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:
And the 2034 contest will likely be even worse, for different reasons.

Generally speaking, it’s not a roaring sign of success when your sports tournament results in an 11,400-word Wikipedia article titled, “List of 2022 FIFA World Cup Controversies.” Still — not to be deterred by pesky little details like “extreme heat,” “flagrant sportswashing,” or “gross human rights violations” — FIFA has given a satisfied nod to the disaster that was Qatar 2022 and decided to do it all over again.
On Wednesday, FIFA announced that the 2030 World Cup hosting rights will be jointly awarded to three different continents: Europe, in the form of Spain and Portugal; Africa, in the form of Morocco; and South America, where Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay with each host one match at the start of the tournament in celebration of its centennial. The decision also effectively — and suspiciously — clears the way for Saudi Arabia to host the 2034 tournament, since it leaves only Asia and Oceania eligible to make a bid by the deadline later this month (and Asia’s soccer confederation has already conveniently endorsed Saudia Arabia).
Setting aside for a moment the possibility of bringing the tournament back to the Arabian Peninsula only a dozen years after Qatar, the 2030 World Cup decision is also seriously questionable. For one thing, human-driven climate change pushed temperatures in the three main host countries of Spain, Portugal, and Morocco to over 100 degrees Fahrenheit in April of this year, with the occurrence of such heatwaves on the rise. A summer tournament in seven years is likely to be sweltering and dangerous for the athletes. (None of the host cities are expected to be safe to even consider for such an event by 2088, one study found).
Fire season also begins on the Iberian Peninsula in June and July, when the tournament is traditionally held. This year, Spain and Portugal experienced their worst wildfires since 2017, when 100 people were killed. It’s conceivable that in 2030, matches will have to be canceled or postponed due to air quality concerns (then again, if this year was any indication, that could also be a problem for the North American World Cup in 2026).
Then there is the fact that the continental trifecta will require “an unprecedented amount of travel across distances and time zones, including 13-hour flights from Buenos Aires to Madrid,” The Associated Press reports. That’s taxing not just on the athletes and fans who decide to make the transatlantic journeys, but also results in unnecessarily wasteful emissions by spreading the tournament across hemispheres, rather than containing it in a smaller region or country where alternate forms of transportation could at least be considered between matches. If it was so important to FIFA that the centennial return home to Uruguay, perhaps it should have just … given South America the hosting responsibilities?
Of course, far more worrying is what the 2030 World Cup locks in: Saudi Arabia as the likeliest 2034 host. The petrostate would face almost all the same criticisms as Qatar, if not worse. The tournament, for example, will almost certainly need to be held in the winter again to avoid exposing athletes and fans to the deadly summer heat; it plays right into the hands of the Kingdom’s multi-billion-dollar sportswashing strategy; it will require new buildings and massive air conditioning capabilities that are inherently environmentally taxing; and it essentially rewards and legitimizes a nation that has largely avoided consequences for its egregious human rights violations because of the power vested in it by its fossil fuel reserves — reserves that, of course, are also responsible for the warming and destruction of our planet.
It’d be almost funny if it weren’t all so shameless. (Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has “built close ties to FIFA president Gianni Infantino in the past six years,” the AP dryly notes). But at least with this sort of lead time, we can get a head start on compiling the Lists of 2030 and 2034 FIFA World Cup Controversies. There’ll be plenty.
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 opinion covered a host of actions the administration has taken to slow or halt renewables development.
A federal court seems to have struck down a swath of Trump administration moves to paralyze solar and wind permits.
U.S. District Judge Denise Casper on Tuesday enjoined a raft of actions by the Trump administration that delayed federal renewable energy permits, granting a request submitted by regional trade groups. The plaintiffs argued that tactics employed by various executive branch agencies to stall permits violated the Administrative Procedures Act. Casper — an Obama appointee — agreed in a 73-page opinion, asserting that the APA challenge was likely to succeed on the merits.
The ruling is a potentially fatal blow to five key methods the Trump administration has used to stymie federal renewable energy permitting. It appears to strike down the Interior Department memo requiring sign-off from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum on all major approvals, as well as instructions that the Interior and the Army Corps of Engineers prioritize “energy dense” projects in ways likely to benefit fossil fuels. Also struck down: a ban on access to a Fish and Wildlife Service species database and an Interior legal opinion targeting offshore wind leases.
Casper found a litany of reasons the five actions may have violated the Administrative Procedures Act. For example, the memo mandating political reviews was “a significant departure from [Interior] precedent,” and therefore “required a ‘more detailed justification’ than that needed for merely implementing a new policy.” The “energy density” permitting rubric, meanwhile, “conflicts” with federal laws governing federal energy leases so it likely violated the APA, the judge wrote.
What’s next is anyone’s guess. Some cynical readers may wonder whether the Supreme Court will just lift the preliminary injunction at the administration’s request. It’s worth noting Casper had the High Court’s penchant for neutralizing preliminary injunctions in mind, writing in her opinion, “The Court concludes that the scope of this requested injunctive relief is appropriate and consistent with the Supreme Court’s limitations on nationwide injunctions.”
Fights over AI-related developments outnumber those over wind farms in the Heatmap Pro database.
Local data center conflicts in the U.S. now outnumber clashes over wind farms.
More than 270 data centers have faced opposition across the country compared to 258 onshore and offshore wind projects, according to a review of data collected by Heatmap Pro. Data center battles only recently overtook wind turbines, driven by the sudden spike in backlash to data center development over the past year. It’s indicative of how the intensity of the angst over big tech infrastructure is surging past current and historic malaise against wind.
Battles over solar projects have still occurred far more often than fights over data centers — nearly twice as many times, per the data. But in terms of megawatts, the sheer amount of data center demand that has been opposed nearly equals that of solar: more than 51 gigawatts.
Taken together, these numbers describe the tremendous power involved in the data center wars, which is now comparable to the entire national fight over renewable energy. One side of the brawl is demand, the other supply. If this trend continues at this pace, it’s possible the scale of tension over data centers could one day usurp what we’ve been tracking for both solar and wind combined.
The administration reinstated previously awarded grants worth up to $1.2 billion total.
The Department of Energy is allowing the Direct Air Capture hub program created by the Biden administration to move forward, according to a list the department submitted to Congress on Wednesday.
The program awarded up to $1.2 billion to two projects — Occidental Petroleum’s South Texas DAC Hub, and Climeworks and Heirloom’s joint Project Cypress in Louisiana — both of which appeared on a list of nearly 2,000 grants that have passed the agency’s previously announced review of Biden-era awards.
This fate was far from certain. The DAC Hubs program originally awarded 21 projects, most of them smaller in scale or earlier in development than the Louisiana and Texas hubs. The DOE terminated 10 of those awards last October. A few days after the news of the cancellations broke, the Louisiana and Texas hubs both appeared on a leaked list of additional projects slated for termination. The companies never received termination letters, however, and now the DOE has notified the developers that the projects will be allowed to proceed.
A spokesperson for Battelle, the lead project developer for Project Cypress, told me the company has been “advised that the DOE project team with oversight of Project Cypress will be contacting us soon to begin the process of moving the project forward.”
Wright has signaled that many of the projects that made it through the review process had to be modified, but it is unclear which ones or how the DAC hubs will be affected. Neither Battelle nor the other companies responded to questions about whether their plans have changed.
The award amount is also up in the air. Originally, each project was awarded about $50 million for early development, with the opportunity to receive up to $600 million each. The spreadsheet of retained projects lists each of the DAC hubs at $50 million, but that may just be the amount that has been obligated so far. The DOE’s budget request for 2027 suggests it could be planning to pay out the full amount: The agency wants to rescind $2.3 billion from the $3.5 billion DAC Hubs program, which, if approved, would still leave $1.2 billion, the amount earmarked for the Project Cypress and South Texas hubs.
In an email, Climeworks spokesperson Tristan Lebleu told me the company “looks forward to engaging with the Department of Energy and our partners on next steps to advance our project in Louisiana."
Vikram Aiyer, the head of policy for Heirloom, said the project has strong support from local leaders, including Louisiana's Congressional Delegation and Governor Jeff Landry. He said the startup looks forward to working with the DOE on “unlocking the appropriated and obligated monies to create high-quality jobs, strengthen domestic supply chains, and pair industrial growth with advanced carbon management and utilization.”
A spokesperson from Occidental declined to comment, advising me to contact the DOE. The DOE has not responded to a request for comment.
While the companies are painting this as positive news, they must now contend with a new challenge: raising private investment for these projects in a very different environment than when the projects were first proposed. Carbon removal purchases are down and investors are not as keen on the industry as they once were.
“This is a step in the right direction but what’s important now is that these projects get built,” Giana Amador, the executive director of the Carbon Removal Alliance, wrote on LinkedIn. “That means steel in the ground, agreements honored, and clarity so our companies can do what they do best: build.”