ClimateChangeFork

(Source: Lauren Pyke, The Daily Tar Heel)

Last week’s blog returned to the issue of declining global enrollment in universities. I looked specifically at the impacts of the ongoing trend of declining global fertility, with a focus on the US. This declining enrollment has major consequences for the economic viability of many schools. Such threats require action. The question that was raised in last week’s blog was what schools should do in response to these trends.

I will start the discussion with an AI (through Google) response:

When facing declining enrollments, schools typically respond by: consolidating or closing underutilized schools, cutting programs or staff, seeking new student populations through marketing and outreach, reviewing budgets to find efficiencies, and engaging with the community to understand the reasons behind the decline and address concerns; in extreme cases, they might even consider merging with other institutions to maintain financial stability.

The first option is obviously for an institution to close its doors:

American higher education is in crisis.

This year, some two dozen colleges shut their doors and more are forecast to close in 2025, CNBC reports. According to new research from the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, as many as 80 colleges and universities are expected to close in the next five years.

That working paper from the Fed based its analysis on a massive dataset of college and university information from 2002 to 2023, which predicted future closures through a model using machine learning. It found that of the 100 riskiest institutions it assessed, 84 closed within a three-year period. Researchers then predicted the likelihood of future closures, factoring in a 15% decline in enrollment between 2025 and 2029.

Many colleges are struggling financially as enrollment falls, the result of skyrocketing tuition costs and students questioning if the degree is even worth the hefty price tag.

The second option is to go through college activities and find out which courses students like and which ones have difficulty attracting students. Since in most universities’ curricula the faculty determines which courses are needed to fulfill degree requirements, it is beneficial to go over the list of degrees that the university offers. This is exactly what the University of Connecticut recently did (Another Public Flagship May Cut Dozens of Majors):

Faculty members at the University of Connecticut worry that dozens of majors could face elimination as part of a review of low-enrollment programs — a process that began amid a significant budget deficit.

The Details

Christopher Vials, an English professor at UConn’s flagship campus in Storrs and president of its American Association of University Professors chapter, said 70 majors were identified as having failed to meet a threshold of 100 student completions over the last five years.

Faculty members found out about the review in May when the provost’s office asked departments with low-enrollment programs to complete an evaluation report that Vials characterized as tasking them to “justify their continued existence.”

“It is anticipated that the end result for the review of low-completion programs will result in the closure of some programs,” Anne D’alleva, the provost, and Gladis Kersaint, the vice provost for academic affairs, wrote in a memo to all academic deans.

Majors like philosophy, women’s, gender, and sexuality studies, and animal science are on the chopping block. With the exception of Spanish, every program within the university’s literatures, cultures, and languages department is under review. The department, which houses nine majors, is seemingly divided on its next step, as it postponed a vote on Wednesday on whether it should move forward with the provost’s review or preemptively merge its majors into one or two programs, Vials said.

Almost all universities operate under the stressful tension between fluctuating enrollment, budget, and faculty tenure. A recent example from Wisconsin is shown below:

Chancellor Mark Mone revealed the layoffs in a letter sent Monday to faculty and staff.

The job cuts come after the UW System said it will close its campuses in Waukesha and Washington counties.

In addition to the layoffs, Mone recommended shutting down UW-Milwaukee’s College of General Studies and its three academic departments: Arts & Humanities, Math & Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences & Business.

“I am deeply saddened by this scenario and wish it were not occurring. However, proceeding with the proposal is aligned with our mission and is the most responsible decision for UWM’s future,” Mone said in the letter.

The UW Board of Regents must approve the cuts.

University mergers are another option. One can find a few examples in a piece from Forbes that distinguished between the closing of mainly for-profit public universities and mergers in mainly public universities:

When we turn to public colleges and universities, the picture looks different. It’s a truism to note that public colleges don’t shut their doors that frequently. Just four did from 2013–14, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (although Higher Ed Dive suggests the number is much higher).

Mergers is likely how consolidation will impact public colleges and universities—particularly regional schools in areas of lower or declining population. And indeed, consolidation has already been occurring—so much so that it’s sometimes hard to keep track.

The University System of Georgia has gone from 35 institutions to 26.

In 2017–18, the University of Wisconsin System consolidated its 13 two-year college campuses into seven of its comprehensive universities. UW Platteville at Richland, UW Milwaukee at Washington County, UW Oshkosh at Fond du Lac, UW Green Bay at Marinette, UW Milwaukee at Waukesha, and UW Oshkosh at Fox Cities have all effectively closed over the past couple years—even though they don’t count in official statistics, as this Inside Higher Ed piece makes clear. More consolidation conversations are taking place in the state.

Pennsylvania is merging six of its Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education institutions into two universities.

In Maine, the system didn’t technically merge or consolidate, but instead moved to a “unified accreditation” for the system. Which, yes, means that the System’s seven main campuses now operate under the same accreditation.

In 2023, Connecticut’s 12 community colleges merged into one.

In Louisiana, eight technical and community colleges merged campuses.

The Chronicle of Higher Education is trying to find out if such college responses are consistent with higher education’s objective of preparing students for post-graduation life by introducing the term of upskilling:

Colleges typically prioritize those who are preparing to enter the workforce, teaching them what they’ll need to know in order to thrive in a working society. But, what about those already in the workforce? Those left behind by sudden changes in technology and changing labor expectations? Historically, universities have prioritized educating those between 18- and 24-years-old.

But, the needs of the workforce change over time. This is especially true in an age where AI and automation are making inroads into every industry. It’s time colleges adapt with the workforce. And upskilling may be the answer — whether that comes in the form of microcredentialing, skills-based training, or whatever else.

Google is again helpful in clarifying terms:

“Upskilling: A New Frontier for Higher Ed” refers to the growing trend where universities and colleges are actively developing and offering programs specifically designed to equip students and working professionals with in-demand skills needed for the modern workforce, often focusing on shorter, more flexible learning pathways to address the rapidly evolving job market, going beyond traditional degree programs to provide targeted skill development.

All of this is taking place as a background for what is now a challenging time for college presidents trying to coexist with changing political priorities as well as addressing global conflicts and internal polarization that are likely to grow with the coming change in government.

In the next blog, I will continue to discuss these tensions, with an increasing emphasis on multilevel assessments that are now gaining importance in school accreditation.

Previous blogs on the decline in college enrollment (May 30th, October 25th, and October 31, 2023) were inspired by my teaching experience. I am returning to this issue from the broader perspective with a focus on the US. This blog is focused on the data; next week’s blog will focus on changes that colleges need to make to try to adapt to our changing reality. The recent enrollment decline, separated by gender, is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – College enrollment rates (Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics via The Week)

Forbes’ analysis shows some specifics about very recent changes:

Enrollment of 18-year-old college freshmen decreased by 5% this fall compared to last year, and now the focus is turning to understanding why the decline occurred and how it can be reversed.

The drop-off is a sharp turnaround from last year’s growth in freshman enrollment according to a new analysis, commissioned by the National College Attainment Network.

The analysis by the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center is a follow-up to its earlier report released in October that showed a 5% drop in freshmen overall and a 6% drop in 18-year-olds at the same time there was an overall 3% year-over-year increase in undergraduate students.

Overall, enrollment of 18-year-old freshmen was down 5% compared to last year, when it increased 3%. The decline was widespread, occurring in 46 states.

The enrollment decline was sharpest for white students (-10%), followed closely by multiracial students (-8.3%) and Black students (-8.2%). Asian (-5.7%) and Latino/a (-2.1%) students experienced smaller declines.

A few days later, Forbes tried to emphasize some of the consequences of these changes:

Annual college closures are likely to increase above their current rate if the anticipated decline in higher education enrollment transpires, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia working paper released this month.

Using these data, the researchers compared the accuracy of various statistical models in identifying those institutions that eventually closed. Because public institutions rarely close, the analysis was restricted to private for-profit and nonprofit two-year and four-year schools.

The best model — one that used machine learning and was able to compensate for the missing data that plagues many prediction formulas — revealed that of the 100 institutions it assessed to be at most financial risk, 84 had closed within a three-year time span.

Recent news about changes in the global population, with demographic changes in the US, is given below:

WASHINGTON — The world population increased by more than 71 million people in 2024 and will be 8.09 billion people on New Year’s Day, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates released Monday.

The 0.9% increase in 2024 was a slight slowdown from 2023, when the world population grew by 75 million people. In January 2025, 4.2 births and 2.0 deaths were expected worldwide every second, according to the estimates.

The United States grew by 2.6 million people in 2024, and the U.S. population on New Year’s Day will be 341 million people, according to the Census Bureau.

The United States was expected to have one birth every 9 seconds and one death every 9.4 seconds in January 2025. International migration was expected to add one person to the U.S. population every 23.2 seconds. The combination of births, deaths and net international migration will increase the U.S. population by one person every 21.2 seconds, the Census Bureau said. So far in the 2020s, the U.S. population has grown by almost 9.7 million people, a 2.9% growth rate. In the 2010s, the U.S. grew by 7.4%, which was the lowest rate since the 1930s.

Changes in the makeup of the US workforce by generation are shown in Figure 2:

Figure 2 – Workforce by age and generation 2006-2026

As was mentioned in earlier blogs, the fertility rate in the US is declining sharply, yet the population is still growing. The main process that feeds this population growth is immigration. The dynamics of these two processes are clearly shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Population estimates (Source: US Census)

College enrollment is mainly made up of Generation Z students. The declining fertility rate ensures that the fraction of incoming freshmen will also decline. Figure 4 shows the changes in the age distribution of newly arrived immigrants; their age is sharply increasing. This dynamic is summarized in a report by the ICEF Monitor (International Consultants for Education and Fares), a summary of which is given below):

Short on time? Here are the highlights:

• US colleges are facing a smaller pool of young domestic students due to demographics and changing views on the importance of higher education

• The total number of domestic high school graduates is expected to peak in 2025 and then decline steadily through 2041

• New approaches are necessary to mitigate risk and appeal to new target audiences, including an increased emphasis on international recruitment

Figure 4 – The share of new immigrants who are of working-age (defined as 16 to 64) (Source: Center for Immigration Studies)

A broader outline of the college enrollment situation is provided by AI (through Google):

Many colleges are cutting majors and programs to reduce costs and make ends meet. This includes:

• Rural universities

Universities that serve rural students are disproportionately affected by these cuts. For example, West Virginia University eliminated 28 undergraduate and graduate majors and programs, including most foreign languages.

• Budget challenges

Colleges are facing budget challenges due to a number of factors, including:

• Fewer high school graduates going straight to college
• Rising operational costs
• The end of federal COVID relief money

• Enrollment decline

College enrollment declined during the pandemic, and officials had hoped enrollment would recover to pre-COVID levels. However, enrollment figures have not recovered.

• Financial aid application overhaul

The federal government’s overhaul of its financial aid application has complicated the situation.

Major restrictions are another way colleges can limit the number of students who can enroll in a particular major. These restrictions can include requiring students to meet GPA requirements, participate in an interview, or submit a competitive application. These restrictions can create barriers for students who are less-privileged.

While large-scale cuts to majors in the years during and since the Covid-19 pandemic have gotten some attention, what many have in common has been largely overlooked: They’re disproportionately happening at universities that serve rural students or are in largely rural states.

One remedy that schools are increasingly turning to is the reexamination of the number of majors that they are offering. In the next blog I will try to go deeper into this issue.

Less than two weeks after this blog, the new Trump administration will come to power and will try to implement one of its main promises – to significantly reduce immigration. There are already significant disagreements among the followers of the new administration about the future of the H-1B visa, which is given to some of the best qualified foreign nationals. Many from outside the US mark this program as a brain drain—especially for developing countries; they will probably not be sorry to see this program curtailed. Almost all the recipients of these visas are college graduates, so curtailing these visas will not have a major impact on student enrollment but it might have an impact on faculty recruitment. Its impact on the economy remains unknown. I will try to follow this discussion.

Figure 1 – A bright future

With the winter holidays, the coming new year, and the approaching inauguration of the Trump administration, last week’s blog was focused on longer-term global trends that can lead either to destruction or to a bright, sustainable future that I labeled the modern Garden of Eden. The focus of that blog was five global trends that started around the end of WWII and are currently accelerating. They include climate change, nuclear energy, fertility changes, global electrification, and the digitization of humanity.

Last week’s blog promised that “Some of the efforts to get us to the Garden of Eden will be outlined in the next blog.”  This blog will be posted on New Year’s Eve, which is usually a time to be positive and optimistic, so I will focus on our present efforts to achieve a bright, sustainable future. Hopefully, if these efforts continue with some success, they will lead us out of destruction and into our modern Garden of Eden, with more than 8 billion happy people living in a human-created reality that is synchronized with our cosmological reality. In terms of prospects for a beneficial, far-reaching future, there are large differences in the five trends. With nuclear energy, in my opinion, the prospect of destructive military applications outweighs the foreseeable benefits. The wish that was expressed in last week’s blog for fertility changes was that they become independent of economic considerations. In other words, in an ideal world, the rate would be determined solely by the desire for children. Present trends of global electrification and global digitization will, most likely, result in full global penetration. That leaves climate change and our current efforts to replace fossil fuel energy with sustainable sources.

My photograph of the sunset, with dark clouds above New York City, can act as a symbolic outline of my wishes (sunrise might have been more appropriate but I didn’t have good enough example and most people without a good knowledge of the details of NYC cannot distinguish between the two in a photo). Not surprisingly, most of the details of our present efforts to reach a brighter, more sustainable future will be focused on the global effort to mitigate climate change through an energy transition. Some specifics are listed below:

1. Efforts towards a fusion-based grid scale operation:

On top of the effort to pursue sustainable energy resources is the search for economic fusion sources. Previous blogs (June 8, 2021, December 12, 2017) discussed the science and some of the difficulties. Figure 2 shows the growth in the number of companies that have joined the effort.

Figure 2 – The number of companies pursuing fusion energy over time (Source: Fusion Energy Base)

The present effort is promising enough to start exploring the distribution of the energy released through the electric grid:

WASHINGTON, Dec 17 (Reuters) – Commonwealth Fusion Systems, a private company spun off from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, plans what it calls the world’s first grid-scale fusion power plant in Virginia, to generate power by the early 2030s, the company said on Tuesday.

The project, if successful, could revolutionize the global energy industry by tapping into a virtually limitless power source, similar to that which fuels the stars.

The progress is happening so fast that last week’s blog tries to make the case that conservation of energy does not apply – a circular economy is a must!

2. Expansion of research and the development of new energy sources.

A good example is the attempts to use geothermal energy from deep inside the Earth:

Geothermal energy has enabled Finland to decarbonise its industries and reduce hydrocarbon import costs, making it an example for the whole world to emulate. Volcanoes exist in many parts of the world, but few allow safe and viable drilling with the technology we currently possess, so their implementation is still far from accessible.

However, CGG, a firm specialising in geophysical sciences and their implementation in new technologies, claims that they would be able to exploit geothermal energy at great sea depths to extract the heat that escapes between tectonic plates. The idea would be to install offshore geothermal plants equipped with a new 20-kilometre borehole developed by the MIT start-up.

The project proposes to install a plant in the North Sea, where conditions are similar to those found in Finland but extend over an area of about 65,000 square kilometres. There are geological fissures and igneous rocks there that could generate energy for 20 million years by extracting just 0.1% of the existing heat, with cheaper facilities and a stable supply.

3. Scale-up of solar energy

The magnitude of the scale-up is shown below:

Photovoltaic (PV) installations are a leading technology for generating green electricity and reducing carbon emissions. Roofing highways with solar panels offers a new opportunity for PV development, but its potential of global deployment and associated socio-economic impacts have not been investigated. Here, we combine solar PV output modeling with the global highway distribution and levelized cost of electricity to estimate the potential and economic feasibility of deploying highway PV systems worldwide. We also quantify its co-benefits of reducing CO₂ equivalent emissions and traffic losses (road traffic deaths and socio-economic burdens). Our analysis reveals a potential for generating 17.58 PWh yr⁻¹ of electricity, of which nearly 56% can be realized at a cost below US$100 MWh⁻¹. Achieving the full highway PV potential could offset 28.78% (28.21%–29.1%) of the global total carbon emissions in 2018, prevent approximately 0.15 million road traffic deaths, and reduce US$0.43 ± 0.16 trillion socio-economic burdens per year. Highway PV projects could bring a net return of about US$14.42 ± 4.04 trillion over a 25-year lifetime. To exploit the full potential of highway PV, countries with various income levels must strengthen cooperation and balance the multiple socio-economic co-benefits.

One good example of scaling up the use of solar cells is the move to cover roads with the devices (see “Solar Roads: Driving into the Future” from February 18, 2020).

A groundbreaking proposal suggests that 52 billion solar panels could soon line the American highway network. This ambitious initiative has been put forward by researchers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Tsinghua University, the Chinese Academy of Geosciences, and Columbia University, aiming to transform major global highways with solar energy integration.

4. Smaller scale experimenting can bring large dividends:

Mercedes-Benz has shared what it describes as an “exclusive insight into research activities and future technologies,” showcasing several innovations currently under feasibility testing.

The innovations span a range of concepts, from augmented reality glasses to alternatives to leather, made from recycled plastic and biotechnologically produced materials.

Other developments include a regenerative brake integrated into the engine and transmission unit of electric cars, which is virtually maintenance-free and wear-free, as well as drive batteries regulated at the cell level.

Among the innovations is a “solar paint,” a PV coating designed for vehicle power generation. This coating consists of “innovative solar modules” just 5 micrometers thick, applied seamlessly to the car body like a wafer-thin paste.

5. Legal actions that can accelerate the transition. Two examples, one from a local US state court and the other from a case in front of the International Criminal Court can serve as examples:

NYT: North Carolina Town Sues Duke Energy Over Climate Change

A North Carolina town filed a lawsuit on Wednesday accusing Duke Energy, one of the nation’s largest utility companies, of deceiving the public about climate change and contributing to the warming of the planet.

The mayor and City Council of Carrboro, a town next to Chapel Hill, said in its lawsuit in North Carolina Superior Court that Duke Energy had known for decades that its operations contributed to the climate crisis but failed to curb its emissions of greenhouse gases. Instead, the lawsuit argues, the company increased its use of fossil fuels, often in disadvantaged communities.

NYT: What Can the World’s Top Court Do About Climate Change?

The International Court of Justice will begin hearing arguments on Monday in a major case on how international laws can be used to protect the climate as global warming accelerates. It is the first time that the court, which is the United Nations’ highest judicial body, has taken up the climate issue, and a key issue at play is whether big polluters can be sued for failing to slow down climate change.

The court, a 15-judge body in The Hague that deals with disputes among nations, is holding the hearings over the next two weeks in response to a request submitted last year by the United Nations General Assembly.

The General Assembly asked the court to give its opinion on two questions: What obligations do governments have under international law to protect the Earth’s climate system from greenhouse gases? And what are the “legal consequences” if governments have failed in their obligations and “caused significant harm”?

Happy New Year, everyone!

(Source: Pinterest)​

Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa all start on the same day this year. Ramadan starts a few months later (March 11^th, the birthday of my ex-wife). In a diverse city like NYC, many of us greet each other with “Happy holidays!” Following my habits, I will expand these individual wishes to collective wishes for global humanity. The new year is a time of wishes and predictions for our future.

Probably the most famous monologue that many of us carry in our heads starts with “To be or not to be: that is the question.” It’s the opening line of a monologue spoken by Hamlet in act III, scene 1, of William Shakespeare’s revenge tragedy, Hamlet (I was required to memorize the speech in high school in Israel). From my present perspective about the coming new year, a generalization of this line from our personal fates to the fate of humanity seems to be in order. The “not to be” part could properly be translated to life extinction. After all, as far as we know, we are alone in this vast universe. The prognosis for extinction is growing. I will mention two related articles here. One is from over 10 years ago and discusses a report to the Club of Rome:

According to a new peer-reviewed scientific report, industrial civilisation is likely to deplete its low-cost mineral resources within the next century, with debilitating impacts for the global economy and key infrastructures within the coming decade.

The study, the 33rd report to the Club of Rome, is authored by Prof Ugo Bardi of the University of Florence’s Earth Sciences Department, and includes contributions from a wide range of senior scientists across relevant disciplines.

The Club of Rome is a Swiss-based global think tank consisting of current and former heads of state, UN bureaucrats, government officials, diplomats, scientists, economists and business leaders.

Its first report in 1972, The Limits to Growth, was conducted by a scientific team at the Massachusetts Institute for Technology (MIT), and warned that limited availability of natural resources relative to rising costs would undermine continued economic growth by around the second decade of the 21st century.

The other article, which quotes from Stephen Hawking, gives the planet a few more decades:

NASA has recently raised alarms about the existential threats facing Earth, bringing into focus the predictions made by physicist Stephen Hawking prior to his death in 2018. Though the space agency has not endorsed Hawking’s specific timeline of Earth’s demise, it has echoed concerns about the dangers of global warming, overconsumption of energy, and other threats to humanity’s survival. As the climate crisis worsens, the world is left wondering: how close are we to the catastrophic fate Hawking envisioned?

One of the most famous physicists of our time, Stephen Hawking, became increasingly concerned about the future of humanity in his final years. In the 2018 documentary The Search for a New Earth, Hawking outlined a dire prediction for the year 2600. He warned that unless significant changes were made to how humans live, Earth could turn into “a gigantic ball of fire.” Hawking attributed this disastrous scenario to global warming, climate change, and the greenhouse effect, which he saw as the main drivers behind the planet’s eventual collapse.

Back to Hamlet, these predictions fall under the “not to be” part of his monologue. What falls under the “to be” part is more complicated.  My “to be” is a sustainable Garden of Eden before the snake came to poison us. The biblical concept of the Garden of Eden has occupied famed artists, children everywhere, and many people in between. An example is shown at the top of the blog and the Pinterest link underneath has a large collection of other depictions. Aside from Adam and Eve, there are no people and no items that indicate even a trace of civilization. The picture shows plenty of vegetables and a bird. The many other examples in the attached link include all kinds of animals. It is for us to determine what a Garden of Eden would look like with more than 8 billion people—especially with more than half of them living in cities with all of the accessories that human society has constructed.

One thing is for sure: there is no time limit on a collective Garden of Eden, so it must be sustainable. What needs to be done to reach such a goal is complex and I don’t make a claim to even draw a picture of such a world. However, throughout the blog, I have paid special attention to five recent global trends that are younger than me, meaning that they started after WWII. These include climate change, nuclear energy, the fertility crisis, global electrification, and the digitization of humanity (see the August 20, 2024 blog, which includes a table with the most recent values of these trends in the 10 largest countries that count for more than 50% of the global population). I will outline where I want to see these trends in my collective global Garden of Eden. Some of the efforts to get us there will be outlined in the next blog.

1. Conservation of energy does not apply – a circular economy is a must!

For obvious reasons that were outlined in previous blogs, successful achievements in the global energy transition to replace fossil fuels will lead us to dependence on sustainable energy that will be fueled directly or indirectly by solar and fusion energy. If fusion energy becomes our main source of energy, we will become a binary star system where the conservation of energy becomes less crucial than it is currently. In that case, our planet’s lifetime will stop being anthropogenic (dependent on us). The remaining internal lifetime of our sun (defined by the availability of hydrogen in its core) is about 5 billion years. The external lifetime (defined by collision with other cosmological objects) will be shorter and more unpredictable.

2. Limits to fertility – globally disconnect it from economic considerations

Most of the reasons for global changes in fertility rates are anchored on economics. High fertility is based on the need to support previous generations, high infant mortality, and the unavailability of birth control. Declining fertility below the replacement rate depends largely on solving those issues and having women be equal partners in education, attainment, and work. As far as I know, we haven’t yet found fertility rates that are only based on the wish to have children, independent of economic considerations. The placement of equilibrium fertility, relative to replacement, will determine the future of the population in our ideal world. Growth will need to be replaced as the only criterion for success.

3. Global electrification

Without this, global digitization (4) and global energy conversion (1), cannot be achieved.

4. Robotics to accommodate labor needs (AI and digitization are part of this)

I have finished reading Yuval Noah Harari’s new book, “Nexus,” a review of which I am posting  here.  The book is from the perspective of a historian and philosopher on the future of global digitization that leads to AI and quantum computing in everyday life. The perspectives on the same issues of a futurist with great credentials in this area is summarized below:

At the heart of Kurzweil’s vision is the concept of the Singularity, the point at which artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence and catalyze a profound shift in how we live. He predicts that by 2045, we will have reached this milestone, and in the decade leading up to it, transformative technological advances will reshape nearly every aspect of life.

One of the most exciting aspects of this transformation is Kurzweil’s belief in the integration of AI with human biology. He imagines a future where nanotechnology allows for “virtual neural layers” that link our brains directly to the cloud. This, he argues, will vastly expand our cognitive abilities, enabling us to think in ways that today seem unimaginable. “We’ll be able to think in entirely new ways,” he writes, envisioning a time when creativity and innovation flourish at unprecedented rates.

5. Elimination of the use of nuclear energy for military applications

This is self-explanatory.

The key to even dreaming about a collective Garden of Eden is to develop a democratic global government with sovereignty on global issues. This should include all the tools that federated nations currently have (courts, police, binding laws, etc..) with restrictions to be applied only to global issues. As it stands, the only institution that currently has some semblance of this role is the UN, which was created at the same time as the other global trends mentioned above. Unlike the other trends, however, it is static in terms of impact and it is not sovereign. More about all of this in future blogs.

(Source: JD Supra)

Last week’s blog included the following paragraph:

President-elect Trump’s current attitude on climate change is not much different from his 2016 attitude (see the March 14, 2017 blog). He withdrew from the Paris Agreement as soon as he could. The US rejoined the Agreement immediately after the Biden administration took over, four years later. In his recent election campaign, he promised again to withdraw from the Agreement as soon as possible. However, the Paris Agreement is now “history,” and reversing the US commitment to changing its energy sources away from fossil fuels will be much more complicated.

The question that still stands is whether or not a repeated rejection of the Paris Agreement nullifies all the related commitments that the US has made. 2030 was set as a milestone on the way to the global energy supply’s midcentury zero carbon target. The top figure of this blog summarizes those commitments in terms of the projected emissions through 2030. The details are included with the commitments of most other countries in a UN document titled “The United States of America Nationally Determined Contributions: Reducing Greenhouse Gases in the United States: A 2030 Emissions Target,” which was submitted in 2022. It is summarized in the two paragraphs below:

This submission communicates the United States’ nationally determined contribution (NDC) in line with Article 4 of the Paris Agreement.  The Paris Agreement establishes a goal of holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2^o C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature to 1.5^o C.   Climate change is an existential threat and demands bold action.  Solutions exist today to reduce emissions rapidly while supporting economic growth and improving quality of life.  Addressing the climate crisis requires scaling the many solutions we already have, while investing in innovation to improve and broaden the set of solutions, enabling multiple pathways to reach global net zero emissions.    After a careful process involving analysis and consultation across the United States federal government and with leaders in state, local, and tribal governments, the United States is setting an economy-wide target of reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 50-52 percent below 2005 levels in 2030. The National Climate Advisor developed this NDC in consultation with the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, and it was approved by President Joseph R. Biden Jr..

Deploying zero-carbon solutions in the United States will create good jobs and improve the health of our families and communities.  Local air pollution reductions that come along with reaching this goal will avoid tens of thousands of premature deaths by 2030.  The United States is committed to standing with the workers and communities too often left behind — people and places that have suffered as a result of economic and energy shifts – and creating well-paid employment in the low carbon economy. The United States reaffirms its commitment to the creation of decent work and quality jobs as an integral part of its efforts to combat climate change.  The United States will work to ensure that our firms and workers are not put at an unfair competitive disadvantage and cooperate with allies and partners that are committed to fighting climate change.  As appropriate, and consistent with domestic approaches to reduce United States greenhouse gas emissions, this includes consideration of carbon border adjustments in relation to carbon-intensive goods.

A recent publication in Bloomberg summarizes the state of the global energy transition needed to reach the 2030 targets. It lists the following topics as checkpoints for how current progress matches up to crucial 2030 targets:

• Renewables
• Tech
• Deforestation
• EVs
• Biodiversity
• Fashion
• Emissions
• Airlines
• Banks

I will expand below on the global progress in four out of the 9 areas that Bloomberg outlines:

Renewables

More than 130 nations agreed at COP28 in Dubai last year to triple the deployment of renewable energy by 2030. The International Energy Agency estimates that solar capacity increased about 40-fold between 2010 and 2023, as wind power expanded around six-fold. But as COP29 gets underway in Azerbaijan this week even that dizzying pace of deployment isn’t sufficient to ensure the world hits its target.

Get Big Tech to Net Zero

Promises by the world’s biggest technology companies to aggressively cut emissions — including pledges by Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Meta Platforms Inc. to hit net zero by 2030 — are being upended by the rise of artificial intelligence. While Bill Gates and others believe the technology will ultimately deliver better solutions to accelerate climate action, the need for energy-hungry data processing capacity is delaying progress in the shorter term.

Biodiversity

The first round of United Nations talks to assess progress since the Kunming-Montreal pact was signed in 2022 fell apart earlier this month in Colombia after nations failed to agree on how to raise more funds for nature. Parties at the 16th UN Biodiversity Conference nonetheless managed to agree on a new process to identify marine areas most in need of protection — a development that’s expected to spur progress toward meeting the goal.

Banks

Major banks need to improve the flow of sustainable finance

A recent publication by Yale Climate Connection makes the cautious statement that we are approaching an irreversible global turning point in the energy transition, toward carbon-free emissions:

While global emissions have yet to reach a clear “peak” – the point at which carbon pollution stops rising and eventually shifts to a consistent decline – there are signs that this turning point could be on the horizon. The rapid deployment of clean technologies like solar panels and electric vehicles (EVs) may help accelerate this shift, although much faster progress will be needed to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.

These global trends have urgent implications for our climate, economies, and ecosystems. To understand what’s behind this year’s record highs and what they signal

The guarded optimism in the Yale publication faces a clear test with the coming second term of the Trump administration. I have chosen two publications that address this. One is from Rick Perry, who served as the Energy Secretary during the first Trump presidency. He suggests that unlike in his first term, President Trump will not try to take the US out of the energy transition, but instead, will try to be the president of “all of the above.” Below are the key paragraphs that outline this approach:

NPR: Under Trump, an ‘all of the above’ energy policy is poised for a comeback

President-elect Donald Trump talks a lot about “unleashing American energy” — specifically oil, which he likes to call “liquid gold.”

And based on his nominees for key energy posts, there’s every indication that a Trump administration 2.0 will actively promote oil and natural gas.

Trump wants to ‘Drill, baby, drill.’ What does that mean for climate concerns?

But another phrase is popping up a lot right now in Republican circles: “All of the above.” Trump’s pick for “energy czar,” who has a history of supporting both oil and renewables, has been described as an “all-of-the-above energy governor.” A key Republican in Congress hopes that Chris Wright, Trump’s choice to be the new secretary of energy and a believer in fracking, nuclear and geothermal energy, will support “an all-of-the-above energy policy.” Statement after statement, story after story. Even the summer before the election, the phrase was reportedly the talk of the Republican National Convention.

From the Austin American Statesman:

We cannot just walk away from renewables, but we can adopt an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy incorporating renewable and nonrenewable resources. This approach includes the responsible development of energy sources such as wind, solar, oil, natural gas and coal.

As governor of Texas, I championed wind power, making Texas the largest wind energy producer in the nation. I led the development of the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones (CREZ) program, a $7 billion investment in infrastructure that brought wind power from rural West Texas to major cities. The program created thousands of jobs, lowered electricity rates and reduced emissions.

Furthermore, during my tenure as Energy Secretary under President Trump, we pursued a genuine “all-of-the-above” energy strategy. We led the world in oil and gas production, achieved energy independence and simultaneously reduced carbon emissions. This was accomplished not by favoring one energy source over another but by maximizing all our resources — including nuclear power, which remains a zero-emission source of reliable energy.

With the next two blogs, I will try to celebrate the upcoming new year with my description of a “happy ending” of our global sustainability strides that would include much more than an energy transition.

 (Source: Grist, Amelia Bates)

Last week’s blog showed the continuing accelerated rise of average global temperature along with the continuing rise of global carbon emissions, in spite of the fact that the average carbon emissions of developing countries is starting to decrease. Many of us are now asking what the coming Trump administration’s response will be to this reality. Announcements of the leadership within the coming administration are almost complete, although the Senate’s advise and consent role in the process will start only after the new year. The NYT prognosis of the climate policies of the coming administration is summarized in the following article:

President-elect Donald J. Trump’s cabinet choices and key advisers run the gamut from people who acknowledge the threat of climate change to those who deny the scientific consensus that emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are dangerously heating the planet.

But virtually all support Mr. Trump’s plan to extract more oil and gas and erase environmental rules, which would exacerbate global warming. And some who once acknowledged the problem now downplay the danger.

The individual quotes of the candidates look like they have been cherry-picked to highlight confusion, but the general trend is apparent.

President-elect Trump’s current attitude on climate change is not much different from his 2016 attitude (see the March 14, 2017 blog). He withdrew from the Paris Agreement as soon as he could. The US rejoined the Agreement immediately after the Biden administration took over, four years later. In his recent election campaign, he promised again to withdraw from the Agreement as soon as possible. However, the Paris Agreement is now “history,” and reversing the US commitment to changing its energy sources away from fossil fuels will be much more complicated. The following publication describes the present role that renewable resources are playing and the rate at which their role is increasing in the US energy use:

During the first three quarters of 2024, renewables increased their output by almost 9% year-over-year, and solar is still leading the charge, reports the US Energy Information Administration (EIA).

Solar’s massive growth

According to the EIA’s “Electric Power Monthly” report, which includes data through September 2024, solar power generation (including both utility-scale and rooftop installations) shot up by 25.9% compared to the first nine months of 2023.

Utility-scale solar grew even faster – up 30.1% – while small-scale solar (mostly rooftop) increased by 16.2%. Combined, solar contributed more than 7% of the total electricity generated in the US so far this year.

Zooming in on September, utility-scale solar generation grew by a whopping 29% compared to September 2023, and rooftop solar climbed by 14.2%. Combined, solar generated 7.5% of the nation’s electricity that month.

Last week’s blog described the state of the transition in the 10 “best” and “worst” states in the transition in terms of progress made. It also described the gain in employment in many states as a result of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the Biden administration’s main energy transformation legislation. Many winners of this transformation are Republican-controlled states.

However, the mixed messages will not be confined to environmental issues and will touch many of president-elect Trump’s promises. The list of the pre-election promises was summarized in an earlier blog (November 12, 2024) titled “Resilience.”

The first issue on this list was immigration, with Trump’s promise to “seal” the southern border, and launch what he calls “the largest deportation program in American history,” invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. 

However, the US farm groups, centered in rural areas that were major contributors to Trump’s election victory, are now asking for special exemptions:

WASHINGTON, Nov 25 (Reuters) – U.S. farm industry groups want President-elect Donald Trump to spare their sector from his promise of mass deportations, which could upend a food supply chain heavily dependent on immigrants in the United States illegally.

So far Trump officials have not committed to any exemptions, according to interviews with farm and worker groups and Trump’s incoming “border czar” Tom Homan.

Nearly half of the nation’s approximately 2 million farm workers lack legal status, according to the departments of Labor and Agriculture, as well as many dairy and meatpacking workers.

Immigration is also playing a role in President-elect Trump’s “relaxed” attitude to climate change and other environmental issues that have directly resulted in the global increase of environmental refugees that were discussed in previous blogs (see April 3, April 10, 2018, and January 28, 2020).

The tension in rural areas extends beyond agriculture. One good example is Virginia:

If Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and Democratic leaders in the General Assembly are aligned on one thing, it’s their enthusiasm for bringing more data centers to the commonwealth. Where they part ways is in how to provide enough electricity to power them. Youngkin and most Republican legislators advocate for an “all of the above” approach that includes fossil gas as well as renewables; Democrats are committed to staying the course on the transition to zero-carbon energy, with a near-term emphasis on low-cost solar.

Data centers are making the transition harder, but so is local resistance to building solar. General Assembly members mostly understand the connection, leading to a lively debate in last year’s legislative session over whether to override some local permit denials for solar projects – and if so, how to ensure the localities still have some say. Though none of the legislative proposals moved forward last year, the topic has become a central one for the recently revamped Committee on Electric Utility Regulation (CEUR).

In January, the General Assembly is likely to consider legislation to override local solar permit denials in some cases, such as last year’s HB636 from Del. Rip Sullivan, D-Fairfax, or another approach that would break the solar logjam. It remains to be seen, however,  whether legislators will take any action on data centers.

Another factor is Elon Musk, considered by some to be the richest man in the world, with equity estimated at $350B. He was, perhaps, the most important contributor to the Trump election victory. Yet, Tesla, one of his main sources of wealth, was also one of the main beneficiaries of President Biden’s IRA legislation; one of the industries most aided by the IRA was electric cars. The State of California has just introduced its own electric car tax credit, in case the federal government cancels them:

California will step in and provide rebates to eligible residents who buy electric vehicles if President-elect Donald J. Trump ends the $7,500 federal E.V. tax credit, Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Monday.

“We will intervene if the Trump administration eliminates the federal tax credit, doubling down on our commitment to clean air and green jobs in California,” Mr. Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement. “We’re not turning back on a clean transportation future — we’re going to make it more affordable for people to drive vehicles that don’t pollute.”

Mr. Newsom’s proposal comes as California officials gird for an extended battle with the incoming Trump administration over environmental policy, immigration and other issues. As he did during his first term, Mr. Trump is expected to try once again to block California’s authority to set auto emissions limits that are stricter than federal standards.

Tesla would likely be excluded from new California EV tax credits, the governor’s office said:

Nov 25 (Reuters) – Tesla’s (TSLA.O), opens new tab electric vehicles likely would not qualify for California’s new state tax credits under a proposal in the works if President-elect Donald Trump scraps the federal tax credit for EV purchases, Governor Gavin Newsom’s office said on Monday.

Tesla shares closed down 4% to $338.59 and fell another 1.2% in after hours trading.

Trump’s transition team is considering eliminating the federal tax credit of $7,500 for EV purchases, Reuters reported this month.

Will all of this keep Musk “in line”?

Another commitment that will come under serious pressure is the extension of the 2017 tax cuts, of which major parts are about to expire next year.

Republicans Ponder: What if the Trump Tax Cuts Cost Nothing?

Some in the party are considering alternative ways of assessing the federal budget as they prepare to extend temporary tax cuts passed in 2017.

What counts as a tax cut? That is the question on the minds of many Republicans on Capitol Hill these days as they consider how far — and how fast — they can cut taxes again. The wonky ways of measuring the federal budget are shaping up to be central to the debate. Forcing the issue is the end of many of the tax cuts Republicans passed in 2017. Without any action by Congress next year, taxes would go up for most Americans, as provisions like lower marginal income rates and a larger standard deduction expired. Republicans want to protect their handiwork and extend the tax cuts before they lapse.

The 2026 November elections will be the first reckoning of the coming tensions.

To have a better idea about the impact that the coming Trump administration will have, it’s time to address the state of the energy transition before the January 20th inauguration. This blog will be data-heavy and next week’s blog will focus on the interconnections between the various impacts. Since the inauguration is a US event, and the actions of the US have a great impact on global activities, the two blogs will emphasize global issues with a strong emphasis on the US. Figures 1 – 3 show the change in average global temperature, the 2022 global distribution of carbon emissions, and the global penetration of solar energy as an alternative energy source. Table 1 and Figure 4 show the recent state of the transition in the US. Table 1 shows the 10 states that were “best” at replacing their electric power grids with non-fossil energy sources and the 10 “worst” in that category. The Inflation Reduction Act (2022) was President Biden’s main legislative achievement in pursuing the energy transition away from fossil fuels. Figure 4 shows the which states benefited the most from the IRA’s creation of green energy jobs.

Figure 5 is a continuation of a previous blog (November 12, 2024) that describes the US governance’s resilience to changes made by new administrations. The Republican victory has been seen as a clear mandate for President-elect Trump. During his campaign, he called to stop the energy transition to non-polluting energy sources, and repeated declarations that climate change is a hoax. These claims contributed to his victory, including full control of Congress. However, even when his tenure is guaranteed for four years (pending on his ability to govern), complete control of the government is limited to two years. By the time of writing this blog (Thanksgiving day), the Republicans’ balance in the House of Representatives is 220-215 in their favor and the balance in the US Senate is 53-47 in the Republicans’ favor. However, in the 2026 congressional elections, the full House of Representatives, and one third of the Senate, will be up for election. Figure 5 shows the US map with the states in which senators will be up for reelection. As the figure shows, red states (ones that elected President-elect Trump) make up the majority. It’s the opposite situation of what we experienced in the previous election.

Figure 1 – Global average temperature, 1850-2023 (Source: Berkeley Earth)

Figure 2 – Map of global emissions (Source: Our World in Data via Wikipedia)

Figure 3 – Solar energy delivery capacity (Source: Renew Economy)

Powering of the electricity grid (2020):

Table 1 – Electricity generation by state, with total power and percentage of non-fossil fuel (Source: Big Think)

The impact of the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act):

Many Americans still have not heard much about the Inflation Reduction Act, which is expected to pour as much as $1.2 trillion into the U.S. economy over the next decade.

“We didn’t lose the election because of the I.R.A., but we also didn’t win because of it and we should have,” said Lena Moffitt, executive director of Evergreen Action, a climate nonprofit.

But rolling back such investments could be a challenge for red states — about 85 percent of the announced investments from the bill have come in Republican districts, according to E2 data from August.

“We’re at the advent of an economic revolution the likes of which we haven’t seen in this country in generations,” said Bob Keefe, executive director of E2. “If it gets rolled back or reduced, it’s not liberals that’ll be hurt, but working people in rural places.”

More than half of 900 clean energy companies surveyed by E2 in October said they would lose business or revenue if the I.R.A. was repealed. Businesses in rural America would suffer the most, according to the survey.

Figure 4 – Green jobs announced after the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, by state (2022) (Source: CNBC)

Initial verdict: November 2026

Figure 5 – 2026 US Senate seats up for election (Source: Wikipedia)

The state of the US in terms of the energy transition is now completely different from that which President-elect Trump encountered at the start of his previous term (January 2017). The next two blogs will examine the interconnections of the various impacts, including major campaign issues such as immigration, budget and inflation, and what happens to the international commitments to mitigating global perils that were already made by the US.

I am starting this blog on Friday, November 11th – the last scheduled day of the COP29 meeting in Baku, Azerbaijan. The world is waiting for a “final” draft of the conclusions. The central issue to be addressed is the amount of money that developed countries will pay developing countries to participate in mitigating climate change and adapting to the changes that are being inflicted. The preliminary figure is $250 billion per year. The cost to developing countries is estimated to be one trillion US$. As we will see later in this blog, the G20 (defined below) is trying to help. As usual, the blog will be posted on Tuesday; I will follow the developments and keep them as up to date as possible.

The mood is not cheerful. The general expectation (or hope) for the meeting is summarized in the following AP entry:

The overarching issue is climate finance. Without it, experts say the world can’t get a handle on fighting warming, nor can most of the nations achieve their current carbon pollution-cutting goals or the new ones they will submit next year.

“If we don’t solve the finance problem, then definitely we will not solve the climate problem,” said former Colombian deputy climate minister Pablo Vieira, who heads the support unit at NDC Partnership, which helps nations with emissions-cutting goals.

Nations can’t cut carbon pollution if they can’t afford to eliminate coal, oil and gas, Vieira and several other experts said. Poor nations are frustrated that they are being told to do more to fight climate change when they cannot afford it, he said. And the 47 poorest nations only created 4% of the heat-trapping gases in the air, according to the U.N.

About 77% of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere now comes from the G20 rich nations, many of whom are now cutting back on their pollution, something that is not happening in most poor nations or China.

A final agreement, between the developed countries and the developing countries, was announced in the early hours of Sunday (Azerbaijan time, late Saturday NYC time) (UN Climate Change Conference Baku – November 2024 | UNFCCC). The summary and the link to the full agreement are given below:

The UN Climate Change Conference (COP29) closed today with a new finance goal to help countries to protect their people and economies against climate disasters, and share in the vast benefits of the clean energy boom. With a central focus on climate finance, COP29 brought together nearly 200 countries in Baku, Azerbaijan, and reached a breakthrough agreement that will:

• Triple finance to developing countries, from the previous goal of USD 100 billion annually, to USD 300 billion annually by 2035.
• Secure efforts of all actors to work together to scale up finance to developing countries, from public and private sources, to the amount of USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035.

Known formally as the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG), it was agreed after two weeks of intensive negotiations and several years of preparatory work, in a process that requires all nations to unanimously agree on every word of the agreement.

You can find the advance unedited versions of the decisions taken at the Baku UN Climate Change Conference here.

The reactions to this agreement by the new Trump administration, which will take over on January 20, 2025, are anybody’s guess.

The G20 mentioned above is defined in Wikipedia as:

The G20 or Group of 20 is an intergovernmental forum comprising 19 sovereign countries, the European Union (EU), and the African Union (AU).^[2][3]

The G20 scheduled its meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to take place parallel to COP29. It also tried to address the same issue of climate finance and made a recommendation to match the cost:

November 19, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – The G20 Leaders’ Summit released its final communique on Monday night (18/11). Although the declaration reaffirms the need for trillions of dollars in climate finance and  ‘hopes for a successful new climate finance goal at COP29 in Azerbaijan’ by the end of this week, it fails to specifically call for the public, grant-based finance that is an integral demand of developing countries in ongoing negotiations. While G20 governments mentioned the importance of the Paris Agreement to limit global heating, and the commitment made at COP28 to phase out fossil fuels and triple renewable energy capacity by 2030, it also failed to specifically mention the urgent need to phase out fossil fuels in their communique.

People around the world are demanding that governments commit to at least $1 trillion a year for quality climate finance at COP29 – with activists taking to the streets in over 26 countries over the weekend. In coordinated marches, thousands of people expressed their demand for climate justice, creative, collective and guerilla actions in cities like Rio de Janeiro, Paris and Munich put Billionaires in the spotlight, demanding that governments Tax Their Billions to unlock huge sums to tackle the climate crisis.

As Figure 1 shows, the recent, post-pandemic, carbon dioxide emissions in the developed world (Europe and US) are decreasing, but global emissions are continuing to increase. Emissions do not know boundaries, so to fight climate change, the world needs for developed countries with valuable resources to grow their economies by shifting to sustainable energy sources. To do this without hurting their populations, they need help.

Figure 1 – Global carbon emissions (Source: @Nature on X)

As was mentioned earlier (December 12, 19, 2023 blogs), the previous COP (COP28), which was held also in a petrostate, finally recommended that the world replace fossil fuels with non-polluting sustainable sources. However, the past year didn’t show any adherence to this trend. Countries promised to ditch fossil fuels. Instead they’re booming:     

When nations at last year’s global climate conference historically agreed to transition away from coal, oil and gas, Australia’s climate minister predicted that the “age of fossil fuels will end.” Norway’s foreign minister lauded countries for at last tackling the climate crisis “head-on.” President Joe Biden said the deal put the world “one significant step closer” to its climate goals.

But one year later, these same wealthy countries are undercutting it, by scaling up exports and launching new fossil fuel projects that could last for decades. At the same time, major oil companies have weakened their climate pledges.

As world leaders gather Monday in Azerbaijan to open COP29, the moves are fueling a sense among scientists and policy professionals that the world has squandered a crucial year and raising questions about how effectively the annual U.N. climate conference can address this core part of planetary warming.

The NYT offers an explanation: Why Oil Companies Are Walking Back From Green Energy:

BAKU, Azerbaijan — When oil and gas companies made ambitious commitments four years ago to curb emissions and transition to renewable energy, their businesses were in free fall.

Demand for the fuels was drying up as the pandemic took hold. Prices plunged. And large Western oil companies were hemorrhaging money, with losses topping $100 billion, according to the energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie.

Renewable energy, it seemed to many companies and investors at the time, was not just cleaner — it was a better business than oil and gas.

“Investors were focused on what I would say was the prevailing narrative around it’s all moving to wind and solar,” Darren Woods, Exxon Mobil’s chief executive, said in an interview with The New York Times last week at a United Nations climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan. “I had a lot of pressure to get into the wind and solar business,” he added.

Mr. Woods resisted, reasoning that Exxon did not have expertise in those areas. Instead, the company invested in areas like hydrogen and lithium extraction that are more akin to its traditional business.

Wall Street has rewarded the company for those bets. The company’s stock price has climbed more than 70 percent since the end of 2019, lifting its market valuation to a record of nearly $560 billion in October, though it has since fallen to about $524 billion.

Many in the general public feel like the COP meetings—and their requirement of unanimous decisions—might reach the stage of obsolescence. In the mean time, however, attendance is booming:

Over 50,000 people are gathered in Baku, Azerbaijan, for the United Nations climate conference known as COP29. This is the second largest of the annual gatherings in their history, according to official estimates and recently published data.

As climate change has captured global attention, the U.N. conference has evolved from a relatively small gathering of diplomats into a major world summit, with growing delegations from developing countries that produce fossil fuels and are particularly vulnerable to their pollution.

The next blog will try to explore how the next four years of Trump’s presidency in the US will impact the energy transition.

Figure 1 – Map of Azerbaijan (Source: CDC)

If I were president-elect, with the same results and history as President-elect Trump, I would have taken a short working vacation to Baku, Azerbaijan, where COP29 has just opened. As the map above shows, it sits between Russia and Iran. Regardless of the COP29 focus on climate change, which would likely not play a role in his attraction to the event, if he were to take advantage of the location, it could potentially set him up as a world savior. Right now, the heads of state of the most carbon-emitting countries, are skipping the conference:

BAKU, Azerbaijan — World leaders are converging Tuesday at the United Nations annual climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan although the big names and powerful countries are noticeably absent, unlike past climate talks which had the star power of a soccer World Cup.

But 2024’s COP29 climate talks are more like the International Chess Federation world championship, lacking the recognizable names but big on nerd power and strategy. The top leaders of the 13 largest carbon dioxide-polluting countries will not appear. Their nations are responsible for more than 70% of 2023’s heat-trapping gases.

I am certain that Trump’s presence would have changed that. President Biden is not participating, probably for the reason that after the November 5^th election, his participation likely wouldn’t have made a major impact. President Putin is skipping too, although Russia is attending with a large delegation and was instrumental in choosing this location for COP29. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian will take part in the conference although the trip recently invoked bitter memories:

On 19 May, a helicopter carrying Iran’s president, Ebrahim Raisi, crashed in the north-western province of East Azerbaijan. Raisi, 63, was killed, along with Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and six others including the East Azerbaijan governor and Tabriz’s Friday prayer leader. They were returning from a trip to the Iran-Azerbaijan border, where they had inaugurated a dam alongside the Azerbaijani president, Ilham Aliyev.

As I am writing this blog (Thursday, November 14^th), it is likely that President Zelensky of Ukraine will participate. Prime Minister Netanyahu from Israel will not attend, although the President of Israel will. The attendance of President-elect Trump would have probably changed much of that participation. It would have also given a big headache to Azerbaijan in terms of securing the place. The part that would have most likely interested Trump would be Azerbaijan’s history—specifically, the country’s government after it declared independence from the Soviet Union (1991) (more about this later).

One can find reminders about the COP system by putting it into the search box of this blog or just glancing at the last paragraph of last week’s blog. In the context of President-elect Trump, everybody is going back to the start of his first term, in which, shortly after his inauguration, he took the US out of the Paris Agreement (See “The Paris Commitments and What to Expect,”  March 14, 2017). Our country’s commitment to the Paris Agreement was reinstated immediately after President Biden won the presidency in 2020. Many expect a repeat of the scenario with different participants. A trip by President Trump to Azerbaijan would have given him ownership of the process and maybe helped him keep Elon Musk in his orbit. We will probably start to see a separation between the two once Trump’s policies begin to to hit Tesla or Musk’s other business interests.

The last two COP meetings (28 and 29) took place in what many call petrostates. The paragraph below from the UNFCCC page describes the selection process:

Regional group members hold consultations to determine which country from their region will make an offer to host a conference. The host country of the COP normally rotates among the five United Nations regional groups (The African Group, the Asia-Pacific Group, the Eastern Europe Group, the Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) and the Western European and Others Group (WEOG)). Once agreed, the country selected by the regional group to host the conference sends, through its regional group, its offer formally to the UNFCCC secretariat. The COP considers the offers and adopts a decision, usually titled “Dates and Venues of Future Sessions”, accepting the offer. The secretariat then undertakes a fact-finding mission to the prospective host country to determine that all “logistical, technical and financial elements for hosting the sessions are available” and reports back to the Bureau, early at the start of the year.

The nature of the main exports of the two countries that were selected to host COP29 and COP28 in their largest cities, Baku (Azerbaijan) and Dubai (UAE) are shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2 – Azerbaijan products export (Source: Wikipedia)

Figure 3 – UAE (United Arab Emirates) products export (Source: Wikimedia)

At the beginning of COP29, we can best summarize the transition between the two conferences by looking at the final decision (which must be accepted unanimously) of COP28 and the opening speech of COP29 by the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliev.

The final agreement of COP28 was referenced and partially quoted in an earlier blog titled “COP28 Conclusions” (December 19, 2023):

The focus of most of the media was on the last two paragraphs, which emphasize the inclusion of language that many interpret as the “start of the end” of reliance on fossil fuels. This is especially notable because it was expressed at a global conference in a petrostate, presided over by the head of its national oil company.

The reference to the full concluding document (labeled as “Draft”) was posted in

(Outcome of the first global stocktake. Draft decision -/CMA.5. Proposal by the President).

An important part of President Aliev’s welcome to the COP29 meeting is cited below:

Now, a couple of words I’d like to say about another segment of energy security, which is oil and gas. I understand that this topic is not very popular at a climate change conference, but without that, my comments would not be complete. Just to begin with information, the world’s first industrial oil well was drilled in Azerbaijan, in Baku, in 1846. It is situated not far from this place. Maybe it may take a 10-15 minute drive. The first offshore oil well was also drilled by Azerbaijani oilmen in the Caspian Sea in the middle of 20th century. In the 19th century, Azerbaijan produced more than half of the world’s oil.

If, then, some Western politicians and media called us a petrostate, that would probably have been acceptable. But when they call us a petrostate now, today, this is not fair, and it only demonstrates a lack of political culture and knowledge. Today, Azerbaijan’s share of global oil production is 0.7%, and its share of global gas production is 0.9%. But the fake news media of the country, which is the number one oil and gas producer in the world and produces 30 times more oil than Azerbaijan, calls us a petrostate.

They had better look at themselves, or at least at their neighbor, which produces 10 times more oil than Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan’s share in global gas emissions is only 0.1%. I have to bring these figures to the attention of our audience because right after Azerbaijan was elected as the host country of COP29, we became the target of a coordinated, well-orchestrated campaign of slander and blackmail.

Western fake news media, so-called independent NGOs, and some politicians seemed to be competing in spreading disinformation and false information about our country. To accuse us of having oil is the same as accusing us of having more than 250 sunny days a year in Baku.

Countries should be judged by other criteria. For instance, the level of unemployment in Azerbaijan, it is 5.4%, the level of poverty, it is 5.2%, our green agenda—I have already described our plans – how countries manage their foreign debt – in Azerbaijan, it’s only 7.5% of GDP.

These, along with many other important criteria, should serve as the basis for evaluating the country’s performance, rather than its natural resources, which are a gift from God. I said this several months ago, and now those who want to attack me, particularly the international media, simply quote me saying that this is a gift from God.

And I want to repeat it here today: it is a gift from God. Every natural resource, whether it’s oil, gas, wind, sun, gold, silver, copper, they are all natural resources. Countries should not be blamed for having them, and should not be blamed for bringing these resources to the market because the market needs them. The people need them. So, this is my message. As the President of COP29, of course, we will be strong advocates for the green transition, and we’re doing it, but at the same time, we must be realistic.

The combination of Ilham Aliev and Donald Trump is not reassuring. In the next blog (or more) I will try to describe the present state of the world in terms of the energy transition so we can prepare to quantify the activities of the new leadership in this area. Frustration among environmentalists is now spreading fast when it comes to the recent changes in global leadership and the resulting shifts in global efforts to mitigate climate change. Future blogs will try to follow the details.

Figure 1 – 2024 Senate election results as of November 12th, 4:32 pm, ET

Last week’s blog promised to discuss geographic trends in America’s election in terms of a strive to increase the entropy of the system (see last week’s blog). Like many of you, last Tuesday night, I was glued to the TV screen, following the evolving map of the election results. Almost from the beginning, the trend became transparent. The focus was on the swing states but the data from states that had finished counting was quickly compared to the 2020 elections. The shift from blue to red based on these comparisons was almost always unidirectional – from blue to red. Almost every group with a previous concentration of up to 70% Democratic votes lost votes to Trump.  These shifts move slowly from a very high concentration toward average, and the balance determines the final result. The NYT did a quantitative analysis of these trends by character and state, including cities and suburbs, the rural-urban divide, race and ethnicity, educational attainment, economic types, and age and across the country.

Figure 2 – Shifts in vote margins as of Friday

Perhaps the most striking examples are the choices of voters with Muslim and/or Palestinian backgrounds and Jewish voters. Many in both groups moved toward Trump at least partially because of Biden’s current American policy in the war in the Middle East. There is very little chance that both groups will be satisfied with Trump in power. As the NYT explains, right-leaning Jews look back at his support for Israel during his first term and hope for a continuation while many Muslims hope that his policy will be different (and better) than Biden’s.

Ex-President Trump had a decisive win on all levels. As of yesterday, the House count had yet to finish but it already had a strong Republican-leaning trend. Winning the House vote would give Republicans control of the Legislative and Executive branches of government, meaning that Trump and the Republican party would reach the desired Trifecta. President-elect Trump also decisively won the popular vote (75.5M to 71.9M as of this posting). Combining that with the present Conservative control of the Supreme Court that was achieved during Trump’s first term, he would have the rarely-achieved control of all three branches of the US government, and the ability to do what he wishes.

Yet in this blog, I will try to make the point that the American Constitution constructed the American government in one of the most resilient ways that can be imagined and that President Trump will have only two years to prove that he deserves the country’s confidence. If he fails, he will be paralyzed from further changes, and unable to prolong his rule because of the two-term limit in the presidency. It will also mean the likely removal of the Republican party from the Legislative branches of government (removal from the control of the Supreme Court will be more difficult). Anyone opposed to Trump’s policies has to learn to be patient and carefully plan how to open the door for a transition. President-elect Trump figured out that the best way to counter all the criminal and civil charges that have piled on him after 2020 was to win back the presidency in 2024. The first step in the strategy to achieve this objective was to stretch the judicial procedures beyond November 2024, which he did successfully. Now it is his opposition’s turn to strategize to stop the parts of his policies that they don’t like. In 2026, the election should focus on the continuation of Trump’s policies without Trump. This should be a winnable terrain for Trump’s opposition.

The first issue to address is what president-elect Trump promised to accomplish if elected:

Immigration – “seal” the southern border, and launch what he calls “the largest deportation program in American history,” invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

Abortion – veto a federal abortion ban but allow each individual state to restrict the procedure as it wishes.

Economy – “end inflation” and plans to pass what he calls “historic” tax cuts for workers and small businesses. He said this will include no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security benefits and a tax credit for family caregivers who take care of a parent or loved one Trump said he will work with tech mogul Elon Musk to eliminate “every single” federal regulation that he says raises prices and kills American jobs. And on the topic of regulations, Trump has promised to end 10 federal regulations for every new one created. Trump has also promised that under his administration, there will be no tax on the first $10,000 of costs associated with education for parents of children who are homeschooled. Trump has promised American companies will get “the lowest taxes, the lowest energy costs, the lowest regulatory burdens, and free access to the single best and biggest market on the planet.”

In September, Trump called for reinstating the state and local tax deduction, commonly known as SALT. In 2017, Trump signed the legislation that capped the previously unlimited federal deduction at $10,000 per filer. The policy hit people in blue states the hardest. Even though Trump signed that measure, he has pledged to undo it.).

Environment – For cars made in the United States, Trump said he will make interest on car loans fully tax-deductible. He said he will terminate an electric vehicle rule published by President Joe Biden’s administration in March that makes EVs more available and affordable over the next several years and makes it more difficult for gas-powered cars to keep up with an increasingly stringent Environmental Protection Agency’s standard. Trump also wants to, once again, withdraw from the Paris Agreement, a major international climate treaty.

Foreign policy – He will end Russia’s war in Ukraine within a day. stop “the chaos” in the Middle East and prevent “World War III.”.

Cultural Wars –“On Day 1, I will sign a new executive order to cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual or political content onto the shoulders of our children,” Trump has said. “And I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate.” Trump said he wants to “get rid” of the Education Department as it currently exists and allow each state to individually “handle education,” as he put it.

Retaliation- Prosecute and jail anybody who went after him during the four years that he was out of power

All of that (even some of that) will take time. Let us figure out how much time the president-elect has. The details are derived from the governance outlined in the US Constitution.

The principle is simple:  presidents are elected for four years, with a maximum of two terms. Senators are elected for six-year terms and congressmen for two-year terms. There are no federal term limits for senators and congressmen. In 1992, California passed a term limit that never materialized because it was not approved by the Supreme Court. The counts as I write this (Friday, November 8^th at 3pm) are: House – 201 Democrats and 212 Republicans. 218 are needed for a majority. Senate – 52 Republicans and 44 Democrats. 50 are needed for the majority. Between 33 and 34 senators are elected every 2 years. So, although every senator has a tenure of 6 years, the rotation means that a majority of the Senate is running for election every 2 years. This is especially important because majorities are almost always much smaller than the number of senators elected every 2 years. As the map at the top shows, most of the senators that need to be elected or reelected are from red states. The reverse was the case in the 2024 election.

So, if President Trump and the Republican Congress do not perform as promised, the American people can reject congressional majorities in 2 years and leave the president to govern through executive orders that can be nullified in 4 years by a new president.

One of the major issues in this election was the presumed danger that the other guy’s election might destroy our democratic system. One can find a short history of democracy on Wikipedia. It shows that the American Constitution established one of the earliest modern democracies. However, democracies, in one form or another, became the leading mode of government only after the dismantling of the imperial systems following WWII. The universal participation of adult citizens in selecting the American government only reached its full scope after the ratification of the 19^th Amendment, which secured women’s vote. Another key event in the process was the ratification of the 14^th Amendment after the Civil War. The sequence of these ratifications is summarized below:

The American Constitution – ratified in 1788

The 14^th Amendment – ratified in 1868

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The 19th Amendment – ratified in 1920

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.^[1]

My favorite take on the main value of the democratic system is Karl Popper’s book, The Open Society and its Enemies. As Wikipedia summarizes it:

 Popper advocates for direct liberal democracy as the only form of government that allows institutional improvements without violence and bloodshed.

To my knowledge, the only exception to this rule within the confines of American presidential elections was the Trump-inspired attack on Congress on January 6, 2021, when Trump lost his 2^nd term election bid to Joe Biden.

What to do?

What president-elect Trump promised to accomplish, based on which he got the decisive public support to lead the US over the next four years, was summarized earlier. The objective should be to give him a chance to govern productively and follow closely the impacts of his actions on all of us. Two years from now, our collective job is to vote for a Congress that will either continue to support him or try to freeze him. The next presidential election is four years away. The additional advantage that the Constitution left us with is the federal nature of the US. The roles of the individual states and the federal government are clearly stated. The advantages and disadvantages of the separation of power are already visible in the present attempt to adjust to Supreme Court’s decision to end Roe vs. Wade and remove abortion decisions from mandated constitutional protection. Many blue states are now busy in discussions over Trump-proofing as much as possible before his inauguration.

The first test exploring and navigating Trump’s governance started yesterday. Monday marked the start of COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. The COP (Conference of the Parties) annual series  of international meetings (this will be the 29^th meeting) are organized through UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). This blog has covered these conferences since I started it. For COP28, go to the December 12, 2023 blog. For reference, one of the first environmental actions that President Trump took after his inauguration in his first term was to take the US out of the Paris Agreement that was created during COP21. One of the first things that President Biden did after his inauguration was to rejoin the agreement. It is logical that President Trump will be consulted on any agreement that will be negotiated in Baku.  President-elect Trump devoted many of his objections to the energy transition that is now taking place to mitigate climate change. He especially objected to the shift to electric cars that is now taking place. However, Tesla, the largest manufacture of electric cars, is led by Elon Musk, who became one of the most vocal supporters and probably the largest funds provider to the president-elect. We’ll see if that changes his outlook. Meanwhile, COP29 should be the first stage to examine how or if Trump’s dynamics on environmental issues have changed.

In the next few blogs, I will try to focus on COP29 and its implications.