You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:

Human history is something like 200,000 years old, which means we’ve had a lot of time to come up with really bad ideas.
Bloodletting. “Dynamic ticket pricing.” Invading Russia in the winter. The McLobster. You get the picture; they’ve not all been winners.
Around the turn of the 2010s, another brilliant-at-the-time idea popped into our disproportionally large prefrontal cortexes. Maybe, this niggling went, the cavemen actually had it better than we do?
This idea — which, if you consider it for more than 10 seconds, is obviously wrong, since cavemen lived in a world that had sabertooth tigers but not microwaves and walk-in urgent cares — nevertheless took off. The “Paleo diet” exploded in popularity. Fitness bros started doing Crossfit and other strength-centric ancestral exercises and overenthusiastically donated their blood to mimic the acquisition of Stone Age wounds. Being a nice parent got rebranded, favorably, as “caveman parenting.” Kevin Roose wrote an entire piece about the benefits of pooping like a caveman. These were dark times.
Fads come and go, and we’ve mostly course corrected since then. Yuval Noah Harari, whose 2014 bestseller Sapiens made him a superstar and contributed to the belief that Stone Ages humans were happier, has since been taken down a notch by fact-checkers. The Crossfit guy got canceled, high-intensity interval training is out, and “sculpt” — not a word one usually associates with cavemen — is in. We’ve at last decided that toe-shoes, meant to get us closer to our barefoot ancestors, are “stupid” and must be stopped.
Some vestiges of Stone Age mania remain, though many of the trends have moderated and become more reasonable. The Paleo diet peaked in 2013, but it’s not gone completely away; there is renewed interest, as one would expect, every January. Still, much of the diet’s foundational science — that we need to eat the foods our bodies were “optimized” to eat during the Stone Age, before the evils wrought by the agricultural revolution and its diabolical offspring: processed sugars and carbohydrates — has been debunked.
Eating whole and sustainable foods, though, isn’t going away. The “pegan diet” (from “Paleo” and “vegan”) is “like the Paleo diet,” one dietitian nutritionist has explained, in that it focuses on foods that “early humans would have hunted or gathered. But the twist is that most of your daily food intake will be plants.” Many researchers say this is the more accurate ancient diet anyway, not to mention far better for the planet. You don’t even need to justify the meal plan by saying our Neolithic forefathers did it: It’s a good idea because it’s a smart and ethical way of eating to address problems that exist in our modern world.
The extreme, macho deprivations of the early 2010s caveman trend have also had their edges sanded off. Interest in “living off the grid” has fallen since its 2013/2014 highs, but the comparatively comfy “van life” has slowly grown. People still crave an escape from the blinking, beeping demands of modern life — there is currently an 18-month-long waitlist to be shut in a completely dark, scantly furnished room in Oregon with no TV or phone, and it costs $250 a night — but that has more to do with the anxieties and demands of contemporary life than misplaced beliefs about the superiority of cavemen living. Unplugging every now and then is a good thing, even at its most literal, but not specifically because it makes us more like Ötzi the Iceman.
It seems clear in retrospect why we wanted so badly to live like cavemen: Modern life is hard. There's consumption fatigue that comes from having 62 different Oreo varieties on the shelf in the grocery store and we want someone to take over decision-making (even if that decision required an at-home meat locker). We are so time-pressed that a scientific blessing for quick workouts and winging-it parenting is very enticing. We may also sense that nature is in peril and so we long for the days when we hadn't destroyed so much of it. Every generation yearns for a “better, simpler time" but, as Gillian Osbourne at The New Inquiry wrote back in 2014, "our gazing at the oil wars and rising sea levels of today have provoked collective sighs for deep, and distant, ecological histories."
Of course, while the caveman lifestyle may have spoken to real needs, it was impossibly, laughably selective in picking what it elevated to importance. We were supposed to eat like cavemen because our bodies are genetically similar to early humans’ but no one proposed treating infections with Stone Age first-aid, even if the same principle applied.
With a healthy perspective and accurate science, ancient ways of living can still be productive sources of inspiration. But let’s not bring everything back. Because you know what else is technically an ancient and natural idea? Cannibalism.
Enjoyed this article? To receive the best of Heatmap in your inbox, sign up for our daily newsletter below:
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Plus more on the week’s biggest renewables fights.
Shelby County, Indiana – A large data center was rejected late Wednesday southeast of Indianapolis, as the takedown of a major Google campus last year continues to reverberate in the area.
Dane County, Wisconsin – Heading northwest, the QTS data center in DeForest we’ve been tracking is broiling into a major conflict, after activists uncovered controversial emails between the village’s president and the company.
White Pine County, Nevada – The Trump administration is finally moving a little bit of renewable energy infrastructure through the permitting process. Or at least, that’s what it looks like.
Mineral County, Nevada – Meanwhile, the BLM actually did approve a solar project on federal lands while we were gone: the Libra energy facility in southwest Nevada.
Hancock County, Ohio – Ohio’s legal system appears friendly for solar development right now, as another utility-scale project’s permits were upheld by the state Supreme Court.
The offshore wind industry is using the law to fight back against the Trump administration.
It’s time for a big renewable energy legal update because Trump’s war on renewable energy projects will soon be decided in the courts.
A flurry of lawsuits were filed around the holidays after the Interior Department issued stop work orders against every offshore wind project under construction, citing a classified military analysis. By my count, at least three developers filed individual suits against these actions: Dominion Energy over the Coastal Virginia offshore wind project, Equinor over Empire Wind in New York, and Orsted over Revolution Wind (for the second time).
Each of these cases are moving on separate tracks before different district courts and the urgency is plain. I expect rulings in a matter of days, as developers have said in legal filings that further delays could jeopardize the completion of these projects due to vessel availability and narrow timelines for meeting power contracts with their respective state customers. In the most dire case, Equinor stated in its initial filing against the government that if the stop work order is implemented as written, it would “likely” result in the project being canceled. Revolution Wind faces similar risks, as I’ve previously detailed for Heatmap.
Meanwhile, around the same time these cases were filed, a separate lawsuit was dropped on the Interior Department from a group of regional renewable energy power associations, including Interwest Energy Alliance, which represents solar developers operating in the American Southwest – ground zero for Trump’s freeze on solar permits.
This lawsuit challenges Interior Secretary Doug Burgum’s secretarial orders requiring his approval for renewable energy decisions, the Army Corps of Engineers’ quiet pause on wetlands approvals, and the Fish and Wildlife Services’ ban on permitting eagle takes, as well as its refusal to let developers know if they require species consultations under the Endangered Species Act. The case argues that the administration is implementing federal land law “contrary to Congress’ intent” by “unlawfully picking winners and losers among energy sources,” and that these moves violate the Administrative Procedures Act.
I expect crucial action in this case imminently, too. On Thursday, these associations filed a motion declaring their intent to seek a preliminary injunction against the administration while the case is adjudicated because, as the filing states, the actions against the renewables sector are “currently costing the wind and solar industry billions of dollars.”
Now, a victory here wouldn’t be complete, since a favorable ruling would likely be appealed and the Trump administration has been reluctant to act on rulings they disagree with. Nevertheless, it would still be a big win for renewables companies frozen by federal bureaucracy and ammo in any future legal or regulatory action around permit activity.
So far, Trump’s war on solar and wind has not really been tested by the courts, sans one positive ruling against his anti-wind Day One executive order. It’s easy in a vacuum to see these challenges and think, Wow, the industry is really fighting back! Maybe they can prevail? However I want to remind my readers that simply having the power of the federal government grants one the capacity to delay commercial construction activity under federal purview, no matter the legality. These matters can become whack-a-mole quite quickly.
Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project is one such example. Intrepid readers of The Fight may remember I was first to report the Trump administration might try to mess around with the permits previously issued for construction through litigation brought by anti-renewables activists, arguing the government did not adequately analyse potential impacts to endangered whales. Well, it appears we’re getting closer to an answer: In a Dec. 18 filing submitted in that lawsuit, Justice Department attorneys said they have been “advised” that the Interior Department is now considering whether to revoke permits for the project.
Dominion did not respond to a request for comment about this filing, but it is worth noting that the DOJ’s filing concedes Dominion is aware of this threat and “does not concede the propriety” of any review or revocation of the permits.
I don’t believe this alone would kill Coastal Virginia given the project is so far along in construction. But I expect a death by a thousand cuts strategy from the Trump team against renewable energy projects writ large, regardless of who wins these cases.
On a $6 billion EV write-down, a disappointing bullet train, and talks on a major mining merger
Current conditions: Nearly all of Australia is under a heat warning as wildfires continue to burn • 65,000 properties in the United Kingdom lose power due to Storm Goretti • Two tornadoes ripped through Oklahoma on Thursday, the first in the U.S. in 2026.
After writing a memo last year that shook up the climate community with its call for a pragmatic “pivot,” Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates published another missive Friday morning laying out his ideas on global problems — and their solutions. The bulk of his “The Year Ahead: Optimism with Footnotes” letter touches on his primary philanthropic concern, global public health, and he laments that “the world went backwards last year on a key metric of progress: the number of deaths of children under 5 years old.” Across both public health and climate change, he maintains his characteristic optimism about innovation (now, innovation buoyed by artificial intelligence), but says that “my optimism comes with footnotes.”
On climate change specifically, Gates hails “meaningful progress” in the past 10 years in cutting projected emissions, but returns to his mantra of technological advancements to decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors and bring down the cost of green technology. “We still have a lot of innovation and scaling up to do in tough areas like industrial emissions and aviation. Government policies in rich countries are still critical because unless innovations reach scale, the costs won’t come down and we won’t achieve the impact we need,” Gates says. As for his philanthropy, he writes that “I will be investing and giving more than ever to climate work in the years ahead while also continuing to give more to children’s health, the foundation’s top priority.”
Glencore and Rio Tinto, two of the world’s largest mining companies, are considering a merger, Bloomberg News reported Thursday. If Rio Tinto were to buy Glencore, they would form a $200 billion mining giant. While the two mine and trade a number of commodities, they are both big players in copper, a key metal for electrification and decarbonization because of its use in electrical equipment. Glencore is also a major producer of coal, a business Rio Tinto has exited. People familiar with the merger talks told Bloomberg that Rio Tinto would be “open to retaining Glencore’s coal business if talks are successful,” however.
General Motors said in a regulatory filing that it expects to “record charges of approximately $6.0 billion” related to downsizing its electric vehicle business. The company cited “the termination of certain consumer tax incentives and the reduction in the stringency of emissions regulations,” which caused “industry-wide consumer demand for EVs in North America … to slow in 2025.” The filing is a marked change from October, when the company predicted a $1.6 billion charge. which Heatmap contributor Andrew Moseman attributed at the time to “chaos” induced by the Trump administration.
GM has been reducing its EV and battery commitments in the United States of late, including by transitioning an EV manufacturing facility to producing internal combustion pickup trucks and selling its stake in a battery cell joint venture. GM said in its regulatory filing that the $6 billion worth of charges “include non-cash impairments and other non-cash charges of approximately $1.8 billion as well as supplier commercial settlements, contract cancellation fees, and other charges of approximately $4.2 billion.” In other words, it's writing down the value of investments made in manufacturing capacity it won’t need and making payments to suppliers who had invested as well. It also said it expects “to recognize additional material cash and non-cash charges in 2026 related to continued commercial negotiations with our supply base” and that “proposed regulatory changes to the greenhouse gas emission standards could result in an impairment of our emissions credits.”

Get Heatmap AM directly in your inbox every morning:
Tom Cotton, the Arkansas Republican Senator, introduced a new data center proposal on Thursday called the DATA Act. Like many government officials at the state, local, and federal levels, Cotton is aiming to balance support for data center development with protections for consumers on electricity costs. Cotton’s bill goes beyond previous proposals to promote “behind the meter” generation and would seek to foster generation that served specific customers with a setup known as a“consumer-regulated electric utility” — i.e. not a public utility.
These CREUs would exist “exclusively for the purpose of serving new electric loads that were not previously served by any retail electricity supplier” — in other words, a new electric system for new demand. These systems would operate outside of regulatory requirements for public utilities, as long as they’re “physically islanded” from the existing electric grid. “American dominance in artificial intelligence and other crucial emerging industries should not come at the expense of Arkansans paying higher energy costs,” Cotton wrote on X.
Stellantis, the parent company of Jeep and Chrysler, is ceasing production of all its brands’ plug-in hybrid models. These include the Wrangler 4xe, which Moseman described as the company’s “signature electrified effort so far.”
Stellantis confirmed the news to industry publication The Drive, telling the outlet: “With customer demand shifting, Stellantis will phase out plug‑in hybrid (PHEV) programs in North America beginning with the 2026 model year, and focus on more competitive electrified solutions, including hybrid and range‑extended vehicles where they best meet customer needs.”
“I debated whether or not to include this in my comments,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in his final State of the State address before discussing the progress being made on California’s troubled high-speed rail project. The project is due to start running — albeit only from Bakersfield to Modesto — in 2033. The estimated cost to complete the full Los Angeles-to-San Francisco line is now some $128 billion, compared to the $33 billion targeted in 2020.