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:
Thanks to the appetite-suppressing drug, companies are fretting about food sales. This got me thinking.

A year ago, I’d never heard of the diabetes drug Ozempic. Then I read the New York mag article about it, subsequently got messed up by the New York mag article about it, and basically ever since, the appetite-suppressing weight loss drug and its cousins, Wegovy and Mounjaro, have been an inescapable part of the cultural conversation (usually with an unsubtle side of moral panic thrown in). Since the start of the year, I’ve received 252 emails and newsletters that mention Ozempic, including a new one that arrived in my inbox 38 minutes ago.
The latest hysteria has been over what this newly appetite-less consumer base supposedly means for those in the appetite business. Here’s Bloomberg from last weekend:
As sales of appetite-suppressing drugs such as Ozempic and Mounjaro skyrocket, Corporate America is grappling with the question: How does a less-hungry, less-impulse-prone consumer affect my business model? [...]
John Furner, CEO of Walmart’s U.S. operations, recently said the retailer is seeing a “slight pullback in the overall basket” of food purchases as a result of the drugs, but added it’s too early to draw definitive conclusions. Conagra CEO Sean Connolly told investors this week that his company’s scientists are looking at the data, and the maker of Slim Jim and Swiss Miss could offer smaller portions in the coming years if that’s the way preferences evolve.
Separately, a Morgan Stanley report from last week also projected that up to 7% of Americans could be on appetite-suppressant medications by 2035, which could cut their individual daily calorie consumption by up to 30%.
It’s certainly the case that users of the new crop of weight loss drugs say the medications reduce “food noise” (in addition to some truly unpleasant side effects and reports of a loss of the pleasure of eating). “I don’t have cravings anymore. At all,” one woman who uses Wegovy told The New York Times. “It’s the weirdest thing.”
This got me thinking: Could appetite-suppressing drugs reduce food waste?
Food is by far the most common impulse buy, with random cravings and clever grocery store design driving many of our purchases. That said, most American food waste comes in the form of fresh foods — like fruits, vegetables, and mixed dishes — followed by dairy, meat, and then grains. Junk food, with its longer shelf life, makes up less than 10 percent of food waste, the National Post reports.
Still, just desiring less food could curb food waste since you theoretically wouldn’t feel the need to buy excess food in the first place — a shift that is at least implied by the supposedly dampened food sales Walmart is fretting over. That’s not a bad thing: It’s been estimated that 6% to 8% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by ending food waste alone.
And if the proliferation of these drugs drives companies to consider pivoting to smaller portion sizes as a result, that could also be a good thing too (one of my biggest pet peeves is the way grocery store portions cater to larger families, leaving one- and two-person households with too much perishable food). Still, there is always the chance that Ozempic will potentially create more food waste as people continue to shop like they used to, but are inclined to consume less.
One thing’s for sure: Whatever the case may turn out to be, someone’s going to have a strong opinion about it.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The offshore wind industry is now five-for-five against Trump’s orders to halt construction.
District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled Monday morning that Orsted could resume construction of the Sunrise Wind project off the coast of New England. This wasn’t a surprise considering Lamberth has previously ruled not once but twice in favor of Orsted continuing work on a separate offshore energy project, Revolution Wind, and the legal arguments were the same. It also comes after the Trump administration lost three other cases over these stop work orders, which were issued without warning shortly before Christmas on questionable national security grounds.
The stakes in this case couldn’t be more clear. If the government were to somehow prevail in one or more of these cases, it would potentially allow agencies to shut down any construction project underway using even the vaguest of national security claims. But as I have previously explained, that behavior is often a textbook violation of federal administrative procedure law.
Whether the Trump administration will appeal any of these rulings is now the most urgent question. There have been no indications that the administration intends to do so, and a review of the federal dockets indicates nothing has been filed yet.
I’ve reached out to the administration and will update this story if and when I hear back.
A new PowerLines report puts the total requested increases at $31 billion — more than double the number from 2024.
Utilities asked regulators for permission to extract a lot more money from ratepayers last year.
Electric and gas utilities requested almost $31 billion worth of rate increases in 2025, according to an analysis by the energy policy nonprofit PowerLines released Thursday morning, compared to $15 billion worth of rate increases in 2024. In case you haven’t already done the math: That’s more than double what utilities asked for just a year earlier.
Utilities go to state regulators with its spending and investment plans, and those regulators decide how much of a return the utility is allowed to glean from its ratepayers on those investments. (Costs for fuel — like natural gas for a power plant — are typically passed through to customers without utilities earning a profit.) Just because a utility requests a certain level of spending does not mean that regulators will approve it. But the volume and magnitude of the increases likely means that many ratepayers will see higher bills in the coming year.
“These increases, a lot of them have not actually hit people's wallets yet,” PowerLines executive director Charles Hua told a group of reporters Wednesday afternoon. “So that shows that in 2026, the utility bills are likely to continue to rise, barring some major, sweeping action.” Those could affect some 81 million consumers, he said.
Electricity prices have gone up 6.7% in the past year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, outpacing overall prices, which have risen 2.7%. Electricity is 37% more expensive today than it was just five years ago, a trend researchers have attributed to geographically specific factors such as costs arising from wildfires attributed to faulty utility equipment, as well as rising costs for maintaining and building out the grid itself.
These rising costs have become increasingly politically contentious, with state and local politicians using electricity markets and utilities as punching bags. Newly elected New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill’s first two actions in office, for instance, were both aimed at effecting a rate freeze proposal that was at the center of her campaign.
But some of the biggest rate increase requests from last year were not in the markets best known for high and rising prices: the Northeast and California. The Florida utility Florida Power and Light received permission from state regulators for $7 billion worth of rate increases, the largest such increase among the group PowerLines tracked. That figure was negotiated down from about $10 billion.
The PowerLines data is telling many consumers something they already know. Electricity is getting more expensive, and they’re not happy about it.
“In a moment where affordability concerns and pocketbook concerns remain top of mind for American consumers, electricity and gas are the two fastest drivers,” Hua said. “That is creating this sense of public and consumer frustration that we're seeing.”
A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that construction on Vineyard Wind could proceed.
The Vineyard Wind offshore wind project can continue construction while the company’s lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s stop work order proceeds, judge Brian E. Murphy for the District of Massachusetts ruled on Tuesday.
That makes four offshore wind farms that have now won preliminary injunctions against Trump’s freeze on the industry. Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind project, Orsted’s Revolution Wind off the coast of New England, and Equinor’s Empire Wind near Long Island, New York, have all been allowed to proceed with construction while their individual legal challenges to the stop work order play out.
The Department of the Interior attempted to pause all offshore wind construction in December, citing unspecified “national security risks identified by the Department of War.” The risks are apparently detailed in a classified report, and have been shared neither with the public nor with the offshore wind companies.
Vineyard Wind, a joint development between Avangrid Renewables and Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners, has been under construction since 2021, and is already 95% built. More than that, it’s sending power to Massachusetts customers, and will produce enough electricity to power up to 400,000 homes once it’s complete.
In court filings, the developer argued it was urgent the stop work order be lifted, as it would lose access to a key construction boat required to complete the project on March 31. The company is in the process of replacing defective blades on its last handful of turbines — a defect that was discovered after one of the blades broke in 2024, scattering shards of fiberglass into the ocean. Leaving those turbine towers standing without being able to install new blades created a safety hazard, the company said.
“If construction is not completed by that date, the partially completed wind turbines will be left in an unsafe condition and Vineyard Wind will incur a series of financial consequences that it likely could not survive,” the company wrote. The Trump administration submitted a reply denying there was any risk.
The only remaining wind farm still affected by the December pause on construction is Sunrise Wind, a 924-megawatt project being developed by Orsted and set to deliver power to New York State. A hearing for an injunction on that order is scheduled for February 2.