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:
Sadly, the new Apple TV+ show is terrible.

In the future, we can speak to whales, and they sound like Meryl Streep.
This is the vision of Scott Z. Burns, a filmmaker frequently renowned for his prescience: He produced An Inconvenient Truth in 2006 and wrote the screenplay for Contagion, the 2011 Stephen Soderberg film that anticipated the COVID-19 pandemic down to “social distancing” and Dr. Sanjay Gupta discussing preventative measures on TV. Burns’ latest project, Extrapolations, aims to do the same narratively as Contagion, but for climate change, following our trajectory to its most terrifying conclusions.
This is a worthy pursuit! There’s no denying that the climate crisis is also a crisis of storytelling, both on a political level — see: the fossil fuel industry’s decades-long attempt to question the science — and on a cultural one. We need better climate stories — ones that go beyond preaching to already-convinced audiences, imagine complex and hopeful futures, dispense with cliches about humanity as a blight, center on characters outside the Global North, and forgo unhelpful platitudes about the future being “up to us!”
But Extrapolations is not that.
What Extrapolations is: An eight-episode anthology that spans from 2037 to 2070 (the first three episodes, “2037,” “2046,” and “2047,” premiere on Friday on Apple TV+ and are the focus of this review). The show stars what feels like every working A-lister, and it clearly cost roughly a gazillion dollars to make. It is also ridiculous (see: Meryl Streep voicing a whale) and terrible (see: Meryl Streep voicing a whale).
After a scene-setting pilot that begins with a “climate change is bad” montage featuring footage of smokestacks, landfills, and hurricanes — visual cliches even in the Obama era — the subsequent episodes of Extrapolations each focus on a different measurement of our destruction: animal extinctions, sea level rise, heat deaths, the financial cost of climate change, and population growth. Tying the stories together is the ubiquitous presence of billionaire tech founder Nick Bilton (no, not that one), the show’s stand-in for techno-optimists like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. He’s played by Kit Harington, and he reads stock exchange numbers projected onto his lap pool because that’s what rich people do.
Other recurring characters include a rabbi named Marshall (Daveed Diggs), who works in the third episode to save his Miami synagogue from flooding and has an inexplicable dream sequence that seems to exist just so he can dance and sing, and Rebecca (Sienna Miller), who specializes in conversing with last-of-their-kind animals, like the philosophizing humpback whale that speaks in the voice of her dead mother (Streep). Alas, a ghoulishly evil Matthew Rhys doesn’t make it past the first episode because he gets mauled to death by a walrus. Nature strikes back!
If that all seems, well, cringe, it’s not even the worst of it. This is a show where every dinner conversation revolves around climate change, where bad guys predictively cackle “we’ll be dead!” when discussing how their short-term gains will doom the future of the planet, and where random strangers pop up out of the woodwork to inform you that the blockchain is making the sea levels rise. Rarely do characters seem like anything other than mouthpieces for ideas. In the first episode, set in July 2037, someone mentions the 2018 self-immolation of climate activist David Buckel, only to offer the superficial analysis that “it showed that the world is in pain and needs change.” In another scene, Rhys’ character shouts, with bizarre specificity, about a 2019 speech by then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, evidently just to prove the show’s reference to U.S.-Chinese tensions in the Arctic has real-world antecedents.
This kind of overreliance on exposition is a tic of Burns’ that actually worked fine in Contagion — back in 2011, the vocabulary and experience of a pandemic were foreign to most viewers, and things like R0 and herd immunity were fascinating to hear explained. That isn’t the case for the basics of climate change anymore. A majority of Americans have believed in human-caused global warming since at least 2001, and that number has only grown in the 20-plus years since — not to mention, anyone who still need convincing is probably not watching Extrapolations in the first place.
Instead, the show feels at times like a vehicle for celebrity activism, a way to phone in an “important” and “urgent” performance for accolades. That sense is only compounded by the fact that most of Extrapolations’ episodes focus on the global well-off and are set in major cities like London, Miami, and Tel Aviv. Charitably, these locations were picked so the show can be relatable to its likeliest audiences; in actuality, it is out-of-touch, centering more on inconveniences to the world’s wealthy than those who will actually bear the worst of the brunt. The whale episode, set in Colombia, features almost no actual Colombian characters; an Indigenous character in the pilot episode who exists just to comfort Rebecca, played by actress Cara Gee, doesn't even get a name.
There is certainly little enjoyable entertainment value here; the messaging is the entire point. But as the show’s title suggests, Extrapolations lacks the ability to imagine anything other than a circa-2016 fatalist projection of a coming calamity. This results in the narrative propulsion being hand-wringing doom and gloom, even if the truth is that there is actually much promise ahead of us. That doesn’t mean the hard work is done or that there aren’t more minds to change, but it does mean catastrophizing is losing its usefulness as the central force of climate narratives; in the worst cases, it’s actively detrimental. Extrapolations isn’t entirely devoid of optimism (trials for corporate ecocide are also a plot point), but as climate scientist Michael Mann has previously written, while there is always a danger of understating climate change, “there is also a danger in overstating the science in a way that presents the problem as unsolvable, and feeds a sense of doom, inevitability, and hopelessness.”
Alarmism is an easy, familiar story. But there are better ones out there. They’re just still waiting to be told.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Kansas City, Missouri – Data centers are so toxic that politicians are using them as boogeymen in totally unrelated policy discussions.
2. Ingham County, Michigan – We have our first major anti-data center candidate in a Democratic congressional primary.
3. Nueces County, Texas - The Longhorn State is on a bull run towards data center hostility.
4. Pulaski County, Arkansas - We have yet another municipal employee losing their job over helping a data center.
5. Marathon County, Wisconsin - Yet again rural residents are poised to lose against state permitting primacy laws benefiting renewable energy.
This week’s conversation is with Grant Gutierrez, head of community impacts at carbon management company Carbon Direct. This week Carbon Direct published a white paper Gutierrez authored on opposition around data centers he’s studied. His research reinforces much of what Heatmap Pro has uncovered, but I was particularly intrigued by a topline finding – that transparency is the most common thread in the 46 data center fights he looked into. Was he seeing what I’ve been seeing? So I asked him to hop onto a Zoom call and let me know his thoughts.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
If you were to explain the findings in your white paper to someone at a bar… how would you put it?
What I would say is that we were really interested in the kinds of concerns communities were articulating as they were opposing or resisting data center development in the U.S. To answer and explore those questions, we developed our own data center cancellation tracker where we looked for cases where we could find a strong correlation between cancelation or withdrawal status and opposition. Then we did high-level analyses of the demographics surrounding those data centers, using standard best practices from environmental justice methodologies and pulling sociodemographic and environmental burden characters from EPA’s EJScreen tool. We were mostly looking at public records. Press materials. City council meeting minutes. Things you wouldn’t have to dig too hard to find.
The kinds of communities we saw successfully resisting data centers tracked across the demographic middle of the United States – slightly more middle income, slightly more white than a majority of the American community, but mostly what you’d consider the average American community.
What is the intended audience of this paper and what are you hoping to communicate?
I think it’s important for data center developers and the capital behind them is that they need to move their engagement to early stage, responsible design. A second audience is regulators, city councils, and local zoning commissions about how to engage with developers and advocate for the right disclosure requirements from industry.
The key topline message is that developers who treat community engagement as a permitting formality instead of a critical early stage input are burdening communities, breaking trust. This is resulting in reputational risk for developers, stranded assets, losing capital – and the loss of future opportunities as developers want to build 21st century infrastructure.
Walk me through what you saw evaluating these projects. What’s the development pattern that leads to such opposition?
We saw five key themes. Some of them you might expect – concerns around natural resources, water impacts, electricity rates, land. The rural character came up quite consistently. And then there was a lack of transparency through the use of NDAs.
The NDA example I was surprised to see was the most consistent in all of our case studies. Communities are largely concerned with the process that unfolds as much as the impacts. That’s a very important signal that transcends political lines. Communities want to be heard, involved in the process. They want large infrastructural development with impacts to listen to their concerns. When those decisions are made behind NDAs or with no transparency or equitable engagement, communities quickly mobilize and organize at a hyperlocal level and are successful in opposing these data centers.
I know there are a number of companies out there – without naming names – that are putting responsible development principles forward. The ones we advocate for across our business, whether we’re working in carbon removal or other things. I see companies leading and saying, if we’re involved in this infrastructure, we are not going to sign an NDA. Those who are pushing forward renewable energy commitments, community benefit agreements, and local public-private partnerships are leading with transparency and equity in their engagements.
How any of this carries in the broader industry is yet to be seen.
In your report you point to various ways opposition can crop up to a project. One of those ways was due to the presence of co-located gas – you note that gas power at a data center engendered environmental opponents, which then strengthened those fighting a data center. Can you elaborate on whether you think a new gas power presence is making it harder to get a data center built?
The case you’re pointing to, that’s the Ballico case where on top of the data center there was a 3,500 megawatt co-located gas plant. That quickly led to major community concerns and a partnership with the Southern Environmental Law Center, which became the legal anchor for thinking through the opposition here and commissioned the technical evidence, and provided the legal [support] there.
You see a broad coalition coalesce around not only the data center concern but the climate concerns that arise. I wouldn’t be surprised if we saw a repeated concern around the expansion of fossil energy and combustion sources going hand in hand with community opposition and organizing on data centers. But that remains to be seen.
What in your research have you seen when you compare opposition to data centers and campaigns against, let’s say, fossil fuels? Or mining? Or renewables?
What I think about with data centers is they’re the highways of the 21st century. As we know through the highway projects in the U.S., there were major disproportionate impacts on communities of color. I think there’s potential for data centers if they follow that playbook to have that same impact.
When it comes to comparing these, that’s something I have not done yet. But I think there’s a few things happening. I think the scale and scope of the buildout is taking the American public by surprise. Articulation around impacts to natural resources and electricity prices in a heightened political climate and a difficult economy. It’s also the existential problem AI introduces, which is the role AI plays in society. This is unique compared to other kinds of extraction, which feed technologies already at play.
How do you feel about the fact that so many of us in energy, environment and climate are now talking about data centers all the time?
Never in my career, working in carbon removal and nature based solutions, I never thought data centers would be a major focus in my career as an environmental justice advocate and social scientist.
Data centers are probably emerging to be one of the biggest environmental justice problems of our time so while it’s not something I planned to work on, I am emboldened to see the response from the nonprofit community and others trying to wrap their heads around this. What is the right kind of information? What does the public need to know? How do we advocate for our communities and build the world we would like to build?
While data centers are moving fast, I’m encouraged to see communities organizing and advocating for their own needs as well. Over the next few years, the story will tell itself.
Last question – what was the last song you listened to?
DtMF by Bad Bunny.
Plus, a look into the future of solar and wind tax credits.
Heatmap AM and Daily will be off tomorrow for the July 4 holiday, but we’ll see you back here on Monday.
We’re staring down the barrel of a holiday weekend here in the United States, so I’ll keep it quick. Two things:
July 4 will mark the formal end of the solar and wind tax credits in the United States. These incentives — which date back in some form to 1978 — were repealed by President Trump’s tax cuts and spending law last year. In order to qualify for the last of these subsidies, solar and wind projects must “commence construction” by Saturday and be ready to generate power by the end of 2027.
Although the policies haven’t yet expired, there’s already chatter about bringing them back. Some Democrats want to revive the incentives should they win back Congress and the White House in two or six years. But 2029 or 2032 will likely look different than the earlier years of this decade, when the Inflation Reduction Act was written and passed: Power prices are higher now, the grid more congested, and the federal budget more constrained. So today, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo previews one of the next big questions in climate policy: Should Democrats try to bring back the solar and wind tax credits?
Her story is great, and one disconnect in particular stuck out to me. Among the climate and clean energy wonks Emily interviewed, “everyone” agreed that “in the near term, the most important thing Congress could do to help clean energy is break down some of the non-cost barriers to development through permitting reform.” Permitting reform, after all, has no fiscal cost and could be achieved during this Congress.
But Democratic lawmakers themselves sound far less sure about its importance. “I don’t think Democrats can engage in a serious way with Republicans on permitting reform,” Representative Jared Huffman, the ranking member on the House Natural Resources Committee, tells her. Read the rest of Emily’s story for more on how lawmakers are thinking about this question, which will only get more important as we get closer to ‘28.
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
We’ve begun to get Q2 sales data for global automakers — and there’s actually decent news for electric vehicles. Some highlights:
Enjoy your holiday weekend, and remember: We’re now in Q3. Thanks, as always, for reading.