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 new regulation covers existing U.S. oil and gas wells as well as new ones.

One of the first things Joe Biden did on the day he was inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States was issue an executive order on the climate crisis. In it, he directed the Environmental Protection Agency to set new standards for emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane from the oil and gas industry. Nearly three years later, those regulations have been finalized.
This is the first time the U.S. will try to rein in methane leaking from drilling sites and other infrastructure that already exist, in addition to regulating new oil and gas projects.
The EPA says the rules will prevent the equivalent of 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide from being emitted between 2024 and 2038, almost as much as was emitted by all power plants in the country in 2021. They will also reduce emissions of other health-harming air pollutants including benzene, which can exacerbate respiratory problems and increase cancer risk. The total benefits created by the new limits, the administration estimates, will reach $98 billion by 2038.
“The U.S. now has the most protective methane pollution limits on the books,” said Fredd Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, which has played a major role in exposing the dangers of methane.
Tackling methane emissions is often called the fastest way to slow global warming. Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas — some 80 times more powerful at warming the planet than carbon dioxide, in the near term. Scientists estimate it is responsible for at least 25% of the human-caused warming we are experiencing today. It leaks into the atmosphere from oil and gas infrastructure, coal mines, landfills, wetlands, and farms.
But then, within a decade, it begins to break down. If we stopped emitting methane tomorrow, its effect on global temperatures would quickly fade.
In particular, Krupp applauded EPA for addressing two of the largest sources of methane from the oil and gas system. The rules call for regular monitoring for leaks at all well sites, and also require well operators to phase out the use of polluting pneumatic controllers. These are devices that help move gas through pipelines and other infrastructure, but are, in fact, designed to leak some of it out.
The rules also create a somewhat unusual program that empowers third parties to play sheriff. Satellite companies such as Kayrros and nonprofits like EDF, which have made a name for themselves detecting especially large “super-emitters,” can register with the EPA to become watchdogs and report their findings to the agency. When super-emitters are reported, the EPA will require the implicated company to investigate, report back, and “take appropriate corrective action,” explained Tomas Carbonell, an official in the EPA’s office of air and radiation.
Another major source of methane emissions occurs when oil companies “flare,” or burn off the gas that comes up during extraction. That makes it less harmful to the environment, but flares are notoriously inefficient, and a lot of methane ends up getting released anyway.
Not to mention that flaring wastes a valuable product, which could be captured and used for energy.
Operators of new wells will have to stop flaring methane within two years; however, EPA officials told reporters on Friday that they will permit the practice at existing wells “that do not emit significant amounts of emissions from flaring, and where the costs of avoiding flaring would be significant relative to the benefits, in terms of emission reductions.”
It appears the Biden administration has gotten buy-in from at least some major industry players. An EPA press release quoted Orlando Alvarez, the president of bp America, who said the company “welcomes” the rule. In a press call with reporters, EPA officials emphasized that they received more than 1 million public comments throughout the process, and made several adjustments to accommodate feedback from the industry — including the two-year delay on the flaring rules.
Operators may also have up to two years before regulations kick in for existing wells, as the EPA has allowed states extra time to develop plans for enforcing them. In the meantime, bad actors could still face consequences. A provision in the Inflation Reduction Act directs EPA to charge polluters $900 per metric ton of methane they release in 2024. The fee increases to $1,200 in 2025 emissions. It will stay in effect until the EPA regulations kick in. “It’s a sort of transition that gets us from today to when these rules are in effect,” said Carbonell.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Plus, which is the best hyperscaler on climate — and which is the worst?
The biggest story in energy right now is data centers.
After decades of slow load growth, forecasters are almost competing with each other to predict the most eye-popping figure for how much new electricity demand data centers will add to the grid. And with the existing electricity system with its backbone of natural gas, more data centers could mean higher emissions.
Hyperscalers with sustainability goals are already reporting higher emissions, and technology companies are telling investors that they plan to invest hundreds of billions, if not trillions of dollars, into new data centers, increasingly at gigawatt scale.
And yet when we asked our Heatmap survey participants “Do you think AI and data centers’ energy needs are significantly slowing down decarbonization?” only about 34% said they would, compared to 66% who said they wouldn’t.
There were some intriguing differences between different types of respondents. Among our “innovator” respondents — venture capitalists, founders, and executives working at climate tech startups — the overwhelming majority said that AI and data centers are not slowing down decarbonization. “I think it’s the inverse — I think we want to launch the next generation of technologies when there’s demand growth and opportunity to sell into a slightly higher priced, non-commoditized market,” Joe Goodman co-founder and managing partner at VoLo Earth Ventures, told us.
Not everyone in Silicon Valley is so optimistic, however. “I think in a different political environment, it may have been a true accelerant,” one VC told us. “But in this political environment, it’s a true albatross because it’s creating so many more emissions. It’s creating so much stress on the grid. We’re not deploying the kinds of solutions that would be effective."
Scientists were least in agreement on the question. While only 47% of scientists thought the growth of data centers would significantly slow down decarbonization, most of the pessimistic camp was in the social sciences. In total, over 62% of the physical scientists we surveyed thought data centers weren’t slowing down decarbonization, compared to a third of social scientists.
Michael Greenstone, a University of Chicago economist, told us he didn’t see data centers and artificial intelligence as any different from any other use of energy. “I also think air conditioning and lighting, computing, and 57,000 other uses of electricity are slowing down decarbonization,” he said. The real answer is the world is not trying to minimize climate change.”
Mijin Cha, an assistant professor of environment studies at the University of California Santa Cruz, was even more gloomy, telling us, “Not only do I think it’s slowing down decarbonization, I think it is permanently extending the life of fossil fuels, especially as it is now unmitigated growth.”
Some took issue with the premise of the question, expressing skepticism of the entire AI industry. “I’m actually of the opinion that most of the AI and data center plans are a massive bubble,” a scientist told us. “And so, are there plans that would be disruptive to emissions? Yes. Are they actually doing anything to emissions yet? Not obvious.”
We also asked respondents to name the “best” and “worst” hyperscalers, large technology companies pursuing the data center buildout. Many of these companies have some kind of renewables or sustainability goal, but there are meaningful differences among them. Google and Microsoft look to match their emissions with non-carbon-power generation in the same geographic area and at the same time. The approach used by Meta and Amazon, on the other hand, is to develop renewable projects that have the biggest “bang for the buck” on global emissions by siting them in areas with high emissions that the renewable generation can be said to displace.
Among our respondents, the 24/7 “time and place” approach is the clear winner.
Google was the “best” pick for 20 respondents, “Google and Microsoft” for 14, and Microsoft alone for 7. By contrast, Amazon and Meta, respectively, had 3 votes each.
As for the “worst,” there was no clear consensus, although two respondents from the social sciences picked “everyone besides Microsoft and Google” and “everyone but Google and Microsoft.” Another one told us, “The best is a tie between Microsoft and Google. Everyone else is in the bottom category.”
A third social scientist summed it up even more pungently. “Google is the best, Meta is the worst. Evil corporation” — though with more expletives than that.
The Heatmap Insiders Survey of 55 invited expert respondents was conducted by Heatmap News reporters during November and December 2025. Responses were collected via phone interviews. All participants were given the opportunity to record responses anonymously. Not all respondents answered all questions.
The Secretary of Energy beat out the EPA’s Lee Zeldin and OMB’s Russ Vought.
Who’s the biggest climate villain in the Trump administration — other than President Donald Trump himself? Our Heatmap braintrust had one clear answer: Energy Secretary Chris Wright.
Wright entered the Trump administration 2.0 with lots of good will in the energy sector and wonky academia because of his education at MIT and tenure as CEO of a power and fuels company. But his Trumpian turn — terminating billions in energy and climate spending and pivoting to misinformation-riddled tweets — has shocked essentially everyone who thought he’d be a cooler head on energy and climate. Wright’s official X account has become a receptacle for questionable statements about the energy sector, such as the provably false claim that covering the entire planet in solar panels would only produce a fifth of the world’s energy. This prompted Heatmap executive editor Robinson Meyer to suggest that one might call him “Chris Wrong,” instead.
Turns out climate insiders agree. Approximately 32% of respondents in our annual Insiders Survey named Wright as the Trump administration’s biggest decarbonization opponent. Participants spanning professional backgrounds focused on his transformation from Ivy League-adjacent energy wonk and business executive to an anti-renewables cultural crusader, with multiple survey respondents describing Wright’s rhetoric on energy as “stupid.” They also pointed specifically at his decision to help prop up aging coal plants, a step that former Energy Secretary Rick Perry tried to take under the first Trump administration but did not follow through with.
“I think he’s smart enough to know exactly how stupid what he’s saying really is,” one reformer told us. One academic complained: “I really wish he would have come in and been the businessman that I thought he was.”
Some survey respondents pointed to Wright after naming other officials they thought were doing more damage to climate policy. Illinois Democratic Representative Sean Casten argued that Office of Management and Budget head Russ Vought — the third most popular climate villain — was the most disruptive to the energy transition because Vought handles the intricacies of the administrative state, laying the blame for any DOE policies at his doorstep, not Wright’s.
“Chris Wright is a stupid guy with not a lot of power,” Casten said. “Russ Vought is a smart guy with a lot of power.”
Holly Jean Buck, a former management and program analyst in the Energy Department’s fossil and carbon management division, told us that “the worst” of this administration has come from its cancellation of DOE decarbonization projects. But it’s unclear whether Wright himself led the charge to derail those efforts. “A lot of that rests with Chris Wright, but I don’t know if there were other people driving those decisions. The internal politics within the administration are kind of opaque to me.”
As a factual matter, few have been more harmful for federal decarbonization efforts than Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lee Zeldin, who is in the process of shredding regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions. Zeldin was the second most popular answer to this particular question overall, but only eight people said he was the most harmful. Even fewer people — only three — named Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, whose secretarial orders under White House direction have all but frozen new solar and wind approvals across the government.
A non-trivial number of respondents told us they see Trump’s cabinet officials simply taking orders from the top of government. “I don’t want to point the finger at anyone other than this president because he owns it all,” one former government official told us. “He’s the one that is going to bear the brunt and be responsible.”
We reached out to the Energy Department for comment. Here is spokesperson Ben Dietderich’s response, in full:
Secretary Wright is proud of the Trump administration’s work to restore commonsense energy policy at home and abroad. Our priority is making energy affordable, reliable, and secure for every American — not catering to far-left activists.
And here’s the irony: President Trump’s push for a true American nuclear renaissance and expanded U.S. natural gas exports will likely make him the most effective leader in history at reducing carbon emissions. When that happens, we trust you’ll be ready to hand him the award he’s earned.
The Heatmap Insider Survey of 55 invited expert respondents was conducted by Heatmap News reporters during November and December 2025. Responses were collected via phone interviews. All participants were given the opportunity to record responses anonymously. Not all respondents answered all questions.
While they had some reservations, the sheer scale of China’s decarbonization efforts were undeniable.
As I walked participants through Heatmap’s end-of-year survey, there was one question that consistently elicited thoughtful sighs, nervous laughs, and cautious qualifications from the 55 climate researchers, policymakers, scientists, innovators, business leaders, and other prominent voices that we spoke with.
On its face, the question was simple: Is China more of a hero or villain on climate?
Some said the country is a hero, full stop. Only four tilted toward villain. One investor told me I should write a book about this question. And 13 couldn’t quite decide — perhaps both? Maybe neither? As Mijin Cha, an environmental studies professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz put it to my colleague, “Is China doing more on decarbonization than other countries? Yes. Are they doing it in a way that I think is just? Unlikely.”
In the final tally, nearly three quarters of our survey respondents viewed China as more of a hero overall. The general vibe was one of conflicted but reluctant appreciation for a nation that’s building more new coal capacity than any other country on Earth but also magnitudes more solar, wind, and batteries. Not to mention the way that it’s cleaning America’s clock on manufacturing electric vehicles, especially the more affordable models. In China, over 50% of all new cars sold this year were EVs compared to only about 10% in the U.S.
“If you’re looking at scaling the production of clean energy, infrastructure, and assets, they’re a hero,” one climate tech investor told me. “We blew that one.”
Perhaps it’s unsurprising that many of the “innovators” I spoke with — a category largely comprised of U.S.-based climate tech investors — were especially gung-ho about China, with 14 out of 16 saying that it’s a hero. After all, the country builds stuff, and fast. In the U.S., construction on our two most recently completed nuclear reactors took roughly 15 years and over $35 billion. China is home to nearly half of the world’s reactors under construction, building them for an average of about $3 billion each.
Even when it comes to fusion — long dominated by American national labs, universities, and entrepreneurs — China is catching up quickly, as the government pours billions into its new state-owned fusion company.
Whereas Tom Chi of At One Ventures told me that there’s a narrative in the U.S. that clean energy is “this huge economic drag, just for these liberal elites trying to go push their agenda,” China’s actions offer a wordless rebuttal best summarized as, “you might have that wrong, because we’re making crazy money on green technologies.”
“It’s like the Nike commercial — they just do it,” a former Department of Energy employee told my colleague. By contrast, the U.S. can look litigious and regulation-heavy, with layers of environmental review, permitting, and lawsuits routinely stalling domestic projects. China’s blend of technocratic authoritarianism gives it the freedom to sidestep red tape and override local opposition, respondents told us.
Not to say that the country’s advances are solely the product of its own ingenuity. As another climate-focused venture investor told me, “A lot of Chinese companies are just taking what American companies do and then copying or short-circuiting or stealing IP.” On net, however, they still felt that China tilted toward the hero side of the ledger.
The one person I spoke with who categorized China as a villain — an investor focused on first-of-a-kind projects — argued that it’s important to consider not just what China does at home, but also “what they’re going to do to everyone else.”
Indeed, research shows that the country is still financing the construction of coal plants abroad, despite a 2021 pledge to stop doing so, and it’s deeply entwined with Africa’s oil and gas industry. China also outsources some of the dirtiest links in its battery supply chain — think cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and nickel mining in Indonesia — to low-income countries with exploitative labor practices and lax environmental standards.
“I think China will increase other countries’ emissions substantially while reducing their own,” this investor told me.
Part of what seemed to make this question so messy was the overall perception that on climate, China’s actions are mostly driven by self-interest rather than any grander, “heroic” sense of global responsibility. The nation’s latest round of emissions reductions targets — which all Paris Agreement countries are required to update every five years — were widely seen as underwhelming and insufficient, reinforcing the perception that the country is more interested in being an economic powerhouse than a climate leader.
Thus, China’s role in the energy transition will "entirely hinge” on whether it views “the market opportunity to enhance decarbonization with Chinese technology as advantageous or disadvantageous,” another climate tech VC told me. Naturally, they predict that China will continue to see this moment as an opportunity to fuel economic growth and expand its global reach.
“China is more like water flowing downhill. There’s no value to it, they’re just doing what’s smart and strategic,” one lawmaker told my colleague, landing on the same conclusion that most eventually accepted. “The effect of it will be, on balance, heroic."
The Heatmap Insiders Survey of 55 invited expert respondents was conducted by Heatmap News reporters during November and December 2025. Responses were collected via phone interviews. All participants were given the opportunity to record responses anonymously. Not all respondents answered all questions.