Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

The long, fun list of things we could do with unlimited clean energy

News Feed
Wednesday, November 26, 2025

What we could do with cleaner energy is more than you can imagine. | Lucy Jones for Vox; Getty Images What could you do with energy that’s cheap, clean, and near unlimited? You could live in a home built to your precise needs that stays cozy and cool all year long. You could swim in a heated pool filled with ultra-pure recycled water. You could grill a steak grown in a factory, from cell on up, marbled, textured, and flavored to perfection. You could visit a nature preserve on land reclaimed from mines and farms, teeming with once-endangered animal life. You could get whisked comfortably and quietly anywhere by robots, whether down the street or the other side of the world. You could plan every weekend outing for the next month, counting on reliable, far-reaching weather forecasts. And all of your garbage would break down into its constituent elements, destined to be reassembled into new shoes, cars, and refrigerators. Key Takeaways Harnessing energy has been a key driver of increasing prosperity — life expectancy, wealth, productivity. But availability, cost, and environmental impacts have long been major constraints on the energy we can use. Now, a new generation of clean energy is providing vastly more power and rapidly scaling up. With ample cheap power, we can solve some of our most pressing problems and begin to think of new applications. Abundant clean energy can enable vastly more food, water, travel, and industry while undoing greenhouse gas emissions. However, more energy cannot simply get around major social concerns like inequity, job losses, and regulatory hurdles. This is all speculation, but the pace of improvement in clean energy and the scale of its deployment put these ideas within the realm of possibility. Energy shapes the limits of what a society can build, sustain, and imagine, and the more of it we have at our disposal, the further we can push those boundaries. What we would decide to do with vastly more energy has huge implications for our politics, our economy, our environment, and our prosperity.  This year, the world is poised to spend $2.2 trillion on clean energy — power from the wind, the sun, the water, and splitting atoms. It also includes upgrades to the power grid, new forms of energy storage, and increased efficiency.  This investment has mostly been trumpeted as a way to help limit climate change. Humanity’s collective deployment of clean energy and increasing efficiency so far has already helped take some of the worst-case scenarios off the table.   However, climate change is a low political priority now. A more compelling case for clean energy is that it’s often the best way to get cheap energy, and to get a lot of it. The deployment of wind and solar power around the world continues to defy expectations, while the growth trajectory of energy storage is following close behind. This suite of technologies is taking off around the world — not because of a carbon tax or even environmental concerns, but because clean energy is simply better at meeting the needs of a moment when energy appetites are growing.  Suppose we alter the framing and approach solving climate change not as a task merely of curbing emissions, but of increasing access and lowering costs of better ways to power the world even further. It’s an approach that leads with prosperity and quality of life, while creating a more stable climate in the process.  If we make it a priority to get more clean energy, that raises the interesting — and fun — question of what we should do with it. After all, we’re not collecting energy for the sake of energy but to do stuff.  Cheap, clean, plentiful energy doesn’t just help people save money on their power bills; it unlocks new industries, makes thorny political problems moot, and helps repair the planet. These use cases are important motivations for why the transition to clean energy needs to happen and how it can bring about a better world for all of us. It’s why we’re doing this at all.  What abundant clean energy can unlock We can exchange heat and electrons for just about anything on Earth. How much energy a person uses is an effective proxy for how well off they are — how much food they can eat, how comfortable they are at home, how educated they are. We can see this play out in the cost and quality of lighting, which, in the UK alone, dropped 99.9 percent since 1700, tracing how economies grew as people shifted from campfires, to kerosene lamps, to LED bulbs, and beyond.  Energy by the numbers The global energy landscape is changing rapidly. Fossil fuels are still the dominant ways we heat, power, and get around the world, but renewable energy capacity is rocketing upward.  Total global energy consumption is about 186,000 terawatt-hours per year, or about 58 times the total output of every nuclear power plant on Earth right now. The top three sources of energy are oil, coal, and natural gas, meeting 76 percent of the world’s energy needs. The world emitted a record 53.4 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2024. Energy consumption accounted for 37.8 gigatonnes of CO2, about 70 percent of the total.   Burning fossil fuels for energy accounts for 75.7 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, followed by 11.7 percent from agriculture, 6.5 percent from industry, 3.4 percent from waste, and 2.7 percent from changes in land use. About 21 percent of the world’s energy consumption goes toward producing electricity. Wind, solar, and hydropower accounted for 92 percent of new electricity capacity added worldwide in 2024. The world will need anywhere from double to triple the amount of electricity by 2050, depending on the economic growth trajectory. “Energy is prosperity,” said Eric Toone, chief technology officer at Breakthrough Energy, a high-tech clean energy funding firm founded by Bill Gates in 2015. “Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy is the capacity to build things, to make things, to move things.” The potential of near-unlimited energy has been tantalizing researchers for decades, since the last big energy revolution, the dawn of the nuclear age.  “It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age,” said Lewis Strauss, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, in 1954. “This is the forecast for an age of peace.” Nuclear power didn’t make this dream come true. It did provide huge amounts of electricity, but its construction and operating costs rose as other energy sources got cheaper. Meanwhile, environmental activists and some policymakers shifted their energy strategy to conservation rather than expanding the pool of power. Yet, the prospect of producing energy in such vast quantities that its cost is a minor concern is still one that lures scientists, engineers, and investors. And the recent technology trends do give some observers hope that this dream is within reach. “Long-term, I think there’s good reason to think that at least lots of places in the world will have much less expensive and more stable energy, especially once they’ve made the investment in the next generation infrastructure,” said Daniel Vermeer, a researcher at Duke University studying the future of energy. “And I think that’s going to happen in a lot of places.” How much more energy? “I think we’re looking at double the electricity production,” Vermeer said. So, in the best tradition of economic thought experiments, let’s assume a can opener. What do we open first?  Transform our food system If we vastly increase our energy supply from current levels, food and water are where we can get the most bang for the British Thermal Unit (BTU). “It’s so fundamental to human prosperity,” Vermeer said. “It’s also where people will see benefits the fastest.” First, we can get a lot more out of our existing farms We already spend a huge amount of our energy to produce food, and agriculture accounts for one-third of humanity’s greenhouse gas output. The fertilizer used to grow crops alone accounts for 5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than aviation and shipping combined — and most fertilizers rely on natural gas as a feedstock. If we had the power and materials to produce more zero-emissions fertilizer, farmers could extract greater yields from the same amount of land. And decarbonizing the supply chain with electric tractors and trucks to bring food to markets would further increase efficiency. Getting the most out of our existing farms will be essential to feeding the world’s growing population. Otherwise, expanding farms will continue to devour forests and wildlands.   Your tastiest fruit will grow closer to you The next generation of farming techniques could create similar yields on even smaller plots of land, allowing food to be produced year round, nearer to major population centers or even within them. One approach is vertical farming, where crops are grown vertically in controlled indoor environments instead of horizontally across fields. Many vertical farming techniques are already being used today. But with more cheap energy to run pumps, lights, and fans, we can scale this up further.  We can sip from the seas Water is essential to all life as we know it, and we haven’t been doing a great job of judiciously using it. In recent years, some major cities have been teetering on the brink of running out of water. And with average temperatures rising, many regions are poised to see more severe droughts.  However, two-thirds of the world is covered in water, and widespread desalination would allow the world to tap into that vast, currently undrinkable supply. The main techniques for desalination are distillation and reverse osmosis, and right now, both require a lot of energy. But, if there’s a lot of cheap power on tap, then desalination could be a primary source of water for some communities, allowing freshwater rivers and aquifers to recharge. It would also resolve many of the political conflicts around water.  Our meals can give us perfect nourishment Unlimited energy could allow us to bioengineer our food sources from individual nutrients to maximize nourishment. Precision fermentation, or electro-food, is an emerging technology that uses specially designed microorganisms like yeast or bacteria to make proteins, fats, or nutrients like those found in animal products. Instead of raising cows or chickens, you could “brew” milk, eggs, or meat ingredients in fermentation tanks — just like the process of making beer. Cheap, clean electricity can power these breweries as they use captured carbon and hydrogen as ingredients. Companies are already selling animal-free dairy and egg proteins made this way. As renewable power becomes abundant, precision fermentation could scale up, feeding growing populations with a fraction of the land, water, and emissions of traditional agriculture Imagine grilling the perfect burger Now, let’s take precision fermentation even further. Cultivating cells into whole steaks is starting to become possible, but it’s an expensive and involved process. If this could truly get off the ground, it would have huge knock-on benefits for the environment. Raising livestock right now draws a huge toll in terms of land use, energy and water consumption, and waste production, not to mention the immense ethical problems embedded in raising and killing animals for food. If we can turn energy into meat that replaces conventional livestock, that would solve so many environmental issues all at once. But, convincing people to eat it remains a barrier. Already, there are seven states that have banned lab-grown meat. “Laboratory agriculture and producing things without animals is possible from a technical perspective, but we have to get a lot more sophisticated about how people make those decisions,” Toone said.  Can AI play a positive role here? Whether or not you’re bullish on AI, it’s clear that more of our jobs and lives hinge on access to computing power and storage. Right now, data centers are a big part of the story of growing electricity demand, and speculation about their future energy needs is already starting to drive up electricity prices for ordinary people.  But with fewer energy constraints, more computing tools could become available to more people, and these resources can then be used to resolve some of our biggest energy and environmental challenges. It may also be a necessary investment for the US to retain a competitive edge. “I, for one, have become completely convinced that it’s necessary to win at AI for national security,” said Neil Chatterjee, a former commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “How do we generate the power to win the AI race while keeping electricity affordable and not backsliding? There’s no simple solution, but I’m confident we can get there.” How can we mitigate their worst effects?  Utilities can require tech firms to pay a deposit to for their future power needs so they don’t over-inflate their needs. Data centers can also face mandates to bring their own generation and energy storage, which could also support the broader grid.  Operators of these facilities can shift energy-intensive tasks to low-demand periods, though this flexibility may be limited. Their size incentivizes efficient electricity use, and computing will likely grow more energy-efficient over time as the technology improves.  AI can further accelerate the clean-energy transition by streamlining permitting applications for wind and solar projects, improving materials design, enhancing weather forecasting, and strengthening models of energy demand. More energy will help us clean up our mess With food and water sorted, we can then start to chip away at the root cause of climate change: the rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that are heating up the planet. Halting climate change thus means stopping these emissions entirely. And in the increasingly likely scenario where we overshoot our goal of limiting global average temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, it also means deliberately pulling carbon back out from the environment. It’s not enough to simply produce more energy; the world needs negative greenhouse gas emissions. We can begin to undo climate change on a planetary scale Humanity currently spews more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. So, to move the needle, we need to think about carbon management solutions that can work on this scale.  There are a few ways to do this. One is capturing carbon dioxide at the source. At conventional coal and natural gas-fired power plants, carbon capture systems currently impose a large parasitic load, around a quarter of the generator’s power output. That makes it hard to build a business case for carbon capture at fossil fuel power plants. But other industrial processes, like steel production, also emit carbon dioxide, and point-source capture can decarbonize this and other processes that don’t currently have an easy zero-emissions alternative.  We can also capture carbon dioxide straight from the air. There are already companies developing machines that can filter carbon from the atmosphere. Some businesses are also working on ways to pull carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater. The challenge is that it requires a lot of energy to move the amount of air and water needed to draw out significant amounts of carbon, which in turn raises the cost.  “Two things have to happen: One is that we have to continue to work to bring down the cost of air capture,” Toone said. Currently, it costs around $500 per ton to pull carbon dioxide out of the air. The goal is to get it down to $100 per ton or less. “Then societies have to become affluent enough that they’re willing to do it and recognize the dangers caused by climate change,” Toone added. Another approach is enhanced weathering, which speeds up natural processes where rocks like limestone react with carbon dioxide in rainwater, forming a chemical bond that permanently locks it away. If you don’t lock away carbon dioxide, you can put it to work. It’s an important raw ingredient for chemicals and materials. You can use it to make fuels reconstituted from the air, polymers, enzymes, concrete, as well as make your drinks bubbly. This has the potential to become a trillion-dollar industry. All of our waste could be renewed Waste is a mounting problem, and many synthetic materials like plastics have no natural mechanisms that break them down, making them a problem that can last for generations. Recycling plastic materials has largely failed to live up to the promise, and the bulk of plastic waste ends up in landfills. To meaningfully reuse and reconstitute polymers, the process needs to be competitive with producing virgin materials, which means the energy you use for recycling has to be dirt cheap. When we get there, we may be able to close the loop, making, unmaking, and remaking everything we need with minimal extraction from the Earth.  We can travel the world and only leave behind a tiny footprint The next place to look is transportation. Cheap fossil fuels have shrunk the world, allowing people to cross continents and oceans in hours rather than months. How we get around is now the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Four-wheeled vehicles already have a glide path to zero emissions with electrification. The tougher challenges are going to be electrifying or decarbonizing bigger vehicles like ships and airplanes.  Cleanly cruise the high seas Container ships are the gargantuan worker ants of the global economy, transporting just about every tangible good around the world. Right now, most container ships burn some of the cheapest and dirtiest fuels imaginable, but with abundant clean energy, they could draw on cleaner sources of power. These ships may be too big to run on batteries, but with much cheaper, clean electricity, shipping companies can generate hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, or synthetic versions of conventional fuels, moving cargo without the carbon footprint.  Take to the skies Climate-friendly flying is still trying to get off the ground. Right now, there aren’t any batteries that come anywhere close to the energy density of fossil fuels. Some airlines are deploying electric aircraft on shorter routes. However, without a breakthrough, long-haul flights will need to run on synthetic zero-emissions fuels, which demand vast quantities of low-cost energy. Or, they’ll need a mechanism like direct air capture to offset their emissions.  The really far-out ideas With even more energy, we can begin thinking about commercializing promising innovations that exist only in labs or are still on the drawing board. Many of these ideas sound far-fetched, but abundant clean energy moves them into the realm of possibility.  Materials built molecule-first Imagine designing stuff the way you’d build a playlist: starting from tiny pieces and crafting exactly what you need. Shoes that bounce just right. Home insulation that actually understands seasons. Skin grafts that heal without scars. We already 3D print things, but scaling it is pricey and slow. Smarter, custom materials could make industrial printing faster, cleaner, and way less wasteful. Space that’s closer — and cleaner Getting to orbit still takes a ton of energy, and today’s rocket fuels leave a pretty heavy carbon footprint. Pulling carbon dioxide out of the air could help offset launches, and cleaner electricity can make low-carbon fuels from the start. The result: space access that’s not just cheaper, but easier on the planet. Solar power that never sleeps Above the atmosphere, sunlight doesn’t quit. Space-based solar collectors could soak up that uninterrupted energy and beam it back to Earth via microwaves. No clouds, no sunsets — just steady power when we need it. Become a spacefaring civilization And instead of dragging every nut and bolt off Earth, we could mine asteroids for the raw materials already floating out there. That opens the door to building more in space — moon bases, deep-space missions, the whole sci-fi starter kit — without the crushing cost of launching every ounce from Earth. An immense surge of clean energy will have unintended consequences, too Even if we could realize all of the exciting potential of this clean energy-powered future, some new problems could emerge if we’re not careful. First, there will be a big dislocation in the job market. There are almost 2 million people in the US working in coal, oil, and gas sectors — mining, building, transporting, and combusting these fuels. They will need new jobs or a soft landing pad that will help them move or retire. “We’re potentially seeing huge shifts in governance and unionization around the world,” said Adam Cowart, who is on the faculty of foresight at the University of Houston. Additionally, “abundant” does not necessarily mean “equal” when it comes to energy. In the year 2025, there are still 685 million people in the world who don’t have access to electricity, and there’s no guarantee that increasing the global supply of energy will benefit them without concerted policies to match. Having more energy could also end up indulging people’s worst impulses. Already, we’ve seen across much of the world that as fuels and electricity get cheaper, people end up driving bigger cars over longer distances, running their thermostats less efficiently, and eating more meat. Valerie Thomas, professor of industrial engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, noted that our recent history shows that we have not used the energy we already have in a judicious way. “If we look back in history just a little bit, what do we do? We use it up on things maybe we don’t even understand, like bigger houses with more air conditioning, or we would commute even longer distances,” Thomas said. It will take concerted effort to make sure new energy doesn’t just go to frivolous uses. And in her work looking at some of the poorest populations in the world, Thomas said she found that the key limits to prosperity are often things like local corruption, a lack of prenatal care, not enough vaccines, political instability, and bad economic policies. “What tends to be the barrier to the good life? I don’t think it’s energy,” Thomas said. That said, the world’s poorest stand to gain the most from the transition to clean energy, not just for having more useful power in their lives but breathing in less pollution and having more economic autonomy.  The post-energy abundance world is not one where every problem is solved, but it’s one with greater prosperity, improved human welfare, and generally a more stable climate. It will raise its own challenges, so there’s no scenario where we can take it for granted.  The fossil fuel era, and much of human history, was governed by constraints. The age of clean energy is poised to be one that’s more limited by imagination and choices, and the remaining solutions will be much more fun to implement.  This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting.

What could you do with energy that’s cheap, clean, and near unlimited? You could live in a home built to your precise needs that stays cozy and cool all year long. You could swim in a heated pool filled with ultra-pure recycled water. You could grill a steak grown in a factory, from cell on […]

small photos of a water bottle, the ocean, the sun, an airplane, solar panels, stars, and a rocket launch, numbered 1 through 7 with an ellipses at the end
What we could do with cleaner energy is more than you can imagine. | Lucy Jones for Vox; Getty Images

What could you do with energy that’s cheap, clean, and near unlimited?

You could live in a home built to your precise needs that stays cozy and cool all year long. You could swim in a heated pool filled with ultra-pure recycled water. You could grill a steak grown in a factory, from cell on up, marbled, textured, and flavored to perfection. You could visit a nature preserve on land reclaimed from mines and farms, teeming with once-endangered animal life. You could get whisked comfortably and quietly anywhere by robots, whether down the street or the other side of the world. You could plan every weekend outing for the next month, counting on reliable, far-reaching weather forecasts. And all of your garbage would break down into its constituent elements, destined to be reassembled into new shoes, cars, and refrigerators.

Key Takeaways

  • Harnessing energy has been a key driver of increasing prosperity — life expectancy, wealth, productivity. But availability, cost, and environmental impacts have long been major constraints on the energy we can use.
  • Now, a new generation of clean energy is providing vastly more power and rapidly scaling up.
  • With ample cheap power, we can solve some of our most pressing problems and begin to think of new applications.
  • Abundant clean energy can enable vastly more food, water, travel, and industry while undoing greenhouse gas emissions.
  • However, more energy cannot simply get around major social concerns like inequity, job losses, and regulatory hurdles.

This is all speculation, but the pace of improvement in clean energy and the scale of its deployment put these ideas within the realm of possibility.

Energy shapes the limits of what a society can build, sustain, and imagine, and the more of it we have at our disposal, the further we can push those boundaries. What we would decide to do with vastly more energy has huge implications for our politics, our economy, our environment, and our prosperity. 

This year, the world is poised to spend $2.2 trillion on clean energy — power from the wind, the sun, the water, and splitting atoms. It also includes upgrades to the power grid, new forms of energy storage, and increased efficiency. 

This investment has mostly been trumpeted as a way to help limit climate change. Humanity’s collective deployment of clean energy and increasing efficiency so far has already helped take some of the worst-case scenarios off the table.  

However, climate change is a low political priority now. A more compelling case for clean energy is that it’s often the best way to get cheap energy, and to get a lot of it. The deployment of wind and solar power around the world continues to defy expectations, while the growth trajectory of energy storage is following close behind. This suite of technologies is taking off around the world — not because of a carbon tax or even environmental concerns, but because clean energy is simply better at meeting the needs of a moment when energy appetites are growing

Suppose we alter the framing and approach solving climate change not as a task merely of curbing emissions, but of increasing access and lowering costs of better ways to power the world even further. It’s an approach that leads with prosperity and quality of life, while creating a more stable climate in the process. 

If we make it a priority to get more clean energy, that raises the interesting — and fun — question of what we should do with it. After all, we’re not collecting energy for the sake of energy but to do stuff

Cheap, clean, plentiful energy doesn’t just help people save money on their power bills; it unlocks new industries, makes thorny political problems moot, and helps repair the planet. These use cases are important motivations for why the transition to clean energy needs to happen and how it can bring about a better world for all of us. It’s why we’re doing this at all. 

What abundant clean energy can unlock

We can exchange heat and electrons for just about anything on Earth. How much energy a person uses is an effective proxy for how well off they are — how much food they can eat, how comfortable they are at home, how educated they are. We can see this play out in the cost and quality of lighting, which, in the UK alone, dropped 99.9 percent since 1700, tracing how economies grew as people shifted from campfires, to kerosene lamps, to LED bulbs, and beyond. 

Energy by the numbers

The global energy landscape is changing rapidly. Fossil fuels are still the dominant ways we heat, power, and get around the world, but renewable energy capacity is rocketing upward. 

“Energy is prosperity,” said Eric Toone, chief technology officer at Breakthrough Energy, a high-tech clean energy funding firm founded by Bill Gates in 2015. “Energy is the capacity to do work. Energy is the capacity to build things, to make things, to move things.”

The potential of near-unlimited energy has been tantalizing researchers for decades, since the last big energy revolution, the dawn of the nuclear age. 

“It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter, will know of great periodic regional famines in the world only as matters of history, will travel effortlessly over the seas and under them and through the air with a minimum of danger and at great speeds, and will experience a lifespan far longer than ours, as disease yields and man comes to understand what causes him to age,” said Lewis Strauss, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, in 1954. “This is the forecast for an age of peace.”

Nuclear power didn’t make this dream come true. It did provide huge amounts of electricity, but its construction and operating costs rose as other energy sources got cheaper. Meanwhile, environmental activists and some policymakers shifted their energy strategy to conservation rather than expanding the pool of power. Yet, the prospect of producing energy in such vast quantities that its cost is a minor concern is still one that lures scientists, engineers, and investors. And the recent technology trends do give some observers hope that this dream is within reach.

“Long-term, I think there’s good reason to think that at least lots of places in the world will have much less expensive and more stable energy, especially once they’ve made the investment in the next generation infrastructure,” said Daniel Vermeer, a researcher at Duke University studying the future of energy. “And I think that’s going to happen in a lot of places.”

How much more energy? “I think we’re looking at double the electricity production,” Vermeer said.

So, in the best tradition of economic thought experiments, let’s assume a can opener. What do we open first? 

Transform our food system

If we vastly increase our energy supply from current levels, food and water are where we can get the most bang for the British Thermal Unit (BTU). “It’s so fundamental to human prosperity,” Vermeer said. “It’s also where people will see benefits the fastest.”

First, we can get a lot more out of our existing farms

We already spend a huge amount of our energy to produce food, and agriculture accounts for one-third of humanity’s greenhouse gas output. The fertilizer used to grow crops alone accounts for 5 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than aviation and shipping combined — and most fertilizers rely on natural gas as a feedstock. If we had the power and materials to produce more zero-emissions fertilizer, farmers could extract greater yields from the same amount of land. And decarbonizing the supply chain with electric tractors and trucks to bring food to markets would further increase efficiency. Getting the most out of our existing farms will be essential to feeding the world’s growing population. Otherwise, expanding farms will continue to devour forests and wildlands.  

Your tastiest fruit will grow closer to you

The next generation of farming techniques could create similar yields on even smaller plots of land, allowing food to be produced year round, nearer to major population centers or even within them. One approach is vertical farming, where crops are grown vertically in controlled indoor environments instead of horizontally across fields. Many vertical farming techniques are already being used today. But with more cheap energy to run pumps, lights, and fans, we can scale this up further. 

We can sip from the seas

Water is essential to all life as we know it, and we haven’t been doing a great job of judiciously using it. In recent years, some major cities have been teetering on the brink of running out of water. And with average temperatures rising, many regions are poised to see more severe droughts. 

However, two-thirds of the world is covered in water, and widespread desalination would allow the world to tap into that vast, currently undrinkable supply. The main techniques for desalination are distillation and reverse osmosis, and right now, both require a lot of energy. But, if there’s a lot of cheap power on tap, then desalination could be a primary source of water for some communities, allowing freshwater rivers and aquifers to recharge. It would also resolve many of the political conflicts around water. 

Our meals can give us perfect nourishment

Unlimited energy could allow us to bioengineer our food sources from individual nutrients to maximize nourishment. Precision fermentation, or electro-food, is an emerging technology that uses specially designed microorganisms like yeast or bacteria to make proteins, fats, or nutrients like those found in animal products. Instead of raising cows or chickens, you could “brew” milk, eggs, or meat ingredients in fermentation tanks — just like the process of making beer.

Cheap, clean electricity can power these breweries as they use captured carbon and hydrogen as ingredients. Companies are already selling animal-free dairy and egg proteins made this way. As renewable power becomes abundant, precision fermentation could scale up, feeding growing populations with a fraction of the land, water, and emissions of traditional agriculture

Imagine grilling the perfect burger

Now, let’s take precision fermentation even further. Cultivating cells into whole steaks is starting to become possible, but it’s an expensive and involved process. If this could truly get off the ground, it would have huge knock-on benefits for the environment. Raising livestock right now draws a huge toll in terms of land use, energy and water consumption, and waste production, not to mention the immense ethical problems embedded in raising and killing animals for food. If we can turn energy into meat that replaces conventional livestock, that would solve so many environmental issues all at once. But, convincing people to eat it remains a barrier. Already, there are seven states that have banned lab-grown meat. “Laboratory agriculture and producing things without animals is possible from a technical perspective, but we have to get a lot more sophisticated about how people make those decisions,” Toone said. 

Can AI play a positive role here?

Whether or not you’re bullish on AI, it’s clear that more of our jobs and lives hinge on access to computing power and storage. Right now, data centers are a big part of the story of growing electricity demand, and speculation about their future energy needs is already starting to drive up electricity prices for ordinary people. 

But with fewer energy constraints, more computing tools could become available to more people, and these resources can then be used to resolve some of our biggest energy and environmental challenges. It may also be a necessary investment for the US to retain a competitive edge. “I, for one, have become completely convinced that it’s necessary to win at AI for national security,” said Neil Chatterjee, a former commissioner on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. “How do we generate the power to win the AI race while keeping electricity affordable and not backsliding? There’s no simple solution, but I’m confident we can get there.”

How can we mitigate their worst effects? 

Utilities can require tech firms to pay a deposit to for their future power needs so they don’t over-inflate their needs. Data centers can also face mandates to bring their own generation and energy storage, which could also support the broader grid. 

Operators of these facilities can shift energy-intensive tasks to low-demand periods, though this flexibility may be limited. Their size incentivizes efficient electricity use, and computing will likely grow more energy-efficient over time as the technology improves. 

AI can further accelerate the clean-energy transition by streamlining permitting applications for wind and solar projects, improving materials design, enhancing weather forecasting, and strengthening models of energy demand.

More energy will help us clean up our mess

With food and water sorted, we can then start to chip away at the root cause of climate change: the rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels that are heating up the planet. Halting climate change thus means stopping these emissions entirely. And in the increasingly likely scenario where we overshoot our goal of limiting global average temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, it also means deliberately pulling carbon back out from the environment. It’s not enough to simply produce more energy; the world needs negative greenhouse gas emissions.

We can begin to undo climate change on a planetary scale

Humanity currently spews more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. So, to move the needle, we need to think about carbon management solutions that can work on this scale. 

There are a few ways to do this. One is capturing carbon dioxide at the source. At conventional coal and natural gas-fired power plants, carbon capture systems currently impose a large parasitic load, around a quarter of the generator’s power output. That makes it hard to build a business case for carbon capture at fossil fuel power plants. But other industrial processes, like steel production, also emit carbon dioxide, and point-source capture can decarbonize this and other processes that don’t currently have an easy zero-emissions alternative. 

We can also capture carbon dioxide straight from the air. There are already companies developing machines that can filter carbon from the atmosphere. Some businesses are also working on ways to pull carbon dioxide dissolved in seawater. The challenge is that it requires a lot of energy to move the amount of air and water needed to draw out significant amounts of carbon, which in turn raises the cost. 

“Two things have to happen: One is that we have to continue to work to bring down the cost of air capture,” Toone said. Currently, it costs around $500 per ton to pull carbon dioxide out of the air. The goal is to get it down to $100 per ton or less. “Then societies have to become affluent enough that they’re willing to do it and recognize the dangers caused by climate change,” Toone added.

Another approach is enhanced weathering, which speeds up natural processes where rocks like limestone react with carbon dioxide in rainwater, forming a chemical bond that permanently locks it away.

If you don’t lock away carbon dioxide, you can put it to work. It’s an important raw ingredient for chemicals and materials. You can use it to make fuels reconstituted from the air, polymers, enzymes, concrete, as well as make your drinks bubbly. This has the potential to become a trillion-dollar industry.

All of our waste could be renewed

Waste is a mounting problem, and many synthetic materials like plastics have no natural mechanisms that break them down, making them a problem that can last for generations. Recycling plastic materials has largely failed to live up to the promise, and the bulk of plastic waste ends up in landfills. To meaningfully reuse and reconstitute polymers, the process needs to be competitive with producing virgin materials, which means the energy you use for recycling has to be dirt cheap. When we get there, we may be able to close the loop, making, unmaking, and remaking everything we need with minimal extraction from the Earth. 

We can travel the world and only leave behind a tiny footprint

The next place to look is transportation. Cheap fossil fuels have shrunk the world, allowing people to cross continents and oceans in hours rather than months. How we get around is now the second-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions. Four-wheeled vehicles already have a glide path to zero emissions with electrification. The tougher challenges are going to be electrifying or decarbonizing bigger vehicles like ships and airplanes. 

Cleanly cruise the high seas

Container ships are the gargantuan worker ants of the global economy, transporting just about every tangible good around the world. Right now, most container ships burn some of the cheapest and dirtiest fuels imaginable, but with abundant clean energy, they could draw on cleaner sources of power. These ships may be too big to run on batteries, but with much cheaper, clean electricity, shipping companies can generate hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, or synthetic versions of conventional fuels, moving cargo without the carbon footprint. 

Take to the skies

Climate-friendly flying is still trying to get off the ground. Right now, there aren’t any batteries that come anywhere close to the energy density of fossil fuels. Some airlines are deploying electric aircraft on shorter routes. However, without a breakthrough, long-haul flights will need to run on synthetic zero-emissions fuels, which demand vast quantities of low-cost energy. Or, they’ll need a mechanism like direct air capture to offset their emissions. 

The really far-out ideas

With even more energy, we can begin thinking about commercializing promising innovations that exist only in labs or are still on the drawing board. Many of these ideas sound far-fetched, but abundant clean energy moves them into the realm of possibility. 

Materials built molecule-first Imagine designing stuff the way you’d build a playlist: starting from tiny pieces and crafting exactly what you need. Shoes that bounce just right. Home insulation that actually understands seasons. Skin grafts that heal without scars. We already 3D print things, but scaling it is pricey and slow. Smarter, custom materials could make industrial printing faster, cleaner, and way less wasteful.

Space that’s closer — and cleaner Getting to orbit still takes a ton of energy, and today’s rocket fuels leave a pretty heavy carbon footprint. Pulling carbon dioxide out of the air could help offset launches, and cleaner electricity can make low-carbon fuels from the start. The result: space access that’s not just cheaper, but easier on the planet.

Solar power that never sleeps Above the atmosphere, sunlight doesn’t quit. Space-based solar collectors could soak up that uninterrupted energy and beam it back to Earth via microwaves. No clouds, no sunsets — just steady power when we need it.

Become a spacefaring civilization And instead of dragging every nut and bolt off Earth, we could mine asteroids for the raw materials already floating out there. That opens the door to building more in space — moon bases, deep-space missions, the whole sci-fi starter kit — without the crushing cost of launching every ounce from Earth.

An immense surge of clean energy will have unintended consequences, too

Even if we could realize all of the exciting potential of this clean energy-powered future, some new problems could emerge if we’re not careful.

First, there will be a big dislocation in the job market. There are almost 2 million people in the US working in coal, oil, and gas sectors — mining, building, transporting, and combusting these fuels. They will need new jobs or a soft landing pad that will help them move or retire. “We’re potentially seeing huge shifts in governance and unionization around the world,” said Adam Cowart, who is on the faculty of foresight at the University of Houston.

Additionally, “abundant” does not necessarily mean “equal” when it comes to energy. In the year 2025, there are still 685 million people in the world who don’t have access to electricity, and there’s no guarantee that increasing the global supply of energy will benefit them without concerted policies to match.

Having more energy could also end up indulging people’s worst impulses. Already, we’ve seen across much of the world that as fuels and electricity get cheaper, people end up driving bigger cars over longer distances, running their thermostats less efficiently, and eating more meat.

Valerie Thomas, professor of industrial engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology, noted that our recent history shows that we have not used the energy we already have in a judicious way. “If we look back in history just a little bit, what do we do? We use it up on things maybe we don’t even understand, like bigger houses with more air conditioning, or we would commute even longer distances,” Thomas said. It will take concerted effort to make sure new energy doesn’t just go to frivolous uses.

And in her work looking at some of the poorest populations in the world, Thomas said she found that the key limits to prosperity are often things like local corruption, a lack of prenatal care, not enough vaccines, political instability, and bad economic policies. “What tends to be the barrier to the good life? I don’t think it’s energy,” Thomas said. That said, the world’s poorest stand to gain the most from the transition to clean energy, not just for having more useful power in their lives but breathing in less pollution and having more economic autonomy. 

The post-energy abundance world is not one where every problem is solved, but it’s one with greater prosperity, improved human welfare, and generally a more stable climate. It will raise its own challenges, so there’s no scenario where we can take it for granted. 

The fossil fuel era, and much of human history, was governed by constraints. The age of clean energy is poised to be one that’s more limited by imagination and choices, and the remaining solutions will be much more fun to implement. 

This series was supported by a grant from Arnold Ventures. Vox had full discretion over the content of this reporting.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Ohio’s largest utility pushes to slash rooftop solar compensation

Ohio’s largest utility wants to slash compensation for rooftop solar owners — which would affect not only future investments but also thousands of regulated utility customers who have already installed panels on their homes based on existing rules. Later this year, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio will decide…

The Citizens Utility Board of Ohio, Interstate Gas Supply, the Retail Energy Supply Association, Solar United Neighbors, the Ohio Environmental Council, and the Environmental Law & Policy Center have all filed formal replies with the PUCO, urging regulators to reject AEP’s arguments and to keep the current net-metering rules in place for all ratepayers. AEP’s Ohio media relations office wrote via email, ​“Under net metering, a portion of the distribution-related charges are essentially shifted to other customers when the charges are calculated only for the net portion of the electricity delivered,” because infrastructure costs ​“are designed to be spread across the customers the system was built to serve.” The company did not respond to Canary Media’s request for data showing how it or other regulated utilities would be hurt by net metering for customers who pick competitive energy suppliers or take part in community aggregation programs. The company has come after net metering before — and ultimately lost. More than a decade ago, AEP took its arguments to limit net metering to the Ohio Supreme Court. The court ultimately dismissed that case after the PUCO released new rules that generally favored the company. A year after hearing lawyers’ arguments urging it to reconsider those rules, however, the commission changed course. The current policy, adopted in December 2018, requires regulated utilities to compensate all rooftop solar customers for excess power, but it does not allow credit for distribution charges or for any avoided capacity charges. AEP’s gambit to change the rules now surprised advocates for renewable energy, such as Mryia Williams, Ohio program director for Solar United Neighbors. ​“The PUCO staff had already concluded that net-metering rules are working as intended, and they didn’t think any changes needed to be made,” she said, referring to a Nov. 5 administrative law judge’s order in the rules docket. The utility has not offered any data or other detailed assessment to justify its proposed changes, Williams said. And many rooftop solar owners relied on the current regulations when calculating whether to make the investment. ​“Everybody is just wanting to make sure that what’s already been promised is continued,” she said. Plus, rooftop solar customers already pay for equipment to feed excess power to the utility. Levying distribution costs for electricity that customers wind up feeding back to the grid would, in effect, charge them for supplying the utility with distributed energy. Other energy suppliers don’t have to pay that expense, so it shouldn’t be something utilities can charge residents for either, said Nat Ziegler, manager of community solutions for Power a Clean Future Ohio. Moreover, reducing net-metering compensation and limiting who can get it would discourage more people from adding rooftop solar, said Joe Flarida, executive director for Power a Clean Future Ohio. “More generation on the grid will help limit the amount of price increases we’re seeing,” Flarida explained. ​“Certainly, if we can encourage more distributed energy, that would offset the amount of added power we need on the grid.” Power a Clean Future Ohio is among the hundreds of groups and individuals who filed public comments with the PUCO, in addition to the formal party filings. That level of response represents a big change from a decade ago, Rutschilling said, noting increased interest in rooftop solar over the past few years. People’s electricity bills have already jumped dramatically as grid operators like PJM have sounded the alarm about needing more electricity to meet demand from data centers, increased electrification, and other factors. And results of the most recent auction will almost certainly increase costs even more. A bill introduced last fall would declare it state policy to ​“ensure affordable, reliable, and clean energy security,” with ​“clean energy” specified as meaning electricity from nuclear or natural gas, with no reference at all to renewables. But any new nuclear power requires years of review, and even with expedited permitting, Rutschilling noted, orders for new natural gas plant turbines have lag times of several years. “We need as much generation as possible,” he said. ​“We need to have things like distributed energy.” { if ($event.target.classList.contains('hs-richtext')) { if ($event.target.textContent === '+ more options') { $event.target.remove(); open = true; } } }" >

Low on energy? A new understanding of rest could help revitalise you

There is a state of relaxation that few of us spend much time in, but which comes with profound well-being benefits. With healthier ageing, reduced risk of disease and feeling more energised all on offer, here's how to get there

It happens every new year. Party time is over, and it is time to brace yourself for the predictable onslaught of health advice. Most of it will involve doing more of something that you already know is good for you. More exercise. More cooking from scratch. More wholesome, mindful hobbies. It is no wonder so many of us fall off the wellness wagon before the month is out. No matter how sage the advice, who has the time and energy to do more of anything? If this sounds familiar, it might come as good news that scientists have come up with a more appealing alternative – one that still promises to increase your chances of staying healthy for longer, but involves doing less, not more. Or, more precisely, that involves perfecting the art of doing, physiologically speaking, as little as possible. This unusual, yet deeply effective, twist on the New Year’s resolution hinges on mastering a physiological state that many of us spend few of our waking hours in. It is called deep rest – a way of being in which signals between the body and brain align on one fundamental fact: that all is well and there is absolutely nothing to worry about. In essence, it is the polar opposite of stress. Deep rest is a state where the body can take a break from fighting and fleeing, instead regrouping and catching up with some much-needed maintenance and repair. And while it might take some trial and error to find your personal off switch, the evidence is accumulating that the payoffs could be huge: healthier ageing, reduced risk of disease and more energy to spend on something other than maintaining an ambient panic response. Alexandra Crosswell is a psychologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who, along with a group of her colleagues, proposed the idea of deep rest in early 2024. She is aware the term may sound familiar to some. Andrew Huberman, a Stanford neuroscientist turned wellness influencer, has widely promoted what he calls “non-sleep deep rest” on his podcast and social media channels. But, says Crosswell, the two aren’t quite the same. “The difference between how we define deep rest and how Huberman describes non-sleep deep rest is that his is a relaxation practice and ours is a psycho-physiological state,” says Crosswell. “Deep rest is beyond relaxation – it’s a coordinated shift of the whole nervous, endocrine and immune system into an overall state of safety signalling.” Stressing out It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that if one thing could transform human health, it would be an antidote to stress. Problematic stress is a centuries-old issue that people have been complaining about since at least the industrial revolution. The things that generation struggled with – the cost of living, the pressures of work and family and an unsettling change in the pace of life – are still as relevant today as they were then. What’s new is that these very human concerns are layered on top of an underlying current of unease fuelled by 24-hour access to awareness of global crises, many of which seem frighteningly out of our control. There are signs that all of this is taking a serious toll. According to a 2022 survey of over 3000 US adults, more than a quarter of respondents said stress made it difficult to function in daily life. Meanwhile, chronic stress has been linked to soaring rates of everything from depression and anxiety to cardiovascular disease, high blood pressure, infectious diseases and some cancers. It is a major factor in the epidemic of tiredness and fatigue and is linked to accelerated ageing and an increased risk of all-cause mortality from middle age onwards. Yet despite an overwhelming consensus that too much stress is bad for our health, it has proved difficult to pin down exactly why, which has made it difficult to know how to go about fixing the problem. The big picture is clear enough and, arguably, pretty obvious. “ While a stress response is on the go, the body takes a break from less urgent processes like digestion, reproduction, maintenance and repair “ Stress is draining because, whether the threat is physical or psychological, mounting a stress response requires a huge investment of the body’s resources. In experiments, a short bout of psychological stress increased volunteers’ energy expenditure by up to 67 per cent above their resting metabolic rate. Other studies suggest that about a third of this energy is spent on fuelling the rise in heart rate, with the rest accounted for by the cost of producing stress hormones and inflammation. Once the stress hormones are circulating in the body, they have knock-on effects on the cell’s metabolism. The stresses of modern life leave many of us feeling depletedCorbis via Getty Images Human cells that are chronically exposed to stress hormones in the lab have been found to burn through energy 60 per cent faster, age faster and die younger. The whole process gobbles up so much energy that, while an active stress response is on the go, the body takes a break from less urgent processes like digestion, reproduction, maintenance and repair. The stress response is an example of a process called allostasis, or “stability through change”. Allostasis is different from the more familiar process of homeostasis, which describes how we regain balance after one or more biological processes have been knocked off course by environmental change. In allostasis, though, the adjustments don’t happen after change, but in advance, based on the brain’s predictions about what is likely to happen next (like identifying a possible incoming threat) and how best to adapt (like by flooding your system with hormones as part of the fight or flight response.) “Your brain is predictively regulating your body,” says Lisa Feldman Barrett, a neuroscientist at Northeastern University in Boston. “Your body is [then] sending signals back to your brain about the sensory conditions of the body and the sensory consequences of allostasis.” How the brain regulates the body Recently, a group of neuroscientists, including Feldman Barrett, have argued that allostasis isn’t just a side project for the brain; rather, it is its main function and number one priority. In this view, thinking, feeling and action all work in service of allostasis, helping the brain reach its goals by motivating us to do whatever is necessary to balance the books and stay alive. This new view of the brain puts a spin on the challenge of tackling the epidemic of stress, says Karen Quigley, also at Northeastern University, who, along with her colleague Feldman Barrett, proposed the idea in a 2025 paper in the journal Neuron. “If you start from the biology and try to understand this important and critical role for a brain managing its energy budget, then you start to think about concepts like stress slightly differently,” says Quigley. Thinking of toxic stress as allostasis gone awry helps explain why the expense of chronic or repeated stress takes its toll on our health. Allostatic states, like stress, are supposed to be temporary. In short bursts, the investment is worthwhile when you need to run, fight or think your way out of a crisis. But given that most modern threats aren’t actually likely to lead to your demise, much of the time, the investment is metabolic overkill. And given that daily hassles are a part of life – a survey of US adults reported an average of three or more stressful events a day – there is often little time to recover before the next thing hits the fan. The result is tension, fatigue and an increased risk of poor health, as the body continues to sideline maintenance and repair in a misguided attempt to be ready for anything. Your internal ‘off switch’ Ironically, there is some evidence that constantly being in “a little bit on” state makes the body less efficient at responding to acute stress, so when we actually need our fight or flight system, it’s as worn out as we are. In better news, the fact that allostatic states are temporary by nature raises the possibility that if we can find the right bodily switch, we can change the signal, and the accompanying allostatic state, to one where all is well and biological bankruptcy isn’t an immediate concern. “It may be that you can create a ‘system reset’ partly by enhancing signals that current resources are sufficient,” says Quigley. This is where the idea of deep rest comes in. Crosswell and her colleagues set out to explore why contemplative practices like prayer, chanting, meditation, yoga and qigong (a practice involving flowing, coordinated movements) have positive effects on physical health and mental well-being, reducing self-reported levels of stress and improving markers of physical health such as blood pressure and inflammation. Bringing together a team of researchers spanning neuroscience, physiology and cellular metabolism, the idea was to identify the special sauce in these practices. They concluded that the beneficial effects of contemplative practices come from the way they put a spanner in the physiology of the stress response. “These practices put the organism in a state of lower energy demand,” says Martin Picard, a mitochondrial psychobiologist at Columbia University who collaborated with Crosswell on the research. When the brain gets the memo, he says, it starts to be generous with its resources. “Instead of wasting your energy making cortisol and speeding up your heart rate, you have this energy pool that’s available for restoration,” he says. Studies suggest that contemplative practices do indeed reduce energy consumption. Mindful practices like qigong can help you enter a state of deep restVCG/VCG via Getty Images Research dating back to the 1970s found that during transcendental meditation, metabolic rate dropped by 40 per cent compared with when the same volunteers were sitting quietly without meditating. Studies of regular yoga practitioners have also found that they consume up to 15 per cent less energy at rest than non-practitioners and have lower resting heart rate and blood pressure and lower levels of circulating stress hormones. As to what exact mechanism is behind the effect, Crosswell and her colleagues speculate that one thing these interventions have in common is – by accident or design – that they tend to involve slow, deep breathing. Deep breathing, particularly at or around 6 breaths per minute, activates stretch-sensitive sensors in the chest, which activate parasympathetic activity in the vagus nerve (see “Breathing your way to deep rest“, below). The parasympathetic nervous system controls the so-called rest-and-digest response, which is the polar opposite of fight or flight. When parasympathetic activity is high, heart rate, blood pressure and other signs of arousal are low, and the body gets on with all the internal housekeeping that it has been keeping on hold. “ With prayer and mindfulness and other deep rest practices, you’re moving your mind away from worrying about the future into this present moment “ The shift to parasympathetic dominance, combined with the meditative element of these practices, might be enough to persuade the brain that there is no longer any threat, and to stand down, says Crosswell. “With prayer and mindfulness and other deep rest practices, you’re moving your mind away from worrying about the future into this present moment,” she says. Assuming that the here and now feels safe, this adds a second positive signal for the brain to factor into its budgeting – what Crosswell calls a “present moment sufficiency mindset” or “that right now, I have all the energy I need”. A woman rests in a flotation tank, another way of sinking into a state of profound restnya Semenoff/The Denver Post via Getty Images) A 2025 study on using a mindfulness intervention seems to back up this idea that deep rest makes a measurable difference. Those who did 10 sessions of an hour-long mindful breathing and stretching-based practice had higher levels of healthy metabolic markers in the blood and lower levels of those associated with disease risk. A comparison group whose participants underwent relaxation training showed no such changes. This precise prescription wouldn’t work for everyone, however; for some, meditation might evoke a stress response, for example. Different options include paced breathing, particularly hitting those apparently crucial 6 breaths per minute, or simply spending time with a loved one who makes you feel safe. As social creatures, our brains are wired to factor in how much support we have to deal with life’s ups and downs. Its power as an antidote to stress may even explain why close, supportive relationships are linked to better health and longer lifespan, says Quigley. “Humans are really critical allostatic supports for one another,” she says. “Social support is an important allostatic regulator.” Social connection A good way to super-charge social support – or to mimic it if you don’t happen to have a loved one to hand – involves activating skin-based sensory nerves that are thought to have evolved to solidify social bonds. Known as C-tactile afferent fibres, these fire most enthusiastically when stroked slowly and gently at close to body temperature. Experiments into the effects of this “affective touch” have shown that it not only feels pleasant and calming to people of all ages, but it also leads to a drop in heart rate and other markers of parasympathetic activity, even when applied during a stressful experience. Research suggests that a soft-bristled brush stimulates these nerves almost as well as a loving caress from an actual human. A team of researchers at Cornell University in New York state are even trialling a wearable device that has shown promise in early tests as a stress-buster. But the paramount message, says Crosswell, is that there is no single route to deep rest. Some people find meditation more stressful than calming, while others find affective touch ticklish or rage-inducing. What’s important is to seek out something that makes you feel warm, safe and calm from the inside. The ultimate state of deep rest, of course, is sleep, a time when the energy savings of being still and breathing more deeply allow the body to flush out the brain and make repairs to the body. It is possible that, for anyone short on sleep, adding deep rest to waking hours could help make up the shortfall. As for how much you need to neutralise the effects of stress, the answer is: it varies. “I wish I could say how many minutes is enough,” says Crosswell. Even so, with growing evidence that deep rest is a state worth making time for, the best advice right now is to find where you feel safe and spend as much time in it as possible, basking in the knowledge that you are investing in your long-term health. Breathing your way to deep rest Smartphones and watches, with their constant flurry of updates and notifications, seem like the antithesis of a calm, stress-free existence. But for anyone keen to find their own deep rest state, they do have their uses. One marker of stress regulation that comes as standard in most smart watches is heart rate variability (HRV) – a measure of the tiny variations of the time between successive heartbeats that is used as a marker of overall physiological stress, and of how efficiently the body is managing its resources. Different devices use slightly different measures, and what counts as healthy varies by age, but a higher HRV is generally considered healthier. An HRV below 25 millisends (ms), for example, has been linked to a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and depression. A tried and tested way to boost HRV is via resonance breathing biofeedback, in which slow breathing at around 6 breaths per minute causes two of the body’s key heart-rate regulating reflexes to synchronise so that each boosts the activity of the other. The net result is a boost to the parasympathetic (rest and digest) arm of the nervous system. Some research suggests that when practised regularly, HRV biofeedback trains the body to recover more efficiently after stress. While HRV biofeedback works best when both blood pressure and heart rate are measured in the lab, apps exist that offer breathing exercises based on real-time measurements of HRV. I spent a four-week period self-experimenting using one such app, combined with a chest-mounted heart rate monitor. Week one was spent logging my baseline average HRV. During week two, I did 20 minutes of resonance breathing biofeedback a day, and in the third week, I took a break from daily training. For the final week, I returned to training. The results were clear: during the biofeedback weeks, my average daily HRV, measured on my Apple Watch, came in at between 55 and 60 ms (at the healthy end of normal for my age), more than 10 ms above the just-about-healthy baseline I established in week one. The effects seemed to spill over during my week off, with my average HRV staying higher than average, before returning to the high 50s in my final week of training. This was encouraging, but the training is quite time-consuming. So I was keen to try an even easier alternative. According to its website, the Nurosym vagus nerve stimulator has been shown to significantly increase HRV and improve other markers of stress. The device attaches via a clip to the hard flap of cartilage at the front of the ear, where a branch of the vagus nerve runs close to the surface. I used the device (lent to me by the company) three times, for up to 20 minutes, at the same time of day as I had previously done my breathing practice. The results were… mixed. The stimulation either led to no change in HRV, a slight decrease (55 ms before, 48 ms after), or a very slight increase (45 ms before, 48 ms during, 51 ms after). Confused, I contacted Julian Koenig, a psychobiologist and member of the international consensus group on transcranial vagus nerve stimulation research. He points out that my results are about as consistent as what has been found in various studies on the subject. Yet while results vary, the study the company refers to on its website, published in 2022, is something of an outlier in the field in showing an increase in HRV with stimulation. “That’s why we did [a] meta-analysis,” says Koenig. So far, he says, the published results of the consensus group’s ongoing “live” meta-analysis have shown “no effects on heart rate or HRV” during short-term stimulation. And while there is still much to learn about what, if anything, these devices can do for health, he says that, for now, “if the goal is to increase HRV, deep breathing is one of the best and cheapest options”.

What ‘data center alley’ portends for America’s AI-powered future

As data centers hurtle to the forefront of the national debate over artificial intelligence (AI) and energy costs, northern Virginia offers a preview of the political fights that will play out in communities across the country seeking to cash in on the booming industry. Virginia is the unofficial data center capital of the world, with...

As data centers hurtle to the forefront of the national debate over artificial intelligence (AI) and energy costs, northern Virginia offers a preview of the political fights that will play out in communities across the country seeking to cash in on the booming industry.  Virginia is the unofficial data center capital of the world, with more than half of the world’s internet traffic running through hundreds of facilities in Loudoun and Fairfax counties, generating some 74,000 jobs and $9.1 billion for the state’s economy each year.  But the sprawling data centers are also transforming the landscape and gobbling up massive amounts of water and electricity, leading state politicians to grapple with how to regulate and monitor the rapid development — without alienating the powerful interests backing the projects, from tech giants to local leaders and labor unions.  It’s a delicate balance that’s quickly moving to the center of a national conversation about how to execute on the Trump administration’s push to rapidly expand the country’s AI infrastructure.  Policymakers across the country are watching Virginia’s efforts closely, said Michael Villa, an analyst at 10a Labs, the AI company behind the Data Center Watch Project. “They look up to Northern Virginia because [they] are the ones with more experience and where this dynamic has been working for longer,” he told The Hill.  Your data is ‘in a building in Ashburn’ Northern Virginia has been a hot spot for data centers stretching back to the 1990s, due to its proximity to the nation’s capital and surrounding metro areas, land affordability, tax breaks and local ordinances clearing the way for construction.  The demand for the data centers — massive facilities that house computers, servers, and other IT systems that process and store online data — has steadily increased over the years and is set to explode amid the global race for computing power.  “Everybody doesn’t really realize that your data isn’t just out there, your photos are not just wandering in the ether,” said Trinity Mills, a conservation advocacy coordinator at the Loudoun Wildlife Conservancy. “They’re in a building in Ashburn.” It’s a frustrating reality for people living next to these buildings, who point to higher energy bills and increased noise in their neighborhoods.  Tracy Fowle, a 57-year-old lifelong resident of Loudoun County, said the emergence of data centers in her community is driving her out.  “Well, it’s certainly very depressing, such so that I’m going to be leaving the area…We are going to put our house on the market next year,” Fowle told The Hill. “We’ve lived here since 2006, but this is not a comfortable place for me anymore.”  “The power lines, the growth of the data centers [and] the construction doesn’t stop. It is just ongoing. And I would rather have something more peaceful in my backyard,” she added.  With Homeowner Associations (HOAs) unable to slow the construction, she said residents have three choice: “grin and bear it,” move someplace else or band together to force political action. Energy costs: A major flashpoint The impact on energy costs, amid a growing focus on “affordability” under Trump, is particularly prickly for developers. The three states with the largest concentration of data centers saw a surge in utility bills as of August, compared to the same time last year. Illinois saw a 16 percent increase, Virginia followed at 13 percent and Ohio at 12 percent, according to a report from CNBC, well above the 6 percent average national increase in electricity prices.  Some of the largest data centers are expected to consume as much electricity as a city of more than half a million people, Ali Fenn, president of Lancium, a company that secures land and power for data centers in Texas, told CNBC. Dan Dorio, vice president of state policy at the Data Center Coalition (DCC), a membership organization for the industry, said the jury is still out on the impact of these projects on regional energy costs.  He pointed to a University of California, Berkeley study that found states with the highest “load growth” in electricity demand saw reductions in real prices from 2019 to 2024, “whereas states with contracting loads generally saw prices rise.” “The industry is leaning in to be a responsible, [responsive] partner in the communities where they operate to help answer questions about the development, to work with those local leaders, those local infrastructure providers, to ensure that these projects are going to be economic value to the community,” Dorio said. Over 300 data centers across northern Virginia used nearly two billion gallons of water in 2023, while Loudoun County alone used 900 million, according to a study by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute. Along with using substantial amounts of water to cool off servers, data centers depend on back-up diesel generators that pollute the air 200-600 times more than natural gas-fired power plants, according to a study conducted by University of California, Riverside.  Emissions are projected to cost the public health care system more than $20 billion come 2028, with disadvantaged communities being more susceptible, according to the study.  Uphill fight to impose guardrails The financial benefits of data centers for local coffers are undeniable.  Revenue generated from data centers accounts for over a third of Loudoun’s tax base, bringing the county over $1 billion this year, and has reduced residential property taxes by 48 cents per $100 of value, according to a Loudoun County spokesperson.  However, Buddy Rizer, executive director for economic development in Loudoun County, said the county is slowing down applications because of energy constraints.  “We’re toward the end of our growth for data centers,” he said.  But Rizer doesn’t expect the national demand to slow down anytime soon. “I don’t know what the alternative is, unless everyone’s going to stop using the internet,” he said.   Given the economic boon, lawmakers have been cautious in crafting new regulations.  Virginia House Del. Ian Lovejoy, a Republican who represents a district in northern Virginia, introduced legislation to place a land buffer between data centers and residential areas, spurred by data centers sharing property lines with homes and elementary schools in his district.  He has found support from Del. Shelly Simonds (D), who plans to introduce her own legislation tracking water usage by the facilities in the state. Both Simonds and Lovejoy said that bills to regulate the centers have been hard to pass due to some indifference from colleagues representing southern Virginia and opposition from local politicians on county boards that support the developments.  “There’s a rising awareness that the data centers are contributing to higher energy costs across the state,” said Simonds, who represents a southern Virginia district.  State legislators managed to pass some legislation to regulate the industry earlier this year, only to have it shot down by Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican.  Youngkin vetoed the bill in November that would’ve required developers to perform a land assessment of proposals that are within 500 feet of homes and schools, looking at ground and surface water resources in the area and potential interference with historic sites.  “While well-intentioned, the legislation imposes a one-size-fits-all approach on communities that are best positioned to make their own decisions,” he said in explaining the veto.  “Virginia is the data center capital of the world, and we should not enact legislation to allow other states to pass us by nor to restrict local government from developing data centers based on their community’s specific circumstances,” Youngkin continued.  Powerful forces meet growing resistance Prominent data center operators have also courted Virginia lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.  A Business Insider review of filings earlier this year found that the DCC donated around $165,000 to state lawmakers between last year’s November elections and the start of the January legislative session.  The group donated $25,000 to Youngkin, who last month announced two data center developments from Vantage and CleanArc Data Centers, collectively valued at $5 billion. The incoming Democratic administration of Gov.-elect Abigail Spangerger and Lt. Gov.-elect Ghazala Hashmi has proposed working with the legislature to force data centers to “pay their fair share” for electricity, to ensure that consumers don’t see inflated energy bills.  But data centers have faced limited resistance at the state level, due in part to an unusual alliance between big business and labor unions, said Lovejoy, the Republican state legislator.  “You have the business community, and you have the labor unions who really, really enjoy these types of projects,” he said. “So you have sort of this bond between two opposing forces that are usually opposed to one another, all swimming in the same direction for once.” However, voices of opposition are seeing increasing success across the country.  At least 16 data center projects, including nine in Virginia, have been blocked or delayed as local opposition mounts to the developments, according to a new study, which also found growing opposition from local politicians in both parties.   Brennan Gilmore, executive director of environmental group Clean Virginia, said that mounting successful opposition now was especially important because the “worst impacts are still to come.” Gilmore warned of projections that energy costs would double or even triple if the current trajectory in data centers continued.  “Virginia is expected to bear the burden of building out the infrastructure to support that level of demand, a build out that took 100 years to get to our current level, in an extraordinarily collapsed time frame,” he said. “So essentially we have an energy crisis on the horizon.”  Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

The Environmental and Human Rights Costs of China’s Clean Energy Investments Abroad

Chinese companies have pledged hundreds of billions of dollars in clean energy manufacturing investments overseas, but the projects are having significant social, environmental, and human rights impacts.

This story originally appeared on Inside Climate News as part of its Planet China series and is part of the Climate Desk collaboration.The audience sat patiently through the presentations about the cluster of battery factories going up nearby. They listened to descriptions of the hazardous chemicals the plants will use, their huge water withdrawals and energy demands.WIRED's Guide to How the Universe WorksYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. When it came time for questions, people began shifting in their chairs and standing up, making the cramped room feel even smaller.What if the chemicals leak, one woman asked. What’s in it for the politicians in their “velvet chairs,” another demanded. A third warned it would be just like the Soviet era, when iron and steel plants left a polluted legacy.Then a woman began to tear up as she told the 50 or so people who had gathered in a community center on a cold, dark evening that the factories’ smokestacks and hazardous materials were about a mile from her daughter’s kindergarten.“Please stand up for yourselves,” she said, urging the audience to spread the word.The Chinese battery giant Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., or CATL, is nearing completion on what could be one of Europe’s largest electric vehicle battery factories. The industrial park where it is located, outside Debrecen, Hungary’s second-largest city, also hosts several other manufacturers of battery parts and supplies. At least two of those are owned by Chinese companies, one by a South Korean firm. Another Chinese-owned battery factory is being built on the other side of the city.The surge of construction is part of a nationwide frenzy, prompted by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s goal to make Hungary a leading battery manufacturer. To reach this target, Orbán has looked primarily to Beijing. Chinese companies have announced or built at least 18 EV and battery-related projects in Hungary so far, $17 billion in pledged investments, according to data compiled by the Net Zero Industrial Policy Lab at Johns Hopkins University.While the factories could position Hungary in the center of Europe’s transition off fossil fuels, they have prompted a backlash from residents worried about their impacts on public health and the environment.“Everyone will get their fair share of this stew,” said Éva Kozma, who leads the Mikepércs Mothers for the Environment Association, a citizen activist group that hosted the event. Kozma helped form the group after CATL announced its plans in 2022 and has since been highlighting the risks posed by battery development, identifying pollution events and scrutinizing the factories’ permits.

Inside the North Carolina GOP’s decade-long push to seize power from state’s Democratic governors

GOP lawmakers have passed law after law stripping powers from Democratic governors

In November 2024, Democrat Josh Stein scored an emphatic victory in the race to become North Carolina’s governor, drubbing his Republican opponent by almost 15 percentage points. His honeymoon didn’t last long, however. Two weeks after his win, the North Carolina legislature’s Republican supermajority fast-tracked a bill that would transform the balance of power in the state. Its authors portrayed the 131-page proposal, released publicly only an hour before debate began, as a disaster relief measure for victims of Hurricane Helene. But much of it stripped powers from the state’s governor, taking away authority over everything from the highway patrol to the utilities commission. Most importantly, the bill eliminated the governor’s control over appointments to the state elections board, which sets voting rules and settles disputes in the swing state’s often close elections. Ignoring protesters who labeled the bill a “legislative coup,” Republicans in the General Assembly easily outvoted Democrats, then overrode the outgoing Democratic governor’s veto. The maneuver culminated a nearly decade-long effort by Republican legislators, who have pushed through law after law shrinking the powers of North Carolina’s chief executive — always a Democrat during that time frame — as well as the portfolios of other executive branch officials who are Democrats. Over that period, lawmakers have attempted to transfer control or partial control of at least 29 boards, entities or important executive powers. In most cases, they succeeded. As a result, Republicans now hold increased sway not only over North Carolina’s election board, but also over its schools, building codes, environmental regulations, coastal development, wildlife management, utilities, cabinet appointments and more. All had previously been under control of the governor. “This is not what people voted for,” said Derek Clinger, a senior counsel at the State Democracy Research Initiative, an institute at the University of Wisconsin Law School, who has studied the events in North Carolina. Stein, as well as all of North Carolina’s living former governors — Republicans and Democrats alike — have blasted the legislature’s erosion of gubernatorial authority as a violation of the state’s constitutionally enshrined separation of powers. “You should not be able to make the laws and then control who enforces them — just ask any fourth grader about the three branches of government,” Stein said in a statement to ProPublica. Lawmakers’ actions “throw the will of the voters into the trash can,” he added. Initially, governors had some success using separation-of-powers arguments in lawsuits filed to challenge efforts to strip their powers. Even majority-Republican courts ruled in their favor, declaring laws that shifted authority directly from the governor to the legislature were unconstitutional. More recently, though, legislators have found a loophole, writing laws that move traditional gubernatorial powers to elected executive branch officials who are Republicans. Since 2023, when the GOP won majorities on the state’s appellate courts, judges have increasingly rejected lawsuits aimed at blocking such legislation. The North Carolina GOP’s effort to rein in executive power at the state level stands in sharp contrast to the Trump administration’s efforts to expand such power federally. Before the Supreme Court, for example, the administration has argued for a “unitary executive” theory that would allow the president near-total control over personnel. North Carolina Republican legislative leaders didn’t respond to interview requests or detailed emailed questions from ProPublica about the power shifts. In the past, Republicans have defended whittling down Democratic governors’ authority by pointing to similarly partisan moves by Democrats decades ago, though these were on a much smaller scale. Current and former lawmakers also say the power shifts reflect the vision of North Carolina’s founders, who deliberately made the state’s governor weak and its legislature strong to prevent abuses suffered under British rule. “It’s never been co-equal, never will be, never intended to be,” said Paul Stam, who was the lame-duck Republican speaker pro tempore of the House when the General Assembly began its push to weaken the governor in 2016. Republicans also dispute the notion that voters oppose reducing governors’ authorities. “The people voted for a strong Republican majority in the legislature,” Sam Hayes, the former general counsel for North Carolina’s speaker of the House, said in an interview. “That role can involve reassigning the powers of the executive branch.” After lawmakers took away the governor’s power to appoint the election board’s members, Hayes became its director. The board’s new Republican majority has handed control over North Carolina’s county election boards to conservatives, some of whom have moved to eliminate early voting sites favored by Democrats. In recent years, states including Wisconsin, Michigan and Kentucky have waged similar battles over separation of powers. In almost all cases, Republican-dominated legislatures have stripped powers from Democrats elected to statewide offices. Still, North Carolina’s example has been particularly notable, critics say. According to a scholarly review by Clinger, the General Assembly’s power grabs in 2016 and 2024 are the most expansive in recent American history. Collectively, lawmakers have brought the powers of the state’s chief executive to a low ebb, said Christopher Cooper, a political scientist at Western Carolina University. In 2010, the textbook “Politics in the American States” ranked the institutional powers of North Carolina’s governor the third-weakest in the nation. By 2024, they ranked dead last. “Soon,” Cooper said of the legislature, “they’re not going to have anything left to take.” When the battles over the election board began in 2016, the joke among Republican lawmakers was that to get things done on elections policy, “you either need the Northern Hammer or the Sweet Southern Stammer.” The Northern Hammer was Bob Rucho, a famously blunt senator originally from Massachusetts. The Sweet Southern Stammer was David Lewis, a genial Republican House member from rural North Carolina with a speech impediment and an uncommon mastery of election law. The self-deprecating Lewis, a farmer and tractor salesman by trade, had helped design the gerrymandering strategies that, starting in 2010, handed Republicans long-term control of the legislature even in election cycles when Democrats won a majority of statewide offices. The importance of controlling the election board — and the potential disastrousness of not controlling it — was clear in the 2016 gubernatorial race, a close contest between Republican Gov. Pat McCrory and his Democratic challenger, Roy Cooper. The board makes decisions that can affect election outcomes in myriad ways, such as deciding where and for how long early voting takes place. It picks the state’s election director and members of county election boards, which maintain voter registration lists and operate voting sites. It arbitrates postelection challenges from losing candidates. As governors historically had, McCrory had appointed the five board members who oversaw the 2016 race, choosing three from his party and two from the opposing party as state law directed. But the panel and its professional staff still operated with considerable independence. After McCrory challenged his 10,000-vote loss to Cooper, alleging widespread voter fraud, the board — led by McCrory’s picks — voted against his protests, effectively ending the race. When Republican legislators launched their first effort to seize control of the board soon after, senior staffers figured it was payback for not helping McCrory. “I viewed it as retaliation for the board not having played a partisan enough role,” said Katelyn Love, who was then an attorney for the board and went on to become its general counsel. Lewis, who left the legislature in 2020, said he and other lawmakers were convinced that once appointment power passed to Cooper, he’d “stack the board” against Republicans. “In certain parts of the state,” he said, “elections really do come down to two or three votes, or a small percentage of votes, and we had no confidence” that Cooper’s appointees “would just treat us fairly.” Republican legislative leaders called a special session, proposing multiple bills that redirected powers from the governor, often to the legislature itself. “We said, ‘You know what: We’re the legislature and we decide who appoints who,’” Lewis recalled. “Instead of letting Roy do it, why don’t we put folks in place that kind of support the way we see things?” Lawmakers targeted not only the elections board, but also Cooper’s ability to hire and fire more than 1,000 political appointees in state government and to choose members of the state’s Industrial Commission, which handles matters such as worker safety claims. They took aim at some positions in part because they came with big paychecks, Lewis acknowledged; a seat on the Industrial Commission pays more than $160,000, for example. “The truth is, a lot of the importance of some of these positions is who gets to appoint whose friends to the board,” Lewis said. “It’s kind of considered a plum job.” The election board measure was framed as making oversight more bipartisan. Indeed, it increased the number of board members to eight and required even numbers of Republican and Democratic appointees. But the governor controlled only four of those seats. The legislature appointed the other four. Also, in even-numbered years — those when federal elections are held — the law required the board’s chair to be “a member of the political party with the second-highest number of registered affiliates.” At the time, that meant a Republican. Since the chair shaped what matters were taken up and had other bureaucratic influence, this gave the party an edge. Lewis insisted the restructured board was designed to even the scales — between the parties and between the governor and the legislature. “If one side can block the other, then bad things don’t happen,” he said. “And if both sides can work together, you can get a more positive resolution.” Less than two weeks after McCrory conceded, the legislature quickly forced through the changes, despite protests so intense they led to numerous arrests. Cooper quickly filed a court challenge, arguing that the law violated the state’s constitution and stymied his ability to enact his policies. The separation of powers is explicitly enshrined in North Carolina’s constitution, which declares, “The legislative, executive, and supreme judicial powers of the State government shall be forever separate and distinct from each other.” Democrats also made the case that the new, evenly split election board was intended to produce gridlock that effectively favored Republicans, keeping in place the election director chosen by McCrory’s board and blocking steps that required majority approval, such as establishing early voting sites. In March 2017, a trial court struck down most of the legislative changes, including those affecting the elections board, ruling they illegally robbed the governor of executive authority. Lewis and other Republican leaders went back to the drawing board. Small groups of election specialists and legislative aides met early in the morning or late at night, surviving on food from Bojangles, the much-loved fried-chicken-and-biscuits chain. They sketched out priorities and drafted legislative language on whiteboards, then waited for the opportune moment to introduce a bill. According to Lewis and other Republicans, they were determined to find a winning formula, no matter how many shots it took. “We felt like we had every right to do that because the constitution invested the legislature with defining the responsibilities” of the governor, Lewis said. A month after the trial court rejected lawmakers’ first stab at breaking the governor’s grip on the elections board, the legislature tried again. It passed another law that altered the board in much the same ways as the first, expanding it to eight members, for example. But this time, instead of giving the legislature half the appointments, the law directed the governor to make all of them — from lists provided by the chairs of the state’s Democratic and Republican parties. Cooper, calling the measure the “the same unconstitutional legislation in another package,” swiftly filed another legal challenge. For almost a year, as the case wound through the courts, he refused to make appointments under the proposed rules. The board’s professional staff kept up with administrative tasks but struggled to find workarounds for responsibilities handled by board members. They went to court on multiple occasions to get judges to rule on election protests and challenges in the board’s absence. “It was very disruptive and chaotic, and a drain on the agency’s limited resources,” Love said. In January 2018, the state Supreme Court struck down the legislature’s second attempt at taking over the elections board. The third came two months later, when lawmakers passed a bill that resurrected many elements of the previous one, but with a few new tweaks. In this version, the governor chose the board’s eight members — four Republicans and four Democrats — from lists submitted by each party, plus an additional tie-breaking member, unaffiliated with either party, from nominees provided by the new board. Despite these differences, the outcome was much the same: another lawsuit from Cooper and, eventually, another loss in court. Republican legislators realized they were likely to lose the case, so they also decided to try a strategy that took the issue out of the hands of the court system, Lewis said. They put a constitutional amendment on the November 2018 ballot that proposed removing the governor’s power to choose election board members and giving that authority to the legislature. “You put your idea out for the people,” Lewis said. If “they vote for it, then it’s no longer unconstitutional.” Of the six constitutional changes on the ballot that year, the election board proposal and one other — an amendment altering who picked judges to fill empty or added court seats — targeted traditional gubernatorial powers. The measures were hotly contested, attracting about $18 million in spending by groups for and against them. Lewis said that Republican internal polling showed clear support for the amendments, but the final tallies showed a notable divide: Voters passed four of the measures but rejected the two that stripped powers from the governor by roughly 2 to 1. At the end of 2018, Republicans temporarily waved the white flag, passing a law that returned the governor’s control over the election board. In 2020, Lewis relinquished his longtime role as the House’s election policy point man after pleading guilty to charges related to using campaign funds for personal expenses, including rent. He then resigned. Today, Lewis sells cars in a small town on North Carolina’s swampy southeastern coast and does occasional political consulting. Looking back, he still believes he did the right thing. “I was following the will of the voters that gave us the majority in the legislature to do these things.” Over the next few years, the elections board made one critical decision after another in close or disputed elections, underscoring its importance. In one instance, it called a new election in a congressional race tainted by an illegal scheme to fraudulently collect and fill out mail-in ballots. Republican legislative leaders bided their time, waiting for another opportunity to launch a takeover. Karen Brinson Bell, chosen as the state’s election director in May 2019 by Cooper’s appointees, said lawmakers never let her forget the tenuousness of her position. “I knew from the day I started that my days were numbered,” she said. “I was never naive to the fact that there would likely be other attempts to change the makeup of the board.” Bell said that at a December 2022 meeting held by the National Conference of State Legislatures in West Virginia, Warren Daniel, a Senate Republican who worked on election matters, told her that he and his colleagues planned to take over the board and to reduce early voting. (Daniel didn’t respond to ProPublica’s questions about the incident.) In October 2023, the moment Bell had long expected finally arrived. The legislature’s Republican supermajority introduced a new bill to remake the election board. It shifted control over appointments to the General Assembly’s majority and minority leaders and put some of the board’s administrative functions under the secretary of state. On decisions where the board’s four Republicans and four Democrats deadlocked, the law gave Republicans a decided advantage. If members couldn’t agree on an executive director, for example, the legislature’s majority leaders would choose one. If the board couldn’t agree on a plan for expanded early voting (championed by Democrats), then each county would have just one early voting site, the minimum required by law. The measure was similar to its predecessors, but the courts that would decide its legality were vastly different. Since the demise of the previous election board law, Republicans had won 14 appellate court races in a row and held majorities on the state’s higher courts. The Supreme Court’s chief justice, Paul Newby, had made it clear he saw no legal impediment to whittling down the governor’s portfolio, writing a sharp dissent to a ruling that struck down an earlier attempt to limit gubernatorial power. In February 2024, a trial court issued a decision that reframed the debate over the constitutionality of gubernatorial power transfers. This time, the case didn’t involve the election board. It dealt instead with a law that used a variety of mechanisms to strip away Gov. Roy Cooper’s control over seven other entities that managed everything from coastal resources to building codes. A three-judge panel found three of the seven transfer schemes legal because power passed from the governor to another elected executive branch member. “While the Governor is the chief executive, other elected officers who are members of the Council of State are also vested with executive power,” the judges wrote. Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who studies issues related to separation of powers, was aghast, saying the decision reflected partisanship rather than sound legal analysis. The court was “ignoring the fact that the governor was actually elected” and “allowing the state legislature to transfer some of his authority to Republican officials,” he said. Mitch Kokai, a senior political analyst at the conservative John Locke Foundation, argued the panel’s finding was consistent with North Carolina’s history of splitting executive power among multiple executive branch officials. He dismissed Gerhardt’s comments as partisan “sour grapes.” “The Democrats are losing, and they don’t like the fact that the Republicans are winning, so they’re casting doubt on what the conservative courts are saying,” he said. The ruling didn’t affect the October 2023 election board measure, which hadn’t been implemented, blocked by a separate trial court decision. But after Stein’s double-digit win in the 2024 governor’s race, Republican lawmakers again used a legislative session ostensibly about hurricane relief to introduce a new, superseding measure that would finally put the election board under their party’s control. It used a power transfer strategy similar to the ones that had won court approval the previous February, placing election board appointments in the hands of Dave Boliek, a Republican newly elected to the executive branch office of state auditor. Boliek could choose three of the board’s five members from his own party, giving Republicans their long-sought majority. No other state auditor in America manages elections and Boliek had no experience doing so, but he expressed enthusiasm about taking on the job. “Governor Josh Stein doesn’t have any experience supervising elections either,” Boliek told ProPublica in an email exchange. “Leading a public office requires a willingness to learn and serve — and I’m a quick study.” In the same law, legislators also redirected Stein’s authority to make appointments to an array of other boards and entities and stripped powers from other newly elected Democrats, including the lieutenant governor, attorney general and superintendent of public instruction. Stein sued to prevent the changes from taking effect, but in May, the Newby-led Supreme Court declined to block Boliek’s takeover of the election board. Although litigation continues, he has started transforming election oversight, both statewide and locally, in ways that would be hard to undo. Some of Boliek’s board members have long histories in Republican politics and efforts to tilt state elections in the party’s favor. The new chair, Francis De Luca, had led a conservative institute that sued to contest McCrory’s loss in the 2016 race for governor. (De Luca didn’t respond to ProPublica’s request for comment.) Another new Republican member was Rucho, the so-called Northern Hammer who’d worked on election policy with Lewis. The new board will be fair, he promised. “My goal is to level the playing field so that everyone is playing by the same rules,” he said. Bell’s replacement as election director, Hayes, has overhauled the board’s 60-member staff, though historically it’s been nonpartisan and largely remained when new leadership took over. Since Hayes took charge, at least nine staffers have left or been placed on leave, according to interviews and published reports. At the same time, the board has added seven new political appointees, many of whom have close ties to Republican politicians. “It’s a nonpartisan shop shifting to a partisan shop,” said one staff member who asked not to be identified, fearing retaliation. Hayes insisted the board remains nonpartisan and described the changes in staff as “nothing out of the ordinary.” He described his goals as “repairing relationships with the General Assembly” and working to “honor the letter and spirit of the law.” “If we do that,” he said, “I believe that we will rebuild trust in elections here.” Under Hayes’ leadership, the board also moved swiftly to settle a lawsuit filed against it earlier this year by the U.S. Justice Department, agreeing to require tens of thousands of voters to provide missing registration information or risk not having their ballots count in state races, voter advocacy groups say. Bell had opposed taking such steps. Hayes said he settled the suit with the “intent of honoring federal law” and to clean up the state’s voter rolls, which Republicans argue have been badly mismanaged. The new leadership has also taken steps that could limit early voting locations in the state, especially those in Democratic strongholds. Boliek hired longtime Republican operative Dallas Woodhouse, who has advocated for restricting early voting, to fill a newly created role partly focused on early voting. In October, Woodhouse emailed Republican board chairs directing them to consider moving polling sites out of urban areas, where there are more Democrats, to “areas that are outside of urban cores,” where Republicans tend to hold the majority. So far, conservative majorities in at least eight counties have moved to limit early voting sites or weekend hours sought by Democrats. At least two have rejected sites near universities, including a site near a historically Black college. In an interview, Boliek told ProPublica there was no plan to reduce early voting sites in areas that lean Democratic. He later explained in an email that Woodhouse “simply answered inquiries from board chairs.” Hayes communicates with Cleta Mitchell, a lawyer who tried to help Trump overturn the 2020 election, and Woodhouse regularly attends video calls held by the North Carolina chapter of Mitchell’s national organization, the Election Integrity Network. Boliek said Woodhouse talks to a variety of organizations from across the political spectrum, adding,“I don’t think people should be concerned.” He said the board was dedicated to making “it easy to vote and hard to cheat in North Carolina.” Hayes said Mitchell and other network leaders aren’t “receiving special access to me or treatment from this office” and that he talks to people on both sides of the aisle. All told, Republican legislators have successfully transferred power over 17 of the 29 boards, entities and important executive prerogatives they’ve targeted since 2016, a ProPublica review showed. In addition to the election board, the governor has lost control or partial control over a dozen entities, including the state’s Environmental Management Commission and its Utilities Commission. Stein told ProPublica that state residents have suffered, in the form of weakened environmental protections and rising energy costs. Rucho, the Northern Hammer, argues the power transfers have actually improved life in the state. “You have to change the way the system works, if the system is not working,” he said. “This was a real good remedy to make these boards work on behalf of the people.” Longtime observers say they have deepening concerns about the erosion of the separation of powers in North Carolina. Bob Orr, a former Republican state Supreme Court justice, said that if power grabs by Republican legislators continue to be upheld by the state’s Republican-majority courts, it will threaten democracy in the state. “Really, what can people do?” said Orr, who left the Republican Party because of how it changed under Trump. “A legislature that is literally unchecked with gerrymandered districts and a presumption of constitutionality for everything they do in the courts — that is a danger to democracy because they can change the system regardless of the will of the people.” The post Inside the North Carolina GOP’s decade-long push to seize power from state’s Democratic governors appeared first on Salon.com.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.