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:
After taking something like center stage the past few years, climate slid down the agenda at the 2024 summit.
Whatever’s on the official agenda at Davos, a.k.a. the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, there’s always one item missing: Davos itself. As much as we love talking about what happens there, we love talking about what Davos means much, much more.
Unfortunately for anyone living on planet Earth, consensus from this year’s Davos meeting seems to be that any sense of climate urgency there once was has waned.
“They are not talking a lot about climate, about biodiversity, about this crisis at all, and that is not acceptable,” Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, an activist from Chad, told David Gelles of The New York Times. Gelles got a similar message from Andres Gluski, chief executive of AES, a U.S.-based energy company that has committed to renewables in recent years. “I think there’s a little bit of sort of climate catastrophe fatigue,” Gluski said. “People are like, ‘Yeah, yeah, the world is going to end. But I’m still going to vacation on the Greek islands or the Bahamas.’”
Climate was not completely off the agenda: Tuesday morning’s session included a panel on climate and nature featuring some heavy hitters, including International Monetary Fund chief Kristalina Georgieva and World Bank President Ajay Banga, and Fortune’s Peter Vanham reports that former Vice President, climate activist, and funny person Al Gore had the crowd at a dinner for the Time 100 riled up. (I particularly liked this turn of phrase from the speech. “We hear the word ‘polycrisis’ thrown around now,” Gore said. “Solving the climate crisis is a polysolution that will help us solve a wide range of crises, and we need inspiration.”)
Nevertheless, the climate crisis seems to have fallen down the global elite’s priority list — “and that’s a shame,” said Paul Polman, a former CEO of Unilever, speaking to Fortune’s Varnham. Taking the prevalence of “ESG,” or environmental, social, and governance concerns as a proxy for global finance’s interest in addressing climate, Davos observers at Semafor found that the acronym appeared twice on the 2022 Davos program, once in 2023, and not at all this year.
It is true there were some other very large fishes to fry — the biggest, according to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, the hostage crisis in Gaza, Semafor reported. “In the world I live in — as important as climate is right now, this is the most important issue and everyone has to discuss it.” And while French President Emmanuel Macron took the stage on day three of the conference to call for European energy sovereignty, you could be forgiven for not knowing that; between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s cri de coeur for continued aid and recently elected Argentinian President Javier Milei’s spellbinding tirade against the evils of “collectivism” and “radical feminism,” there wasn’t much attention left to go around.
Overall, the climate vibes are not good. “2024 will be an unusually consequential year for climate action,” Jason Bordoff, director of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, told Bloomberg. “By the end of the year, with another COP concluding in a petrostate and the results of many national elections, we’ll have a sense of whether climate cooperation is breaking down or not.”
One bright spot: There is currently above average snowpack in Davos, which has led to some picturesque scenes and warm-looking outfits. As we know, of course, that does not mean all is well climate-wise. “If you go 12 kilometers lower down, you have below-average [snow coverage],” Christoph Marty, climate scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, told the Financial Times. “It shows how vulnerable the snowpack is to temperature.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
A judge has lifted the administration’s stop-work order against Revolution Wind.
A federal court has lifted the Trump administration’s order to halt construction on the Revolution Wind farm off the coast of New England. The decision marks the renewables industry’s first major legal victory against a federal war on offshore wind.
The Interior Department ordered Orsted — the Danish company developing Revolution Wind — to halt construction of Revolution Wind on August 22, asserting in a one-page letter that it was “seeking to address concerns related to the protection of national security interests of the United States and prevention of interference with reasonable uses of the exclusive economic zone, the high seas, and the territorial seas.”
In a two-page ruling issued Monday, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth found that Orsted would presumably win its legal challenge against the stop work order, and that the company is “likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction,” which led him to lift the dictate from the Trump administration.
Orsted previously claimed in legal filings that delays from the stop work order could put the entire project in jeopardy by pushing its timeline beyond the terms of existing power purchase agreements, and that the company installing cable for the project only had a few months left to work on Revolution Wind before it had to move onto other client obligations through mid-2028. The company has also argued that the Trump administration is deliberately mischaracterizing discussions between the federal government and the company that took place before the project was fully approved.
It’s still unclear at this moment whether the Trump administration will appeal the decision. We’re still waiting on the outcome of a separate legal challenge brought by Democrat-controlled states against Trump’s anti-wind Day One executive order.
A new letter sent Friday asks for reams of documentation on developers’ compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
The Fish and Wildlife Service is sending letters to wind developers across the U.S. asking for volumes of records about eagle deaths, indicating an imminent crackdown on wind farms in the name of bird protection laws.
The Service on Friday sent developers a request for records related to their permits under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which compels companies to obtain permission for “incidental take,” i.e. the documented disturbance of eagle species protected under the statute, whether said disturbance happens by accident or by happenstance due to the migration of the species. Developers who received the letter — a copy of which was reviewed by Heatmap — must provide a laundry list of documents to the Service within 30 days, including “information collected on each dead or injured eagle discovered.” The Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
These letters represent the rapid execution of an announcement made just a week ago by Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, who released a memo directing department staff to increase enforcement of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act “to ensure that our national bird is not sacrificed for unreliable wind facilities.” The memo stated that all permitted wind facilities would receive records requests related to the eagle law by August 11 — so, based on what we’ve now seen and confirmed, they’re definitely doing that.
There’s cause for wind developers, renewables advocates, and climate activists to be alarmed here given the expanding horizon of enforcement of wildlife statutes, which have become a weapon for the administration against zero-carbon energy generation.
The August 4 memo directed the Service to refer “violations” of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act to the agency solicitor’s office, with potential further referral to the Justice Department for criminal or civil charges. Violating this particular law can result in a fine of at least $100,000 per infraction, a year in prison, or both, and penalties increase if a company, organization, or individual breaks the law more than once. It’s worth noting at this point that according to FWS’s data, oil pits historically kill far more birds per year than wind turbines.
In a statement to Heatmap News, the American Clean Power Association defended the existing federal framework around protecting eagles from wind turbines, noted the nation’s bald eagle population has risen significantly overall in the past two decades, and claimed golden eagle populations are “stable, at the same time wind energy has been growing.”
“This is clear evidence that strong protections and reasonable permitting rules work. Wind and eagles are successfully co-existing,” ACP spokesperson Jason Ryan said.
The $7 billion program had been the only part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund not targeted for elimination by the Trump administration.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to cancel grants awarded from the $7 billion Solar for All program, the final surviving grants from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, by the end of this week, The New York Times is reporting. Two sources also told the same to Heatmap.
Solar for All awarded funds to 60 nonprofits, tribes, state energy offices, and municipalities to deliver the benefits of solar energy — namely, utility bill savings — to low-income communities. Some of the programs are focused on rooftop solar, while others are building community solar, which enable residents that don’t own their homes to access cheaper power.
The EPA is drafting termination letters to all 60 grantees, the Times reported. An EPA spokesperson equivocated in response to emailed questions from Heatmap about the fate of the program. “With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, EPA is working to ensure Congressional intent is fully implemented in accordance with the law,” the person said.
Although Solar for All was one of the programs affected by the Trump administration’s initial freeze on Inflation Reduction Act funding, EPA had resumed processing payments for recipients after a federal judge placed an injunction on the pause. But in mid-March, the EPA Office of the Inspector General announced its intent to audit Solar for All. The results of that audit have not yet been published.
The Solar for All grants are a subset of the $27 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, most of which had been designated to set up a series of green lending programs. In March, Administrator Lee Zeldin accused the program of fraud, waste, and abuse — the so-called “gold bar” scandal — and attempted to claw back all $20 billion. Recipients of that funding are fighting the termination in an ongoing court case.
State attorneys generals are likely to challenge the Solar for All terminations in court, should they go through, a source familiar with the state programs told me.
All $7 billion under the program has been obligated to grantees, but the money is not yet fully out the door, as recipients must request reimbursements from the EPA as they spend down their grants. Very little has been spent so far, as many grantees opted to use the first year of the five-year program as a planning period.