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 country votes to annex their oil-rich neighbor, Guyana.

Under pressure from the U.S. to hold a free and fair election, Venezuela’s President Nicolás Maduro upped the ante. On Sunday, the nation went to the polls — to vote to invade its neighbor and the world’s newest petrostate, Guyana.
Approval was seemingly swift and suspiciously overwhelming. According to the Venezuelan National Electoral Council, the ballot’s five-question referendum — which culminated in asking if Caracas should incorporate Guyana’s Essequibo region “into the map of Venezuelan territory” — passed by a margin of 95%.
Calling the vote a free or fair election might be a bit of a stretch; local opponents seized on the fact that the National Electoral Council touted “10.5 million votes cast,” rather than the overall number of voters, meaning that — given the five ballot questions — potentially as few as 2 million people actually turned out to vote in the nation of 28.2 million. Reuters also reported that lines were scarce at voting centers.
Still, snatching the Essequibo region, which makes up about two-thirds of Guyana and is roughly the size of Florida, is popular among Venezuelans due to a controversial 1899 decision by an international tribunal that gave the territory to what was then the British colony of Guiana. Venezuelans have long considered themselves to have been swindled by Western powers in the deal, with decades of revanchist schooling and local propaganda making the Essequibo issue an easy and appealing way for Maduro to shore up domestic support.
It remains unclear, though, how far Venezuela might go in the enforcement of its claim on the land, CNN notes. International Court of Justice President Joan E. Donoghue has nevertheless warned that Caracas appears to be “taking steps with a view toward acquiring control over and administering the territory in dispute.” Comparisons to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Argentina’s 1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands are already popping up, with commentators wondering what President Biden will do if the crisis escalates to actual fighting — and on America’s hemispheric doorstep, no less.
Many experts on the region also say the referendum, and any ensuing land grab, are distractions meant to bolster nationalist sentiment and Maduro’s popularity during a time of domestic turmoil and outside pressure for a leadership change. But it’s hardly a coincidence that the land in dispute is oil-rich — and newly considered to be so. Guyana was a poor, remote, and tiny neighbor to Venezuela before the discovery of oil offshore (and in Essequibo) in 2015. Now the country is thought to be sitting on 11 billion recoverable barrels and international oil companies are jostling for a go at the reserves, even as Guyana faces the irony of being especially susceptible to climate change.
The easy comparison between the two oil states makes the situation even more bruising for Caracas: Guyana is now “set to surpass the oil production of Venezuela,” CNN writes, while the latter country’s production has dropped from a height of 3 million barrels per day in 1999 to a mere 700,000 barrels per day this year, due to ongoing mismanagement and U.S. sanctions. No wonder the oil reserves just across the border look so tempting.
Perhaps, then, this will be the way the world’s next oil war starts: Not with a bang but with a vote.
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 state has terminated an agreement to develop substations and other necessary grid infrastructure to serve the now-canceled developments.
Crucial transmission for future offshore wind energy in New Jersey is scrapped for now.
The New Jersey Board of Public Utilities on Wednesday canceled the agreement it reached with PJM Interconnection in 2021 to develop wires and substations necessary to send electricity generated by offshore wind across the state. The board terminated this agreement because much of New Jersey’s expected offshore wind capacity has either been canceled by developers or indefinitely stalled by President Donald Trump, including the now-scrapped TotalEnergies projects scrubbed in a settlement with his administration.
“New Jersey is now facing a situation in which there will be no identified, large-scale in-state generation projects under active development that can make use of [the agreement] on the timeline the state and PJM initially envisioned,” the board wrote in a letter to PJM requesting termination of the agreement.
Wind energy backers are not taking this lying down. “We cannot fault the Sherrill Administration for making this decision today, but this must only be a temporary setback,” Robert Freudenberg of the New Jersey and New York-focused environmental advocacy group Regional Plan Association, said in a statement released after the agreement was canceled.
I chronicled the fight over this specific transmission infrastructure before Trump 2.0 entered office and the White House went nuclear on offshore wind. Known as the Larrabee Pre-Built Infrastructure, the proposed BPU-backed network of lines and electrical equipment resulted from years of environmental and sociological study. It was intended to connect wind projects in the Atlantic Ocean to key points on the overall grid onshore.
Activists opposed to putting turbines in the ocean saw stopping the wires as a strategy for delaying the overall construction timelines for offshore wind, intensifying both the costs and permitting headaches for all state and development stakeholders involved. Some of those fighting the wires did so based on fears that electromagnetic radiation from the transmission lines would make them sick.
The only question mark remaining is whether this means the state will try to still proceed with building any of the transmission given rising electricity demand and if these plans may be revisited at a later date. The board’s letter to PJM nods to the future, asserting that new “alternative pathways to coordinated transmission” exist because of new guidance from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. These pathways “may serve” future offshore wind projects should they be pursued, stated the letter.
Of course, anything related to offshore wind will still be conditional on the White House.
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.