ultimately denied a key permit in October 2022, Mamdani claimed victory.
He was also clear about who had lost that fight: big corporations and fossil fuel-aligned capitalism. “This shows when we organize against corporations that put capital over the collective, we can win a world where we all live with dignity,” he said. “Stopping the Astoria power plant is an amazing victory towards a habitable planet and the clean future we all deserve.”
Many of Mamdani’s other climate efforts were ultimately successful. The Build Public Renewables Act passed in April 2023 as part of the state budget and was signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul. The state has not passed the Clean Futures Act, although regulators have rejected other proposed fossil-fuel power plants across the state, citing its 2019 climate leadership law.
In a little-watched May 2021 video that gives a concentrated dose of Mamdani’s political vision at the time, he described himself not as a socialist, but as a “proud ecosocialist” who believed that electricity should be treated as a “public good.”
“Did you ever wonder why New York state only gets 5% of its energy from wind and solar?” he asked in the video. “It’s because of one word: capitalism.” The way to fight that capitalistic hold on energy production, he said, was with public power — government ownership and development of zero-carbon generation.
Even after those victories, Mamdani remained a proud champion of climate issues. As recently as a year ago, he suggested that activism and agitation around climate change was a key way that progressives could differentiate themselves from Trump in the eyes of the working class. At a rally in late November last year, shortly after a drought resulted in a rare brush fire that consumed 2 acres of the city’s beloved Prospect Park, he exhorted the New York Power Authority, or NYPA, to move faster to develop its pipeline of renewables projects — and framed credible climate action as essential to countering Trump’s rise.
“The climate crisis does not care about any of the reasons that are usually given so much weight in Albany. It doesn’t care if you want to blame the supply chain. It doesn’t care if a private company says it has reduced profitability. It cares only if you build out renewable infrastructure,” he said.
“If you want to know how to defeat the Donald Trump far-right movement, it’s by showing we actually have a workable alternative,” he continued. “Because if working class people can’t breathe the air, if they can’t afford to live in the city they call home because they can’t find a union job, and if they look around at their favorite parks being on fire, why would they trust us?”
“It is time to show them why,” he concluded. “It’s time for the Build Public Renewables Act.”
Mamdani has continued to push for NYPA to accelerate its renewables construction — he posted a video of the same rally to his Instagram feed in September, encouraging his followers to file public comments with New York state.
As recently as February 2025, he described New York City as facing an “existential moment of our climate crisis” at a candidate forum, and said that enforcing the city’s climate laws would require “taking on the real-estate industry.”
But in the months since, his earlier bold rhetoric — casting practical concerns as no object when it comes to climate action — has faded, and he has evinced more sympathy for landlords and homeowners who may bear decarbonization’s costs. He still describes climate change in existential terms, but has become far less likely to bring it up unbidden in his own speeches and media appearances.
As a major party mayoral candidate, too, Mamdani largely avoided framing climate action as a necessary antidote to Trumpism. When seeking to contrast himself with the president, he focused almost entirely on cost of living issues. In a Fox News appearance in October, Mamdani addressed Trump directly and said that he would work with him to address New Yorkers’ cost of living.
His campaign website’s only stated climate proposal is a “Green Schools” plan to renovate 500 public schools, turn 500 asphalt schoolyards into green spaces, and construct “resilience hubs” at 50 schools. Speaking with The Nation in April — in one of his few recent long-form interviews on climate policy — Mamdani set that plan within his broader campaign, saying “climate and quality of life are not two separate concerns. They are, in fact, one and the same.” Schools, he said, offer “an opportunity for comprehensive climate action.”
But his website has few other details about what climate actions he might like to pursue once he takes office as mayor. Indeed, the candidate who once blamed capitalism for New York’s failure to build renewables is now promising to establish a “Mom-and-Pop Czar” to cut fines on small businesses and speed up permitting. It also gives few clues about how Mamdani would handle decarbonization’s inevitable trade-offs. If achieving a faster renewables buildout led to higher energy prices for consumers and small businesses, what would he do?
Even in situations where his slogans could reasonably connect to some climate benefit, Mamdani did not complete the handshake. His website does not mention the pollution benefits of fast and free bus service, for instance, even though free transit in other campaigns has been described as a climate policy. His 25-minute victory speech, delivered to a jubilant crowd on Tuesday night, did not mention climate change at all.
Regardless of what he’s said, Mamdani will be required to take big actions on climate policy as mayor. The most significant will likely arise from an ordinance called Local Law 97, which requires New York City’s large buildings to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. That law’s strict new set of pollution caps and penalties will start in 2029, and many landlords are set to pay big fines. During the second mayoral debate, Mamdani repeated that the “climate crisis is one of the most pressing issues facing this city,” and said he wants the law’s fines to be enforced. But he also added that “the city should make it easier for buildings to comply.”
Mamdani has also argued that the city and state should renew a set of tax breaks to make it cheaper for large residential buildings, like condos and co-ops, to meet the law’s targets, and has proposed creating a “one-stop shop” for Local Law 97 compliance in the city governance, according to his debate remarks and a memo about homeowner policy released by his campaign.
In replacing climate change with cost of living, Mamdani has moved closer to what appears to be an emerging consensus among his party. Recent autopsies of the 2024 election have argued that voters believed Democrats were too focused on issues like climate change and not enough on affordability or inflation. Mamdani’s relentless focus on near-term costs — and his embrace of clear, actionable, and frankly non-climate-related slogans — suggests that one young ecosocialist might now agree with them. His ultimate victory suggests that it wasn’t a bad gamble.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Rob catches up with the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Ilaria Mazzocco.
China’s electric vehicle industry, it’s now well understood, is churning out cars that rival or exceed the best products coming out of the West. Chinese EVs are cheaper, cooler, more innovative, and have better range. And now they’re surging into car markets around the world — markets where consumers are hungry for clean, affordable transportation.
On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob talks to Ilaria Mazzocco about her new report on how six countries around the world are dealing with the rise of Chinese EVs. Why do countries welcome Chinese-made EVs, and why do countries resist them? How do domestic carmakers act when Chinese EVs come to town? And are climate concerns still driving uptake?
Mazzocco is the deputy director and senior fellow with the Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap, and Jesse Jenkins, a professor of energy systems engineering at Princeton University. Jesse is off this week.
Subscribe to “Shift Key” and find this episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also add the show’s RSS feed to your podcast app to follow us directly.
Here is an excerpt from our conversation:
Ilaria Mazzocco: Chinese batterymakers have persisted in focusing on LFP batteries with some spectacular results, I would say. And partly I think that’s been thanks to just being able to deploy them at really large scale and just testing and getting them out there.
But I think BYD is really a great example of that. They invest so much in R&D that it’s really hard to compete with them on some of these things. That’s really the big challenge, where, if you want to make a cheap car, you need LFP. That’s why Ford sought out that licensing deal with CATL, was to acquire LFP battery technology. And LFP batteries are really something that Chinese batterymakers have really excelled at.
Now, there could be breakthroughs in other chemistries. There could be a catchup game with non-Chinese batterymakers that actually become good at making LFP. That’s entirely possible. But right now, if you’re an Indian carmaker and you want to make a cheap car, your best bet is probably to get it from BYD or CATL, or maybe Gotion or something like that. That’s really what you’re looking at.
Robinson Meyer: It also, though, really changes how we talk about a lot of the development of auto industries abroad. Because I mean, I realize this is how cars were made for a long time, but I think … basically like if you were to say, Oh yeah, we make our own internal combustion cars here, we simply import the engines from Detroit, and then we place them in our otherwise finished vehicles that we’ve made domestically, and then we put it under a domestic label. We’re very proud of that. That’s essentially what is happening when countries import batteries. The batteries are so central to the operation of the EVs and what the EVs are capable of that when you import your batteries, you’re really relying on your trade partner for a lot of the core physical capacity of that vehicle, and a lot of the core, underlying chemical engineering capability that that vehicle affords you.
It suggests to me that in terms of when you think about the global EV industry, there are companies that are dependent on some kind of Chinese battery export. There are companies that are dependent on some kind of Korean battery export. There’s a few American entrants — mostly Tesla. There’s a few European entrants. And that’s kind of it. Everyone else is piggybacking on the back of one of those core technologies.
Mentioned:
Ilaria’s new report: The Global EV Shift: The Role of China and Industrial Policy in Emerging Economies
Previously on Shift Key: How China’s EV Industry Got So Big
This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …
Heatmap Pro brings all of our research, reporting, and insights down to the local level. The software platform tracks all local opposition to clean energy and data centers, forecasts community sentiment, and guides data-driven engagement campaigns. Book a demo today to see the premier intelligence platform for project permitting and community engagement.
Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow.
A trio of powerful climate hawks are throwing their weight against the SPEED Act.
Key Senate Democrats are opposing a GOP-led permitting deal to overhaul federal environmental reviews without assurances that clean energy projects will be able to reap the benefits. Winning these lawmakers’ support will require major concessions to build new transmission infrastructure and greater permitting assistance for renewable energy projects.
In an exclusive joint statement provided Tuesday to Heatmap News, Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Martin Heinrich, Environment and Public Works ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse, and Hawaii senator Brian Schatz came out against passing the SPEED Act, a bill that would change the National Environmental Policy Act, citing concerns about how it would apply to renewable energy and transmission development priorities.
“We are committed to streamlining the permitting process — but only if it ensures we can build out transmission and cheap, clean energy. While the SPEED Act does not meet that standard, we will continue working to pass comprehensive permitting reform that takes real steps to bring down electricity costs,” the statement read.
As I wrote weeks ago, there’s very little chance the SPEED Act could become law without addressing Senate climate hawks’ longstanding policy preferences. Although the SPEED Act was voted out of committee in the House two weeks ago with support from a handful of Democratic lawmakers, it has yet to win support from even moderate energy wonks in that legislative body, including Representative Scott Peters, one of the Democratic House negotiators in bipartisan permitting talks. Peters told me he would need to see more assurances dealing with the renewables permitting freeze, for example, in order for him to support the bill.
Observers had initially expected a full House vote on the SPEED Act as soon as this week, but an additional hurdle arose in recent days in the form of opposition from House conservative Republicans, led by Representative Chip Roy. The congressman from Texas had requested additional federal actions targeting renewables projects in exchange for passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which effectively repealed the Inflation Reduction Act. What followed was a set of directives from the Interior Department that all but halted federal solar and wind permitting. Roy’s frustration with the SPEED Act concerns a relatively milquetoast nod to renewables permitting problems that would block presidents from rescinding already issued permits. This upset appears to have delayed a vote on the bill in the House.
There’s an eerie familiarity to this moment: Almost exactly one year ago, the last major attempt at a permitting deal, authored by Senators Joe Manchin and John Barrasso, died when then-Majority Leader Chuck Schumer declined to bring it up for a vote in the face of opposition from the House. Unlike the SPEED Act, that bill offered changes to transmission siting policy that even conservative estimates said would’ve hastened the pace of national decarbonization.
Having Schatz, Heinrich, and Whitehouse — the three most powerful climate hawks in Congress — throw their weight against the SPEED Act casts serious doubt on the prospects for that legislation becoming the permitting deal this Congress. It also exposes an intra-energy world conflict, as it appears to position these lawmakers in opposition to American Clean Power, an energy trade group that represents a swath of diversified energy companies and utilities, as well as solar, wind, and battery storage developers.
Last week, ACP joined with the American Petroleum Institute and gas pipeline advocacy organizations to urge Congress to pass the SPEED Act. In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, ACP and the fossil fuel industry trade groups said that the legislation “directly addresses” the challenges facing their interests and “represents meaningful bipartisan progress toward a more stable and dependable permitting framework.” The only reference to potential additions came in a single, vague line: “While the SPEED Act makes important progress, there are additional ways Congress can facilitate the development of reliable and affordable energy infrastructure as part of a broader permitting package.”
This letter was taken by some backers of the renewable energy industry to be an endorsement without concessions. It was also a surprise because just days earlier, American Clean Power responded to the bill’s passage with a vaguely supportive statement that declared “additional efforts” were needed for “transmission infrastructure,” without which “energy prices will spike and system reliability will be threatened.” (It’s worth noting that the committee behind the SPEED Act, House Natural Resources, has no authority over transmission siting. No other proposal has yet emerged from Republicans in that chamber for Republicans to address the issue, either.)
One of the renewables backers taken aback was Schatz, who took to X to sound off against the organization. “Congratulations to ‘American Clean Power’ for cutting a deal with the American Petroleum Institute, but to enact a law both the house and the Senate have to agree, and Senators are finding out about this for the first time,” Schatz wrote in a post, which Whitehouse retweeted from one of his official X accounts.
In a subsequent post, Schatz said: “I am not finding out about the bill’s existence for the first time, I am tracking it all very closely. I am finding out that ACP endorsed it as is without anything on transmission, for the first time.”
By contrast, the statement from the three senators aligns them with the Solar Energy Industries Association, which sent a letter from more than 140 solar companies to top congressional leaders requesting direct action to fix a bureaucratic freeze on permit-related activity that has already helped kill large projects, including Esmeralda 7, which was the largest solar mega-farm in the United States.
In its message to Congress, the trade association made plain that while the SPEED Act was a welcome form of permitting changes, it was nowhere close to dealing with Trumpian chicanery on the group’s priority list.
We’ll have more on this unfolding drama in the days to come.
One longtime analyst has an idea to keep prices predictable for U.S. businesses.
What if we treated lithium like oil? A commodity so valuable to the functioning of the American economy that the U.S. government has to step in not only to make it available, but also to make sure its price stays in a “sweet spot” for production and consumption?
That was what industry stalwart Howard Klein, founder and chief executive of the advisory firm RK Equities, had in mind when he came up with his idea for a strategic lithium reserve, modeled on the existing Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Klein published a 10-page white paper on the idea Monday, outlining an expansive way to leverage private companies and capital markets to develop a non-Chinese lithium industry without the risk and concentrated expense of selecting specific projects and companies.
The lithium challenge, Klein and other industry analysts and executives have long said, is that China’s whip hand over the industry allows it to manipulate prices up and down in order to throttle non-Chinese production. When investment in lithium ramps up outside of China, Chinese production ramps up too, choking off future investment by crashing prices.
Recognizing the dangers stemming from dysfunction in the global lithium market constitutes a rare area of agreement between both parties in Washington and across the Biden and Trump administrations. Last year, a Biden State Department official told reporters that China “engage[s] in predatory pricing” and will “lower the price until competition disappears.”
A bipartisan investigation released last month by the House of Representatives’ Select Committee on Strategic Competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party found that “the PRC engaged in a whole‐of‐government effort to dominate global lithium production,” and that “starting in 2021, the PRC government engaged in a coordinated effort to artificially depress global lithium prices that had the effect of preventing the emergence of an America‐focused supply chain.”
Klein thinks he’s figured out a way to deal with this problem
“They manipulated and they crushed prices through oversupply to prevent us from having our own supply chains,” he told me.
It’s not just that China can keep prices low through overproduction, it’s also that the country’s enormous market power can make prices volatile, Klein said, which scares off private sector investment in mining and processing. “You have two years, up two years down, two years up, two years down,” he told me. “That’s the problem we’re trying to solve.
His proposal is to establish “a large, rules-based buffer of lithium carbonate — purchased when prices are depressed due to Chinese oversupply, and released during price spikes, shortages, or export restrictions.”
This reserve, he said, would be more than just a stockpile from which lithium could be released as needed. It would also help to shape the market for lithium, keeping prices roughly in the range of $20,000 per ton (when prices fall below that, the reserve would buy) and $40,000 to $50,000 per ton, when the reserve would sell. The idea is to keep the price of lithium carbonate — which can be processed as a material for batteries with a wide range of defense (e.g. drones) and transportation (e.g. electric vehicles) applications — within a range that’s reasonable for investors and businesses to plan around.
“Lithium has swung from like $6,000 [per ton] to $80,000, back down to $9,000, and now it’s at $11,000 or $12,000,” Klein told me. “But $11,000 or $12,000 is not a high enough price for a company to build a plan that’s going to take three to five years. They need $20,000 to $25,000 now as a minimum for them to make a $2 billion dollar investment.” When prices for lithium get up to “$50,000, $60,000, or $70,000, then it becomes a problem because battery makers can’t make money.”
Both the Biden and Trump administrations have taken more active steps to secure a U.S. or allied supply chain for valuable inputs, including rare earth metals. But Klein’s proposed reserve looks to balance government intervention with a diverse, private-sector led industry.
The reserve would be more broad-based than price floor schemes, where a major buyer like the Defense Department guarantees a minimum price for the output from a mine or refining facility. This is what the federal government did in its deal with MP Materials, the rare earths miner and refiner, which secured a multifaceted deal with the federal government earlier this year.
Klein estimates that the cost in the first year of the strategic lithium reserve could be a few billion dollars — on the scale of the nearly $2.3 billion loan provided by the Department of Energy for the Thacker Pass mine in Nevada, which also saw the federal government take an equity stake in the miner, Lithium Americas.
Ideally, Klein told me, “there’s a competition of projects that are being presented to prospective funders of those projects, and I want private market actors to decide, should we build more Thacker Passes or should we do the Smackover?” referring to a geologic formation centered in Arkansas with potentially millions of tons of lithium reserves.
Klein told me that he’s trying to circulate the proposal among industry and policy officials. His hoped is that as the government attempts to come up with a solution to Chinese dominance of the lithium industry, “people are talking about this idea and they’re saying, Oh, that’s actually a pretty good idea.”