The Heartland Institute, a group known for rejecting climate science, is urging state lawmakers and technology companies to use coal to power the growing number of data centers being built to run artificial intelligence systems. The group made its case at a side event during the American Legislative Exchange Council's 2025 annual meeting in Indianapolis, where Heartland Institute President James Taylor told attendees that the climate crisis does not exist and argued that coal should make a major comeback to meet rising electricity demand.

The push comes as data centers are driving a significant increase in power consumption across the United States. At least 15 coal plants have delayed planned retirements since the Trump administration took office, and the administration's Department of Energy has repeatedly intervened to keep aging coal plants running beyond their scheduled closure dates. The International Energy Agency reported that coal use in the United States rose 10 percent in 2025, reversing years of decline, and global coal consumption reached a new record high.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, which brings together state lawmakers and corporate lobbyists to draft model legislation, adopted policies in 2025 aimed at preventing premature closures of coal and natural gas plants and streamlining approval of energy facilities. Bills based on these model policies became law in Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio. Heartland took credit for a Louisiana law that directs state energy regulators to de-prioritize emissions concerns and defines natural gas and nuclear power as green energy.

Critics argue that coal is a poor choice for meeting new electricity demand. Analysts at RMI, an organization that supports a zero-carbon future, described coal plants as a brittle, outmoded technology that threatens grid resilience rather than strengthening it. The United Nations has reported that over 90 percent of new renewable energy projects are now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. CenterPoint Energy warned in a letter to the Energy Secretary that maintaining a major coal-fired unit in Indiana would require substantial investment in an increasingly inefficient and unreliable asset.

Both the Heartland Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council have longstanding ties to fossil fuel companies, including past funding from ExxonMobil, Koch family foundations, and the coal industry. The technology industry is also represented within the council's leadership through the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and OpenAI. Environmental advocates say the Heartland Institute is using the data center boom as an opportunity to pressure tech companies into abandoning their commitments to cleaner energy sources.

desmog.com, (exxonmobil), (amazon), (apple), (google), (meta), (microsoft), (nvidia), (openai), (indianapolis), (arkansas), (missouri), (indiana), (louisiana), (ohio), (coal), (retirements), (emissions)

This article provides very little actionable information for a normal person. It describes a policy push by the Heartland Institute to promote coal use for data centers, along with legislative activity and opposing viewpoints from critics. However, it does not give any clear steps, choices, or instructions that a reader can follow. There are no tips for reducing personal energy consumption, no guidance on how to evaluate a company's energy commitments, no explanation of how to contact lawmakers about energy policy, and no tools or resources a reader can use. A person who finishes this article knows that some groups want more coal used for data centers and that others oppose this, but has no way to apply that knowledge to their own life. The article offers no action to take.

The educational depth is moderate but uneven. The article explains that data centers are driving increased electricity demand, that coal use rose 10 percent in 2025, and that at least 15 coal plants have delayed retirements. It introduces the American Legislative Exchange Council and describes its role in drafting model legislation. It mentions that over 90 percent of new renewable projects are cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives, which is a meaningful statistic. However, the article does not explain how model legislation actually moves from draft to law, how a person could find out if their state has adopted such policies, or how electricity pricing works for consumers. It does not explain what grid resilience means in practical terms, how coal plants actually threaten it, or what the tradeoffs are between reliability and emissions. The reader learns that a debate exists but does not gain a deep understanding of the energy system, the economics, or the policy process.

Personal relevance for a normal person is limited. The article discusses corporate energy choices and state legislation, which are topics that most readers cannot directly influence. Unless a person works in energy policy, lives in one of the five states mentioned, or is choosing which technology company to support based on energy use, the information does not affect their safety, money, health, or daily decisions. The article does not explain whether coal-driven data centers will affect electricity bills, air quality in specific regions, or the reliability of power for homes. It does not connect the policy debate to things a consumer can control, such as choosing a cloud provider, understanding their own energy bill, or evaluating political candidates' energy positions. For most readers, this is a distant policy discussion with no direct connection to their lives.

The public service function is weak. The article recounts a policy debate but does not offer any warnings, safety guidance, or practical information for the public. It does not tell readers how to find out what energy sources power their local grid, how to reduce their own data consumption, or how to participate in public comment periods on energy legislation. It does not explain what to do if they live near a coal plant that is staying open longer than planned, whether there are health risks, or how to get involved. The article reads like a policy brief focused on the conflict between interest groups rather than a piece designed to help the public understand or act.

There is no practical advice in the article. No steps, tips, or guidance are offered to the reader. The article is purely descriptive and does not attempt to help a person prepare for, respond to, or learn from the situation it describes.

The long term impact of reading this article is modest. It might help a reader understand that there is a debate about coal and data centers, but it does not help a person plan ahead, stay safer, make better decisions, or avoid problems in the future. The information is tied to a specific policy moment and does not transfer to other contexts in a strong way. A reader who wants to be informed about energy policy would need to go well beyond this article to develop a useful understanding.

The emotional and psychological impact is mildly negative. The article describes rising coal use, record global consumption, and efforts to de-prioritize emissions concerns, which can create feelings of worry or helplessness about climate change. However, it does not offer any constructive way to respond to those feelings. A reader may feel anxious about the direction of energy policy but is given no tools, context, or reassurance to process that anxiety. The article creates a sense of conflict without providing clarity or a path forward.

The article does not rely heavily on clickbait language, but it does include some dramatic framing. Phrases like "make a major comeback," "reversing years of decline," and "new record high" add urgency and tension. The inclusion of specific company names like Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and OpenAI adds a sense of insider detail that may be more attention grabbing than informative. The article is not overtly sensationalized, but it leans on the scale of the debate and the involvement of well known names to maintain interest.

The article misses clear chances to teach or guide. It presents a policy conflict but does not help a reader understand how to think about energy choices, how to evaluate competing claims, or how to participate in the democratic process around energy. A reader who wanted to learn more could consider general principles such as comparing multiple independent sources when evaluating energy claims, looking at what actual data shows about costs and reliability rather than relying on advocacy from either side, and understanding that energy policy involves tradeoffs that reasonable people weigh differently. The article does not suggest any of these approaches.

To add real value, a reader encountering this type of reporting should consider a few general principles. When reading about energy policy debates, it is useful to ask who funds each side and what they stand to gain, since funding sources often reveal whether an argument is driven by public interest or private profit. A basic way to assess competing claims about cost is to look for independent data from sources that do not have a financial stake in the outcome, such as government energy agencies or academic studies, rather than relying on advocacy groups from either side. For people who want their voice heard on energy policy, a practical step is to find out who represents them at the state level and to contact those offices with specific questions about pending legislation, since state lawmakers often pay attention to constituent input on issues that affect local air quality, electricity rates, and jobs. When evaluating whether a technology company is living up to its clean energy commitments, a reasonable approach is to look for public sustainability reports and to compare stated goals against actual energy purchases over time, rather than accepting press releases at face value. For anyone concerned about how energy choices affect their own life, a useful practice is to learn what powers their local grid, since this information is often available from utility companies and can help a person understand whether their electricity comes from coal, gas, nuclear, or renewables. These general reasoning steps do not require special tools or access, and they help a reader stay grounded and informed when facing complex policy debates that may otherwise feel overwhelming or distant.

The text uses the phrase "a group known for rejecting climate science" to describe the Heartland Institute. This is a strong label that pushes readers to see the group as wrong before hearing their argument. It helps critics of the group by making them seem like they ignore facts. The word "rejecting" is stronger than "disagreeing" and makes the group look stubborn or anti-science.

The text says James Taylor "told attendees that the climate crisis does not exist." This is an absolute claim presented without any qualification or context for what he actually argued. It makes his position sound extreme and easy to dismiss. The phrase "does not exist" is a strong way to frame his view that leaves no room for nuance.

The text uses the word "intervened" to describe the Department of Energy keeping coal plants running. This word suggests unwanted interference and pushes a negative feeling about the administration's actions. It helps the side that opposes keeping coal plants open by making the government's role seem improper. A more neutral word like "acted" or "decided" would not carry this same feeling.

The text says Heartland "took credit for a Louisiana law that directs state energy regulators to de-prioritize emissions concerns." The phrase "de-prioritize emissions concerns" frames the law as ignoring something important. It helps environmental advocates by making the law sound reckless. The word "concerns" adds an emotional layer that makes emissions seem like a worry people should share.

The text describes coal plants as "a brittle, outmoded technology that threatens grid resilience" using RMI's words. This is a strong negative description that makes coal seem broken and dangerous. It helps the renewable energy side by using vivid, scary words. The word "brittle" suggests something that breaks easily, which pushes readers away from coal.

The text says the United Nations reported "over 90 percent of new renewable energy projects are now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives." This fact is used to make fossil fuels look like a bad choice. It helps the renewable energy side by suggesting coal is not just dirty but also expensive. The number "over 90 percent" sounds very large and makes renewables seem like the obvious answer.

The text says CenterPoint Energy warned that maintaining a coal unit would require "substantial investment in an increasingly inefficient and unreliable asset." The words "inefficient" and "unreliable" are strong negatives that make coal seem like a waste of money. It helps those who want to close coal plants by making them sound like bad investments. The word "asset" is used sarcastically here, since the description makes it sound like the opposite.

The text says "both the Heartland Institute and the American Legislative Exchange Council have longstanding ties to fossil fuel companies, including past funding from ExxonMobil, Koch family foundations, and the coal industry." This is meant to make readers distrust these groups by linking them to big oil and coal money. It helps critics by suggesting these groups cannot be trusted because of who paid them in the past. The word "ties" is vague but pushes a feeling of secret or bad connections.

The text says "environmental advocates say the Heartland Institute is using the data center boom as an opportunity to pressure tech companies into abandoning their commitments to cleaner energy sources." This frames Heartland as sneaky and tech companies as victims being pushed to break promises. It helps environmental advocates by making Heartland look like a bad actor. The word "abandoning" is strong and makes tech companies seem like they are giving up on something good.

The text uses the phrase "preventing premature closures of coal and natural gas plants" to describe model legislation. The word "premature" suggests that closing these plants is fine eventually, just not yet. It helps the fossil fuel side by making early closures seem rushed or unwise. This word choice hides the argument that these plants should close sooner for health or climate reasons.

The text says coal use "reversing years of decline" and that global coal consumption "reached a new record high." These facts are presented to make coal's comeback seem alarming. It helps those who oppose coal by making the increase sound like a bad trend. The phrase "record high" pushes a feeling of danger or excess.

The text says the Heartland Institute is "urging state lawmakers and technology companies to use coal." The word "urging" makes Heartland seem pushy and aggressive. It helps critics by making the group's advocacy seem like pressure rather than a normal policy suggestion. A softer word like "asking" or "suggesting" would not carry this same feeling.

The text mentions that bills based on model policies "became law in Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio." This list of states is included to show how widespread the policies are. It helps critics by making the influence of these groups seem large and growing. The plain listing of states pushes a feeling of momentum that favors the fossil fuel side.

The text says the technology industry is "represented within the council's leadership through the Information Technology Industry Council, which represents Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA, and OpenAI." This is meant to show that big tech has a seat at the table where these energy policies are made. It helps critics by suggesting tech companies are part of the problem or at least not fighting it. The long list of company names makes the connection feel concrete and important.

The text uses the phrase "cleaner energy sources" to describe what tech companies have committed to. This phrase makes renewables sound obviously better without explaining what "cleaner" means. It helps environmental advocates by making their preferred energy sources seem like the good choice. The word "cleaner" is a comparison that makes fossil fuels seem dirty by default.

The text says the Heartland Institute made its case "at a side event during the American Legislative Exchange Council's 2025 annual meeting in Indianapolis." The phrase "side event" makes Heartland's presentation seem less important or official. It helps critics by making their advocacy seem like a minor or fringe activity. This word choice pushes readers to take Heartland's arguments less seriously.

The text describes the American Legislative Exchange Council as a group that "brings together state lawmakers and corporate lobbyists to draft model legislation." The word "lobbyists" has a negative connotation and makes the group seem like it serves special interests. It helps critics by suggesting the group is not acting for the public good. This description frames the council as a place where business interests shape laws.

The text says the Trump administration's Department of Energy "has repeatedly intervened to keep aging coal plants running beyond their scheduled closure dates." The word "aging" makes the coal plants sound old and past their prime. It helps those who want to close these plants by making them seem like they should have been shut down already. The word "repeatedly" suggests the administration is going out of its way to help coal.

The text uses the phrase "streamlining approval of energy facilities" to describe model legislation. The word "streamlining" sounds positive and efficient, but it hides what is being approved and who benefits. It helps the fossil fuel side by making the process sound like a good thing without saying what is being built. This word choice makes it harder for readers to question whether the approvals are a good idea.

The text says RMI is "an organization that supports a zero-carbon future." This description frames RMI's goals as positive and forward-looking. It helps RMI by making their position sound reasonable and desirable. The phrase "zero-carbon future" is a strong positive that makes their critics seem like they are against progress.

The text uses the phrase "the climate crisis does not exist" as a direct quote from James Taylor. This is presented without any context or explanation of what he meant. It helps critics by making his view sound extreme and easy to attack. The absolute nature of the statement makes it a strawman if his actual position was more nuanced.

The text says "critics argue that coal is a poor choice for meeting new electricity demand." This introduces opposition to coal in a way that makes the critics seem reasonable. It helps the anti-coal side by framing their argument as a simple fact. The word "poor" is a strong negative that pushes readers to agree without hearing the full argument.

The text uses the phrase "increasingly inefficient and unreliable asset" to describe a coal unit. The word "increasingly" suggests things are getting worse over time. It helps those who want to close the plant by making it seem like the problems are growing. This word choice pushes a feeling that the plant will only become more of a problem.

The text says "environmental advocates say" when introducing criticism of Heartland. This attribution makes the criticism come from a specific group with a known position. It helps readers see the criticism as coming from people who already oppose fossil fuels. This framing makes the criticism seem expected rather than surprising or new.

The text uses the phrase "abandoning their commitments to cleaner energy sources" to describe what tech companies might do. The word "commitments" makes it sound like tech companies made promises they should keep. It helps environmental advocates by making any move away from renewables seem like a betrayal. This word choice pushes guilt onto tech companies if they choose coal.

The text says the Heartland Institute "is urging state lawmakers and technology companies to use coal to power the growing number of data centers." The phrase "growing number of data centers" is used to explain why this issue matters now. It helps the anti-coal side by making the demand for coal seem like a new and possibly unnecessary problem. This framing suggests that the data center boom is driving a bad choice.

The text uses the phrase "make a major comeback" to describe coal's potential return. This phrase makes coal's return sound dramatic and possibly unwelcome. It helps critics by making the idea of more coal seem like a step backward. The word "major" adds weight to the claim and pushes a feeling of concern.

The text says "at least 15 coal plants have delayed planned retirements since the Trump administration took office." The phrase "at least" suggests the real number could be higher. It helps critics by making the situation seem worse than the confirmed number. This word choice pushes readers to think the problem is bigger than what is proven.

The text uses the phrase "past funding from ExxonMobil, Koch family foundations, and the coal industry" to describe Heartland's ties. The word "past" suggests these ties may not be current, but the text still uses them to question Heartland's credibility now. It helps critics by implying that past money still influences the group. This framing makes readers distrust Heartland even if the funding has stopped.

The text says "the administration's Department of Energy has repeatedly intervened to keep aging coal plants running." The word "administration's" ties the actions directly to the Trump administration. It helps critics by making the administration seem responsible for keeping coal alive. This framing pushes blame onto the current government rather than treating the actions as normal policy.

The text uses the phrase "de-prioritize emissions concerns" to describe what a Louisiana law does. The word "concerns" makes emissions seem like a worry that should be taken seriously. It helps environmental advocates by making the law seem dismissive of important issues. This word choice pushes readers to see the law as ignoring real problems.

The text says "bills based on these model policies became law in Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio." The phrase "became law" makes the policies seem like they have real power and effect. It helps critics by showing that the model legislation is not just talk but has changed laws. This framing makes the influence of these groups seem concrete and widespread.

The text uses the phrase "threatens grid resilience rather than strengthening it" to describe coal plants. The word "threatens" is strong and makes coal seem dangerous. It helps the anti-coal side by making their argument about safety and reliability. This word choice pushes readers to see coal as a risk rather than a help.

The text says "over 90 percent of new renewable energy projects are now cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives." The word "now" suggests this is a recent change that makes fossil fuels look outdated. It helps the renewable side by making their choice seem like the smart economic one. This framing pushes readers to see coal as not just dirty but also expensive.

The text uses the phrase "substantial investment in an increasingly inefficient and unreliable asset" to describe what maintaining a coal unit would require. The word "substantial" makes the cost sound very high. It helps critics by making the expense seem unreasonable. This word choice pushes readers to see the investment as a waste.

The text says "the Heartland Institute is using the data center boom as an opportunity to pressure tech companies." The word "opportunity" makes Heartland seem like they are exploiting a situation. It helps critics by making Heartland's actions seem sneaky or self-serving. This framing pushes readers to see Heartland as taking advantage of tech companies.

The text uses the phrase "longstanding ties to fossil fuel companies" to describe both Heartland and the American Legislative Exchange Council. The word "longstanding" suggests these connections have existed for a long time. It helps critics by making the groups seem deeply connected to fossil fuels. This framing pushes readers to distrust anything these groups say about energy.

The text says "the group made its case at a side event during the American Legislative Exchange Council's 2025 annual meeting." The phrase "made its case" is neutral but the context makes Heartland's argument seem less credible. It helps critics by placing Heartland's advocacy in a setting that seems less important. This framing pushes readers to take Heartland's claims less seriously.

The text uses the phrase "preventing premature closures of coal and natural gas plants" to describe model legislation. The word "premature" suggests that closing these plants is fine eventually. It helps the fossil fuel side by making early closures seem rushed. This word choice hides the argument that these plants should close sooner for other reasons.

The text says "coal use in the United States rose 10 percent in 2025, reversing years of decline." The phrase "reversing years of decline" makes the increase seem like a bad change. It helps critics by making the rise in coal use seem like a step backward. This framing pushes readers to see the increase as a problem rather than a neutral fact.

The text uses the phrase "global coal consumption reached a new record high" to describe worldwide trends. The phrase "new record high" makes the number sound alarming. It helps critics by making coal use seem like it is growing out of control. This word choice pushes a feeling of danger or excess.

The text says "Heartland took credit for a Louisiana law that directs state energy regulators to de-prioritize emissions concerns." The phrase "took credit for" makes Heartland seem proud of something critics see as bad. It helps critics by making Heartland look like they are celebrating a harmful law. This framing pushes readers to see Heartland as on the wrong side.

The text uses the phrase "defines natural gas and nuclear power as green energy" to describe what the Louisiana law does. The phrase "green energy" is used to show how the law labels these sources. It helps critics by making the law seem like it is changing the meaning of "green" to include things that may not be. This framing pushes readers to see the law as misleading.

The text says "analysts at RMI, an organization that supports a zero-carbon future, described coal plants as a brittle, outmoded technology." The phrase "supports a zero-carbon future" frames RMI's goals as positive. It helps RMI by making their position sound reasonable. This framing pushes readers to trust RMI's analysis more.

The text uses the phrase "maintaining a major coal-fired unit in Indiana would require substantial investment" to describe CenterPoint Energy's warning. The word "major" makes the unit sound important and the investment sound large. It helps critics by making the cost seem like a big problem. This framing pushes readers to see the unit as a burden.

The text says "the technology industry is also represented within the council's leadership through the Information Technology Industry Council." The word "also" suggests tech companies are part of the problem. It helps critics by making tech seem complicit in fossil fuel advocacy. This framing pushes readers to question tech companies' commitment to clean energy.

The text uses the phrase "environmental advocates say the Heartland Institute is using the data center boom as an opportunity to pressure tech companies into abandoning their commitments to cleaner energy sources." The word "abandoning" is strong and makes tech companies seem like they are giving up on something good. It helps environmental advocates by making any move away from renewables seem like a betrayal. This word choice pushes guilt onto tech companies if they choose coal.

The passage is built around a series of strong, mostly negative emotions that shape the reader’s view of the Heartland Institute and its allies. The first clear feeling is contempt, expressed through the description “a group known for rejecting climate science” and the quote that the climate crisis “does not exist.” This language appears early, when James Taylor is introduced, and its intensity is high because it attacks the group’s credibility and paints its stance as willfully ignorant. The purpose is to make readers distrust the Institute and to set up a moral contrast with the scientists and environmental groups that follow. A second emotion, alarm, runs through the statistics about coal use rising, plants staying open, and a “new record high” in global consumption. Words such as “reversing years of decline” and “record high” appear in the middle of the text and convey a strong sense of danger and urgency, guiding the reader to feel that the situation is worsening and that immediate action is needed. Fear is added when the passage calls coal plants “brittle, out‑moded technology that threatens grid resilience,” a phrase that appears in the criticism from RMI. The word “threatens” is powerful and creates a moderate‑to‑strong fear that coal could make the power system unsafe, which nudges the reader toward supporting alternatives. Hope is introduced, though more subtly, through the mention that “over 90 percent of new renewable energy projects are now cheaper than fossil‑fuel alternatives.” This fact appears after the alarm‑raising data and its tone is optimistic; its strength is moderate, offering a positive counter‑point that encourages confidence in renewable solutions. The passage also uses a sense of betrayal when it says the Heartland Institute is trying to “pressure tech companies into abandoning their commitments to cleaner energy sources.” The word “abandoning” carries a strong emotional charge, suggesting that the tech firms would break promises, and it serves to make the Institute appear manipulative and unethical. Finally, the text evokes indignation by highlighting “longstanding ties” to ExxonMobil, Koch foundations, and the coal industry, implying hidden agendas and corruption; this creates a moderate feeling of outrage that pushes readers to view the policy push as driven by profit rather than public good.

These emotions work together to steer the reader toward sympathy for the environmental side and suspicion of the fossil‑fuel lobby. Contempt and fear make the Heartland Institute look dangerous; alarm and fear about rising coal use increase worry about the future; hope about renewables offers a way out; betrayal and indignation turn the Institute’s actions into a moral wrong. By layering these feelings, the writer builds a narrative that encourages the reader to side with climate advocates, to distrust the Institute’s arguments, and perhaps to support policies that favor clean energy.

The writer’s persuasive technique relies on emotionally charged wording rather than neutral description. Repeating the idea that coal is “out‑moded” and “brittle” reinforces the image of coal as weak and unsafe, while the repeated use of “record high” and “reversing years of decline” amplifies the sense of crisis. The passage also uses contrast, placing the alarming coal statistics directly beside the optimistic renewable statistic, which makes the latter appear more hopeful. By naming well‑known tech companies in the council’s leadership, the text personalizes the issue and makes the reader feel that big, trusted brands might be compromised, adding a subtle sense of personal betrayal. The framing of the Heartland Institute’s presentation as a “side event” minimizes its importance, while the description of the American Legislative Exchange Council as a group that “brings together state lawmakers and corporate lobbyists” casts it as a behind‑the‑scenes power broker. These rhetorical tools—repetition, contrast, naming familiar entities, and minimizing the opponent’s platform—intensify the emotional impact, keep the reader’s attention on the negative aspects of the coal push, and steer thinking toward the conclusion that the policy is harmful and should be opposed.