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:
When there’s no way out, should we go down?

On August 20, 1910, a “battering ram of forced air” swept across the plains of western Idaho and collided with several of the hundreds of small wildfires that had been left to simmer in the Bitterroot Mountains by the five-year-old U.S. Forest Service.
By the time the wind-fanned flames reached the trees above the mining town of Wallace, Idaho, later that day, the sky was so dark from smoke that it would go on to prevent ships 500 miles away from navigating by the stars. A forest ranger named Ed Pulaski was working on the ridge above Wallace with his crew cutting fire lines when the Big Blowup bore down on them and he realized they wouldn’t be able to outrun the flames.
And so, in what is now wildland firefighting legend, Pulaski drove his men underground.
Sheltering from a forest fire in an abandoned mineshaft was far from ideal: Pulaski held the panicked men at gunpoint to keep them from dashing back out into the fire, and he and the others eventually fell unconscious from smoke inhalation. But even now, more than a century later, there are few good options available for people who become trapped during wildfires, a problem that has caused some emergency managers, rural citizens, and entrepreneurs to consider similarly desperate — and subterranean — options.
“We have standards for tornado shelters,” Alexander Maranghides, a fire protection engineer at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the author of a major ongoing assessment of the deadly 2018 Camp fire in Paradise, California, told me. “We don’t have anything right now for fire shelters.”
That’s partially because, in the United States, evacuation has long been the preferred emergency response to wildfires that pose a threat to human life. But there are times when that method fails. Evacuation notification systems can be glitchy or the alerts sent too late. Roads get cut off and people get trapped trying to get out of their neighborhoods. Residents, for whatever reason, are unable to respond quickly to an evacuation notice, or they unwisely decide to “wait and see” if the fire gets bad, and by then it’s too late. “If you can get out, you always want to get out,” Maranghides said. “But if you cannot get out, you don’t want to burn in your car. You want to have another option and among them — I’m not going to call it a ‘Plan B,’ I’m going to call it the ‘Plan A-2.’ Because we need to plan for those zero notification events.”
One promising, albeit harrowing, option has been TRAs, or “temporary refuge shelters” — typically unplanned, open areas along evacuation routes like parking lots where trapped citizens can gather and be defended by firefighters. Hardening places like schools or hospitals so they can serve as refuges of last resort is also an option, though it’s difficult and complex and, if done improperly, can actually add fuel for the fire.
Beyond that, you start getting into more outside-the-box ideas.
Tom Cova is one such thinker. He has been studying wildfire evacuations for three decades, and when I spoke to him recently to discuss the problem of traffic jams during fire evacuations, he told me that in Australia, “they have fire bunkers — private bunkers that are kind of like Cold War bunkers in the backyard, designed to shelter [people] for a few minutes if the fire’s passing.”
Unbeknownst to me at the time, Cova has even gone on record to say he’d consider one for himself if he lived on a dead-end road in California’s chaparral country. “My family and I would not get in our car and try to navigate the smoke and flames with bumper-to-bumper taillights,” he told the Los Angeles Times back in 2008. “We would just calmly open up, just like they do in Tornado Alley — open the trap door and head downstairs. Wait 20 minutes, maybe less, and come back and extinguish the embers around the home.”
Get one great climate story in your inbox every day:
Bunker-curious Americans can get easily discouraged, though. For one thing, Australia’s bushfires burn through areas fast; if you’re sheltering underground from an American forest fire, you could be in your bunker for considerably longer. For another, there are very few guidelines available for such bunkers and as of yet, no U.S. regulations; even Australia, where there are standards, generally recommends against using fire bunkers except at the highest-risk sites. Then there is the fact that there is almost no existing American fire bunker market if you wanted to buy one, anyway. “You would think more people would have wildfire shelters, but they don’t,” Ron Hubbard, the CEO of Atlas Survival Shelters, told me. “Even when there was a big fire not that many years ago and all those people died in Paradise … it has never kicked in.”
Hubbard is technically in the nuclear fallout shelter business, though he’s found a niche market selling a paired-down version of his marquee survival cellar, the GarNado, to people in wildfire-prone areas. “How many do I sell a year? It’s not a lot,” he admitted. “I thought it would have been a lot more. You’d think I’d have sold hundreds of them, but I doubt — I’d be lucky if I sell 10 in a year.” Another retailer I spoke to, Natural Disaster Survival Products, offers “inground fire safety shelters” but told me that despite some active interest, “no one has bought one yet. They are expensive and not affordable for many.”
Installing a Wildfire Bunkerwww.youtube.com
Hubbard stands by his bunker’s design, which uses a two-door system similar to what is recommended by Diamond, California’s Oak Hill Fire Safe Council, one of the few U.S. fire councils that has issued fire bunker guidance. The idea is that the double doors (and the underground chamber, insulated by piled soil) will help to minimize exposure to the radiant heat from wildfires, which can reach up to 2,000 degrees. It’s typically this superheated air, not the flames themselves, that kills you during a wildfire; one breath can singe your lungs so badly that you suffocate. “Imagine moving closer and closer to a whistling kettle, through its steam, until finally your lips wrap themselves around the spout and you suck in with deep and frequent breaths,” Matthew Desmond describes vividly and gruesomely in his book On the Fireline.
This is also why proper installation and maintenance are essential when it comes to the effectiveness of a bunker: The area around the shelter needs to be kept totally clear, like a helicopter landing pad, Hubbard stressed. “You’d be stupid to put a fire shelter underneath a giant oak tree that’s gonna burn for six hours,” he pointed out.
If there is “a weakness, an Achilles heel of the shelter,” though, “it’s the amount of air that’s inside it,” Hubbard said. Since wildfire shelters have to be airtight to protect against smoke and toxic gases, it means you only have a limited time before you begin to risk suffocation inside. You can extend the clock, theoretically, by using oxygen tanks, although this is part of the reason Australia tends to recommend against fire bunkers in all but the most extreme cases: “Getting to a tiny bunker and relying on cans of air in very unpleasant conditions and being unable to see out and monitor things would be a very unpleasant few hours,” Alan March, an urban planning professor at the University of Melbourne, once told the Los Angeles Times.
Private fire bunkers, with their limited capacities, can start to feel like they epitomize the every-man-for-himself mentality that has gotten some wildfire-prone communities into this mess in the first place. Something I’ve heard over and over again from fire experts is that planning for wildfire can’t happen only at the individual level. NIST’s Maranghides explained, for example, that “if you move your shelter away from your house, but it’s next to the neighbor’s house, and your neighbor’s house catches on fire, preventing you from using your shelter, you’re going to have a problem.” A bigger-picture view is almost always necessary, whether it’s clearing roadside vegetation along exit routes or creating pre-planned and identifiable safety zones within a neighborhood.
To that end, bunkers are far from a community-level solution — it’s impractical to have a cavernous, airtight, underground chamber by the local school filled with 1,000 oxygen tanks — and they’re not a realistic option for most homeowners in rural communities, either. Beyond requiring a large eyesore of cleared space for installation on one’s property, they’re expensive; Hubbard’s fire shelter starts at $30,000, and that’s before the oxygen tanks and masks (and the training and maintenance involved in using such equipment) are added.
The biggest concern of all when it comes to wildfire bunkers, though, might be the false sense of security they give their owners. Evacuation notice compliance is already a problem for fire managers; by some estimates, as many as three-quarters of people in wildfire communities hesitate or outright ignore evacuation notices when they are issued, even when not immediately evacuating is one of the most dangerous things you can do. But by having a shelter in one’s backyard, people may start to feel overconfident about their safety and linger longer, or decide outright to “shelter in place,” putting themselves and first responders in unnecessary danger.
As far as Hubbard is aware, no one has actually ridden out a wildfire in one of his shelters yet (people tend to install them, and then he never hears from them again). But there have been reported cases of homemade fire bunkers failing, including a retired firefighter who perished in a cement bunker on his property with his wife in Colorado’s East Troublesome fire in 2020.
Even Pulaski’s celebrated escape down the mineshaft resulted in tragedy. Though the forest ranger is remembered as a hero for his quick thinking and the 40 men he saved from the Big Blowup, the stories tend to gloss over the five men who either suffocated or drowned in the shallow water in the mine while unconscious from the smoke.
Some things just don’t change over 100 years: You will always have the greatest chance of surviving a fire by not being in one at all.
Read more about wildfires:
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 is the first to backtrack on binding emissions legislation.
A wave of climate action swept the country’s statehouses in the early 2020s, with nearly two dozen states setting targets to slash their emissions. New York was ahead of the pack and among the most ambitious, passing the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, or CLCPA, in the summer of 2019 to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
Now, however, the Empire State will distinguish itself as the first of the bunch to walk back its landmark climate law in the wake of Trump’s re-election.
The New York legislature released the text of the deal it reached with Governor Kathy Hochul to reform the state’s climate law on Tuesday. The deal includes two consequential changes: delaying a plan to regulate carbon from 2024 (it was already behind schedule) until 2028, and modifying how the state accounts for the powerful greenhouse gas methane in a way that will look like the state has accomplished deeper reductions than under the current method.
The governor has been signalling her intent to weaken the CLCPA for months, arguing that as written, it would have imposed untenable costs on New Yorkers. “Reality has been harsh,” she said during a press conference about the budget agreement in early May, before the text was released. “We cannot meet the current timelines without driving energy costs higher.”
Local environmental groups were widely critical of the deal, with New York Renews calling it a “major blow for New Yorkers and for the country” that would set “a dangerous precedent,” and Environmental Advocates NY deeming the rollbacks “bad politics and bad policy.”
Some remained hopeful that the changes would not derail the state’s progress by much, however. “There’s no way to sugarcoat it, this is a setback,” Jackson Morris, the director of state power sector, climate and energy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, told me. “At the same time, I don’t think it’s a setback that we can’t recover from.”
The CLCPA set targets to cut economy-wide emissions 40% by 2030 relative to 1990 levels, and achieve net zero emissions by 2050. It also codified an earlier plan to source 70% of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2030 and power the state entirely with zero-emissions resources by 2040.
New York didn’t make up these targets. They’re based on reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which mapped out how the world could minimize the risks of climate change in line with the Paris Agreement. After Donald Trump announced he would pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement when he first took office in 2017, a number of Democratic governors banded together to show that America was still “all in” to achieve the pact’s goals, leading to a flurry of state climate laws in the years that followed.
Hochul’s budget deal doesn’t change the renewable electricity targets or the overall trajectory of the original law. Instead, it delays the regulations that would make the economy-wide emissions reductions possible to achieve.
The CLCPA directed state agencies to promulgate rules and regulations by 2024 that would put New York on the path to achieve the 2030 and 2050 targets. In the years since the law passed, the state has been developing a cap-and-invest program that would tax carbon emissions progressively over time, and use the proceeds to fund clean energy programs throughout the state. This program was the crux of Hochul’s affordability concerns, as it would make energy more expensive for some New Yorkers in the near term.
The budget deal moves the deadline for the regulations to the end of 2028. Crucially, it also does not require that those regulations help the state achieve the 2030 emissions target. Instead, it specifies that the regulations be designed to achieve a new goal of reducing emissions 60% by 2040, in addition to the original net zero by 2050 target.
Morris, of the NRDC, was quick to note that the deal does not get rid of the 2030 target. While there will be no state programs aimed at achieving it, it still provides a statutory foundation that agencies such as the Department of Environmental Conservation can point to as a reason to reject fossil fuel project permits, for example, he said. Meanwhile, Morris is optimistic that the new 2028 deadline and 2040 target can keep the state on track.
“We obviously prefer that none of this is happening,” he said. “But because it’s happening, I think that’s one aspect of this deal that we see as providing some ground to stand on.”
One of the aspects of the CLCPA that made it more ambitious than other state climate laws was the way it required New York to account for methane. The budget deal will eliminate this edge.
There were two key components to New York’s unique methane rules. The first was that they forced the state to take responsibility for methane emissions that occurred outside its borders that were nevertheless tied to its natural gas use. For instance, a major source of methane emissions is leakage from the infrastructure used to drill, process, and transport natural gas. New York banned fracking in 2014, and the state gets most of its natural gas via pipeline from Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Under Hochul’s changes, the state can take these “imported” emissions off its books.
The second is a bit more convoluted and has to do with how methane behaves in the atmosphere. When governments or companies set emissions targets, they typically convert all greenhouse gases into “carbon dioxide equivalents” so that they can set one round number goal for all emissions, like New York’s 60% reduction by 2040. There’s no single way to do this, since unlike carbon dioxide, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries, methane breaks down quickly. Over 20 years, one metric ton of methane has a similar effect to about 80 metric tons of carbon, but over 100 years, it’s more akin to 25 metric tons of carbon. New York uses the 20-year effect as its conversion factor, but under the budget deal, it will switch to the 100-year method. That will make its methane emissions suddenly appear much lower, and thus make the state look further along in fighting climate change without actually changing anything about its strategy.
This will ease the pressure on the state to electrify buildings, clean up landfills, and take other difficult steps to cut methane emissions. It will also, however, align New York’s methane math with that of most U.S. states and much of the rest of the world.
The national climate advocacy group Evergreen Action, which focuses on state policy, is less concerned about the changes to the climate law and more concerned about how they happened. Justin Balik, the nonprofit’s vice president for states, told me that Hochul never brought her concerns to environmental stakeholders or asked for policy proposals for how to accelerate clean energy while lowering costs.
“We need to see more urgency from the governor and the legislature to actually do the things that will result in emissions reductions and cutting costs for people,” Balik told me, “and less fretting about the targets that are written into law.”
Balik argued that the changes will do nothing to address the factors that are increasing energy rates. He cited the state’s dependence on natural gas as a key driver, as natural gas prices can fluctuate dramatically due to geopolitics and supply and demand. If anything, he said, delaying the cap-and-invest regulations will delay clean energy deployment and exacerbate affordability by deferring the revenue the state would have collected to and used to fund emissions-cutting programs and rate relief.
The budget deal attempts to make up for the shortfall with a $1 billion allocation to the state’s Sustainable Future Fund, which will support state programs to cut emissions from buildings and roads with heat pumps, thermal energy networks, electric school buses, and fast-charging stations.
Evergreen, NRDC, and other groups now have their sights set on the 2028 regulations.
“If we can move forward quickly with a robust process to stand up that cap-and-invest construct in New York State, and get it cutting pollution and generating billions of dollars in revenue for reinvestment in communities, that's going to be a huge breakthrough for the state of New York,” Morris said.
On a California chem leak, solar manufacturing, and BHP’s climate retreat
Current conditions: Unprecedented May heat is roasting Western Europe, with temperatures shattering records in at least 20 French towns and soaring to 95 degrees Fahrenheit in London • Bougainville, the autonomous and ethnically distinct region of Papua New Guinea that’s expected to vote for independence next year to become the world’s newest nation, is enduring a week of lightning storms and heavy rain • The Tajik city of Khorog, a provincial capital located in a canyon near the Afghan border, is bracing for snow.
The price per barrel of crude fell nearly 7% on Monday as Iranian negotiators arrived in Qatar for peace talks the same day two tankers carrying liquified natural gas passed through the Strait of Hormuz. The vessels shipping LNG from Qatar to China and Pakistan, respectively, successfully navigated the waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf on Monday. The signal of a loosening blockade comes two days after another tanker taking crude to China crossed the strait. While President Donald Trump said over the weekend that an agreement in principle to halt fighting with Tehran could come soon, The Wall Street Journal reported that it would take far longer to ease the bottlenecks created by the conflict. Despite reports of new U.S. strikes in Iran Monday night, prices fell another 4% in early trading Tuesday.
U.S. producers, meanwhile, are stepping up to fill the gap in oil and gas supply. On Saturday, the Financial Times reported that companies such as Diamondback, America’s third-largest producer in the Permian Basin, and shale driller Continental Resources were expanding drilling by more than 40% as a result of the war. U.S. companies have added at least 18 rigs since the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign. Increased production isn’t just happening at home, either. Exxon Mobil just began drilling a new offshore well near its new operations in Guyana, according to Upstream. Over at the British oil giant BP, however, this morning brought upheaval as the board of directors ousted its chairman after just six months.

California officials ordered as many as 50,000 Orange County residents to evacuate Sunday after a crack formed in a tank at an industrial facility holding 7,000 gallons of a highly flammable toxic chemical. The accident at the suburban Los Angeles plant owned by the British fighter jet supplier GKN Aerospace began on Thursday, when firefighters in Garden Grove, California, found that a tank containing methyl methacrylate, a feedstock used to make plastic, had started bulging with pressure and releasing gas as it overheated. By Saturday, a fissure had formed in the tank — one of three on site containing the chemical — in what NPR called “good news,” since the opening eased pressure, making an explosion less likely. So far, no one has been injured. “Safety at our facilities is paramount,” a GKN spokesperson told the Los Angeles Times. “We follow all standard safety protocols and processes and are regularly audited by numerous state and federal agencies.” But authorities as far east as Arizona were bracing for the possibility of an explosion. In an update posted on X Monday morning, Orange County’s interim fire chief announced that the threat of what’s called a “boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion,” or BLEVE (pronounced blevvy), “is now off the table,” adding that “that threat has been eliminated.”
While the accident will no doubt draw scrutiny to GKN’s record at the facility, known for producing parts for the Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jet, the episode is unlikely to draw the same fervid response as the fire at California’s Moss Landing battery plant last January. That incident set off what Heatmap’s Jael Holzman pegged as nationwide backlash to batteries. So far, thankfully, cooler heads have prevailed in resisting the urge to demand a shutdown of all production of aircraft components as a result of an accident.
The Trump administration’s yet-undefined rules for determining a key factor in solar projects’ eligibility for outgoing federal tax credits are bifurcating the U.S. market. The administration has yet to spell out in detail how companies should determine what percentage of their project inputs come from a so-called foreign entity of concern. While the list of FEOCs includes Russia, Iran, and North Korea, the main sticking point for developers is China, which dominates the global renewables supply chain. On one side are developers willing to roll the dice on imported equipment. On the other are companies avoiding the risk by buying panels either made in America, or in allied countries. To make navigating the process easier, the SEMA Coalition — an industry group representing U.S. solar manufacturers that support restrictions on cheap Chinese imports — put out a new report that includes a check list to determine whether a panel producer is likely to qualify for federal tax incentives or not. The paper, which was shared exclusively with me for this newsletter, was “informed by tax opinions, legal counsel who advise the SEMA Coalition’s members, as well as public documents.” The findings show that “some of these rules are ambiguous, while others are clear but challenging to comply with in practice.”
As I told you last week, American solar manufacturing is finally seeing something of a boom. Nearly 30 new utility-scale solar factories began production last year, providing more than enough capacity to meet U.S. demand.
Sign up to receive Heatmap AM in your inbox every morning:
Amid a sweltering London heat wave in 2019, BHP laid out plans for the “biggest global mobilization since World War II” in the name of cutting back on fossil fuel use and fighting a climate that threat that “could be existential,” the world’s largest mining company’s then-CEO Andrew Mackenzie said at the time. Today, however, the giant is reversing course, quietly shelving billions of dollars in projects designed to cut emissions from its mining operations. An internal memo from last year leaked to Australia’s ABC News and The Guardian shows that the need for renewables at BHP’s iron-ore facility in Pilbara had “diminished,” and that a plan to hit net-zero by 2050 had a “low probability of success.”
The West Coast’s continental shelf drops off far more steeply into the Pacific than America’s East Coast slides into the Atlantic, making siting offshore wind turbines tricky off California’s shores. Nevertheless, a developer was trying to build the first floating offshore turbines in the U.S. — at least until the Trump administration struck a dubious deal to pay the company to quit. That agreement is drawing blowback from California regulators, as I told you earlier this month. But the Golden State isn’t abandoning its goals. On Monday, offshoreWIND.biz reported that the California Energy Commission had reaffirmed its target of 25 gigawatts of offshore turbine capacity by 2045. “At a time of global energy volatility, offshore wind is not just a climate strategy. It is part of a national security strategy,” Noel Hacegaba, chief executive at the Port of Long Beach, said in a statement. “The grid we built for the last century cannot carry us through the next. This is renewable energy’s moment.”
The market for offshore wind looks even brighter outside the U.S. Last week, the Danish Energy Agency received bids for two different offshore development areas totaling a combined 1.8 gigawatts of turbines, according to Renewables Now. In an interview with Wind Power Monthly, the chief executive of the automaker Volvo lauded Sweden’s offshore wind farms for giving manufacturers like his a “competitive edge.”
Canadians can now cruise around the 10,000-year-old Columbia Icefield in a vehicle whose pollution isn’t adding to polar melting. On Monday, InsideEVs reported that the truck maker Pursuit had retrofitted one of its old diesel ice explorers to go electric with a huge, 528-kilowatt-hour battery. That’s big enough for about 30 trips up and down the Rocky Mountain icefield. The renovation involved keeping the old cabin but replacing the chassis and driveline with battery-propelled equipment. It is the world’s first all-electric ice explorer.
Rob sits down with the Josh Parker, head of sustainability at America’s world-leading chip designer.
America’s tech companies are transforming the electricity system — building entirely new fleets of new solar panels, batteries, and gas turbines — in order to power what are essentially warehouses filled with cutting-edge chips.
Almost all of those chips are made by Nvidia. On this week’s episode of Shift Key, Rob is joined by Josh Parker, Nvidia’s head of sustainability. They discuss the climate and electricity impacts of artificial intelligence, why Josh is incredibly bullish on AI’s ability to cut carbon emissions and whether it has done so so far, and the company's work with clean energy and fossil fuel companies.
Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap News.
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 their conversation:
Robinson Meyer: So Heatmap has been tracking what, to us, has been a very sudden and shocking rise of local pushback against AI data centers. And of course, this has become a larger meme over the past few months, as it’s gotten more attention. For instance, we think about 50 AI data centers or data centers broadly were canceled last year after facing local pushback. And we think more than 50 have already been canceled this year.
Are you seeing that at all at Nvidia? I mean, it doesn’t look — your quarterly results came out yesterday and they were, they absolutely blew out expectations. And so evidently it’s not affecting demand yet. But do you hear it from customers? Is this affecting Nvidia’s business at all? And how do you think about it as a risk going forward?
Josh Parker: So I’m aware of the sentiment, the paranoia around AI, mostly on a personal level because I see it on social media like other people do, as well. I’m not aware of any direct impact on our sales, so I can’t comment on that. But what I will say is, I do think it’s particularly tragic, because this technology has the potential to be the most beneficial, both for environmental goals and for social goals — so things like education and health care, and kind of across-the-board social issues benefit from AI, as well. And the concerns about AI, a lot of them are based on either erroneous data or old data. And I worry that some people don’t fully understand the net impacts, the positive as well as the negative of AI.
Plus, we have the uphill battle of, it’s really hard if the data center is being built a few miles down the road, to tie that data center — which, they don’t always look beautiful and things like that — to the benefits that the whole world is going to get from AI. So if — obviously not promising this — but AI could unlock cancer cures or cures to other diseases, and we’re seeing trends in the direction of cures and treatments and drug discovery and so forth. But it’s really hard for us as humans to draw a line between the infrastructure that we see down the street, and especially the speculative, the moonshot benefits. But even the more fundamental ones, like the benefits and productivity that we’re seeing in potential for wage growth and education and so forth, even though it’s hard for us to draw the line between the infrastructure.
So it’s understandable, but I do think it’s tragic. And I think it’s our responsibility in the tech industry to help people see the bigger picture and to address people’s concerns head on about environmental impacts and social impacts. Because the data really does demonstrate that, by and large, these data centers are pro-sustainability. They don’t have the impacts that most people are concerned about, and they’re manageable. And most data center operators are trying to operate them in a sustainable way.
You can find a full transcript of the episode here.
Mentioned:
Previously on Shift Key: Data Centers Are Creating a New Kind of Battery Monster
Previously on Shift Key: A Skeptic’s Take on AI and Energy Growth
From Heatmap: Exclusive: Local Opposition to Data Centers Explodes in 2026
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.