ClimateChangeFork

By the time this blog is posted, COP30 will be “history.” It officially ends on Friday, November 21^st, and this blog will be posted on Wednesday, November 26^th. I will use this blog and the one that follows to summarize the event. This blog will be focused on the change in leadership of COP30, and the next will focus on how that change in leadership affected the final resolutions of the meeting.

The attitude of President Trump and his administration toward climate change is no secret. Just put President Trump into the search box, and you will get all my references to both his first term and the present one. When a COP meeting has taken place during his presidency, a change in leadership has been accepted and delivered. However, these changes do not take place without responses. This blog focuses on these changes. Most of the global responses were anticipated, and since almost everybody, including myself and the readers of the blog, is polarized between pro- and anti-Trump, I found it best to summarize the impacts on COP30 using AI (through Google). However, one response that was not anticipated was that of the International Court of Justice, shown below and described in Inside Climate News. Members of the International Court of Justice arrive to issue an advisory opinion on states’ legal obligations to address climate change in The Hague on July 23.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) members arrive to issue first Advisory Opinion (AO) on States’ legal obligations to address climate change, in The Hague on July 23, 2025. The top UN court on July 23, 2025 described climate change as an “urgent and existential threat”, as it handed down a landmark ruling on the legal obligations of countries to prevent it. (Photo by JOHN THYS/AFP via Getty Images)

The essence of the AI response is summarized below:

Una May Gordon, Jamaica’s former principal director of climate change, noted on opening day of the United Nations climate summit last week in Brazil that her country had recently suffered “catastrophic loss and damage” in the wake of Hurricane Melissa.“We just need some accountability for those who are definitely responsible for this crisis,” Gordon said, calling for an end to impunity for major greenhouse gas emitting countries. Climate justice advocates have been demanding this for years, always with science on their side. Now they say the law is, too. For the first time in the 30-year history of the U.N. climate talks, this year’s negotiations in Belém are happening against the backdrop of a recent landmark ruling from the International Court of Justice—the world’s highest court—clarifying what countries must do to confront the climate crisis under international law, and what the legal consequences are for failing in their responsibilities. In doing so, the Court has turned what many governments treated as political choices into enforceable duties.

In its unanimous, historic advisory opinion delivered in July, the court recognized that the climate crisis is an “existential problem of planetary proportions” and that taking action to mitigate and adapt to it is not optional, but a requirement under multiple sources of international law. The court also found that U.N. member states can be held liable for breaches of their legal obligations to protect the climate system.Countries like Vanuatu, the small Pacific island state that led the initiative to seek a climate change advisory opinion from the ICJ, are hopeful that the court’s declaration can serve as a turning point in catalyzing more ambitious climate action and infusing more accountability into global climate diplomacy.

As was mentioned in previous blogs (put international law into the search box), international law is not sovereign. There is no way to enforce judgments. Only sovereign states can do so. AI (through Google) will follow with a summary of the leadership change, focusing on US, China, and the European Union:

Summary of Impacts of US Federal Withdrawals:

The primary leadership change impacting COP30 is the shift in the U.S. federal government’s approach to climate policy following the election of Donald Trump, leading to increased international discord, U.S. withdrawal from certain efforts, and a potential realignment of global climate action without U.S. dominance.

Impacts of the U.S. Leadership Change

• Hostility to Global Efforts:The U.S. government has displayed “fresh hostility” to differing global views, including using “tactics of intimidation” at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to scuttle efforts to limit shipping emissions.
• Withdrawal and Absence:The U.S. has once again deprioritized climate action, with President Trump’s absence from COP30 and a general opposition to international agreements like the Paris Agreement.
• Increased Discord:The U.S. position has created a new era of discord in global climate politics, with other world leaders openly criticizing the U.S. stance and climate denial.
• Potential for Multilateral Realignment:Some observers suggest the absence of the U.S. may free other countries to have “real multilateral conversations” without one player dominating the outcome, potentially fostering new avenues for cooperation among the remaining parties.

US Withdrawals are Shaping Outcomes:

Beyond the specific U.S. situation, other leadership themes at COP30 are shaping outcomes:

• Shift from Pledges to Implementation:The conference is emphasizing a shift from political commitments to tangible, on-the-ground implementation of climate solutions.
• Importance of Inclusive Leadership:There is a strong focus on inclusive leadership, ensuring the benefits of the transition reach all people, and advancing the role of indigenous communities, women, and local leaders in decision-making.
• Private Sector and Local Action:Business leaders and local governments are pushing forward with their own climate action plans and innovations, sometimes shielded from federal-level policy uncertainty.
• Focus on the Global South:As the COP is held in Belém, Brazil, in the Amazon, the focus is on the immediate, existential challenges faced by developing nations and the need for adequate and predictable climate finance.

In essence, while the change in U.S. leadership presents significant headwinds and policy uncertainty for global climate governance, it is also spurring a potential shift towards more decentralized, inclusive, and implementation-focused climate action from other global actors.

However, despite US federal withdrawals from global commitments, others in state and local government continue to demonstrate their belief in the importance of confronting climate change:

The United States is maintaining a presence at COP30, despite the Trump administration declining to send an official delegation to the climate conference in Brazil. This is the first time since the inaugural Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1995 that the U.S. will not be officially represented at the annual climate summit. However, a large number of state and local representatives — as well as environmental nonprofits based in the U.S. — are in attendance. A coalition of 100 local U.S. leaders — including governors, mayors and other top city and state officials — made the trip to Belem, Brazil, as part of the U.S. Climate Alliance. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, among the notable Americans at COP30, bashed President Donald Trump for disregarding the event, which kicked off Monday. “While Donald Trump skips the world stage, California is showing up — leading, partnering, and proving what American climate leadership looks like,” Newsom said on Tuesday. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, said in a press conference on Friday that the “Trump administration simply does not represent the American public on climate issues.” Whitehouse, a ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, accused the current administration of representing the fossil fuel industry, “most particularly the big fossil fuel donors who contributed hundreds of millions of dollars to Trump’s political campaign.”

Leadership shifts to China and the European Union (Through AI):                                                                     

China is emerging with a larger leadership role in climate diplomacy and clean technology, while the European Union faces challenges in maintaining its traditional leadership position, particularly due to the absence of a U.S. presence. 

China’s Assertive Role:

• • • Technological Dominance: China is leveraging its position as the world’s leading manufacturer and exporter of renewable energy technologies (solar panels, wind turbines, batteries) to boost its climate diplomacy and provide affordable green tech to other nations, especially in the Global South.
    • Filling the Void: With the U.S. having withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and largely absent from COP30, China has stepped in to a more prominent role in the negotiations, acting as a “bridge-builder” and a stable partner in the global energy transition.
    • High-Level Representation: China has sent a large delegation, led by Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang, underscoring its support for the Brazil-hosted summit and solidifying its presence.
    • Criticism of the EU: China’s climate envoy, Liu Zhenmin, has publicly criticized the EU’s climate targets as insufficient, arguing that developed nations need to accelerate their pollution cuts faster. 

The European Union’s Challenges

• • • Erosion of Influence: The EU is experiencing a perceived reduction in its overall geopolitical influence and is grappling with domestic pushback against climate policies, which some argue necessitates a new strategy of forming alliances with “middle powers” like Brazil.
    • Policy Divisions: The EU is facing internal divisions on the ambition of its own 2035 climate targets, which has delayed the finalization of its updated Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC).
    • Financial Hurdles: The EU faces challenges regarding climate financing, particularly in committing to and delivering on the necessary funds for developing nations to combat climate change and adapt to its impacts.
    • Maintaining Credibility: The EU is striving to remain a central player, but its ability to lead is being tested by the political and financial challenges it faces internally and externally. 

In essence, while the EU still has a crucial role to play, China’s economic and technological strategy has effectively translated into growing climate soft power, leading to a visible shift in the dynamics of leadership at COP30.

China is not enthusiastic about its new role:

China is committed to the energy transition needed to avert climate breakdown – but does not want to take the lead alone in the absence of the US, one of the country’s senior advisers has told the Guardian.

Wang Yi said China would provide more money to vulnerable countries, but the EU’s climate commissioner has warned Beijing is not doing enough to cut emissions.“I don’t think China would like to play a leadership role alone,” said Wang, the vice-chair of China’s expert panel on climate change. “The most important thing is how to maintain momentum. Now we have two possible directions: one, we go forward with clearer, more ambitious targets. The other may be going back. “So that’s why China would like to do our best to steer in this kind of direction towards low-carbon or green transition, but in cooperation with other countries. We don’t want to take the lead alone. We need comprehensive leadership.”

COP30 is one of the forums in which the world is trying to adapt to global affairs without US “guidance.” The recent G20 meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa, is another such forum. It recently adopted a declaration despite the US boycott over the alleged persecution of white South Africans and opposition to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change.

Next week’s blog will summarize the final decisions of COP30 and the voting rules on such resolutions.

Figure 1 – In charts: ten years since the Paris climate accord 

Last week’s blog focused on the abstract search for a reference for collective evil, following a NYT examination of the current Trump administration. I pointed out that such a search would require serious prerequisites in both social sciences (specifically political sciences) and philosophy. My credentials are in neither background; they are more in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields such as physics and chemistry. One of my most important qualifications for this particular discussion is being a child survivor of the Nazi atrocities that we now refer to as the Holocaust.  

Over the 13 years that I have been writing this blog, my writing has focused on this mixed background. However, having a mixed background is not an excuse for analyzing phenomena within topics outside of my field. Recently, things have gotten a bit closer to my area of expertise. Traditionally, physicists have tried to stay away from the study of living systems. We left it to different sciences such as biology, anthropology, some aspects of psychology, all the social sciences, and most of the humanities. Now, mainly because of advances in computing, things have changed. Social physics has become a respected field. Below are a few sentences that start the Wikipedia entry on social physics: 

Social physics or sociophysics is an interdisciplinary field of science which uses mathematical tools inspired by physics to understand the behavior of human crowds. In a modern commercial use, it can also refer to the analysis of social phenomena with big data. Social physics is closely related to econophysics, which uses physics methods to describe economics.[1]

Topics such as climate change, network analysis, and data science have become respectable topics for any physicist. While I was teaching, I ended up spending a considerable amount of time learning and researching topics that are legitimate parts of social physics. 

However, addressing an issue such as how to quantify evil requires many more prerequisites than I have in my skill set. My deficiencies in addressing the background of this issue were amplified during my search in my personal library,  which was mentioned in last week’s blog. As a result of that search, however, I found the small book by Timothy Snider titled On Tyranny.  

In addition to Snider’s book, I found two books related to Karl Popper. One book was by Geoffrey Stokes, titled Popper, and the other was the 2nd volume of The Open Society and Its Enemies. I remember reading these books a long time ago. It was mainly in the context of following Popper’s definition of the Scientific Method, but I also followed his position on the advantages of democratic governments. To summarize, he claimed that democracy is the only form of government that allows for the peaceful removal of bad leadership without violence and bloodshed. I fully realized that I don’t have and hadn’t read any writing by Hannah Arendt and that I don’t remember much of Popper’s writings either. Both philosophers, with their backgrounds in Nazi Germany, were obviously much more qualified than I am to address governmental shifts away from democracy. So, I ordered and started to read Arendt’s The Origin of Totalitarianism. I also plan to order her book, On Violence. Meanwhile, I decided to postpone the continuation of my attempts to quantify collective violence and return to the “safer” ground of COP30 that I started two weeks ago. 

For background on the COP system, just put the three letters in the search box. The first time that I used the word COP in the title of a blog was with COP21, in the Nov 17, 2015 blog, in which the Paris Agreement was drafted. 

Figure 2 – A screenshot of the COP30 website

The best place to follow the present COP is on the meeting’s website. The landing page of the site is shown in Figure 2. It opens with the following:  

COP30 is the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in Belém, Brazil from 10 to 21 November 2025.

UN Climate Change Conferences (or COPs) take place every year, and are the world’s only multilateral decision-making forum on climate change that brings together almost every country on Earth.

To put it simply, the COP is where the world comes together to agree on the actions to address the climate crisis, such as limiting the global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, helping vulnerable communities adapt to the effects of climate change, and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

COP30 will bring together world leaders and negotiators from the member states (or Parties) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to further global progress, with business leaders, young people, climate scientists, Indigenous Peoples, and civil society sharing insights and best practices to strengthen global, collective and inclusive climate action.

Officially, COP30 stands for the 30th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a landmark international treaty agreed in 1992, and parent treaty to the 2015 Paris Agreement.

From there, we move to the News section of the blue strip and can read a transcript of UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell’s opening address for COP30 on November 10th (opening day). In it, he noted that the Paris Agreement has helped bend the curve of emissions downward.

But he didn’t sugarcoat it: 

 “We must move much, much, faster on both reductions of emissions and strengthening resilience,” he said.

Stiell said strong and clear outcomes on all issues are essential.

“This is how we signal to the world that climate cooperation is delivering results,” he added. “In Belém, we’ve got to marry the world of negotiations to the actions needed in the real economy. Every gigawatt of clean power cuts pollution and creates more jobs. Every action to build resilience helps save lives, strengthen communities, and protect the global supply chains that every economy depends on. This is the growth story of the 21st century – the economic transformation of our age.”

We return to the blue banner to search for the “2025 Synthesis Report of Biennial Transparency Reports,” and get the following:

The Synthesis Report of Biennial Transparency Reports delivers a valuable early picture of implementation progress by countries across mitigation, adaptation, and support. It offers initial insights into diverse national efforts to implement the Paris Agreement — including some of the successes that can be built upon and barriers that must be overcome.

This report synthesizes information from over 100 first Biennial Transparency Reports (BTR1s) and National Inventory Reports submitted by Parties as at 15 April 2025. The submissions include information and data up until 2022 and together represent some 75 per cent of total global GHG emissions in 2020.

The report underscores the critical role of transparency in fostering mutual trust and facilitating ambitious global climate action and support and offers insights into Parties’ diverse national circumstances, institutional arrangements, and capacities for climate-related reporting.

Content of the report 

• • • • Mandate and background 

• • • • Scope and Approach 

• • • • Tracking progress towards NDCs 

• • • • Mitigation policies and measures 

• • • • GHG trends and projections 

• • • • Climate change impacts and adaptation 

• • • • Loss and damage 

• • • • Financial, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building support provided and mobilized, and needed and received 

• • • • Whole of society approach 

• • • • Transparency arrangements, constraints and planned improvements reported to reporting 

The “official” US presence at this meeting is nonexistent, and the global reaction to this has been generally negative (World leaders punch back at US climate denial ahead of Brazil’s COP30 negotiations | Reuters): 

BELEM, Brazil, Nov 6 (Reuters) – Country leaders at a climate summit in Brazil on Thursday bemoaned the fractured global consensus on climate action, taking swipes at the climate-denying U.S. government while trying to assure the world they were still on mission.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres tore into nations for their failure to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as Brazil hosted world leaders for a summit ahead of the COP30 climate conference in the rainforest city of Belem.

“Too many corporations are making record profits from climate devastation, with billions spent on lobbying, deceiving the public and obstructing progress,” Guterres said in his speech. “Too many leaders remain captive to these entrenched interests.”

Countries are spending about $1 trillion each year subsidizing fossil fuels.

Leaders have two clear options, Guterres said: “We can choose to lead – or be led to ruin.”

Missing from the lineup were leaders from four of the world’s five most-polluting economies – China, the United States, India and Russia – though the European Commission president and China’s vice premier were on site.

The U.S. administration opted to send no one to the talks. Instead, top U.S. officials were in Greece alongside fossil fuel giant Exxon Mobil <XOM.N> on Thursday as it signed a new deal to explore offshore for natural gas.

Colombia’s president criticized the absence of U.S. President Donald Trump, whose country is responsible for releasing the most emissions into the atmosphere.

“Mr. Trump is against humanity. His absence here demonstrates that,” said President Gustavo Petro, who had U.S. sanctions imposed against him last month.

A handful of leaders referenced Trump’s description of climate change as the world’s greatest “con-job”.

Chilean President Gabriel Boric said bluntly through a translator: “That is a lie.”

Ireland’s prime minister questioned the priorities of those skipping the summit.

Figure 3 – How US electricity sources have changed since 1950(Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND; Source: EIA via The Invading Sea)

Yet, as can be seen in Figure 3, the sources for US electricity have largely changed from coal to renewables and natural gas over the last few decades  (How the US cut climate-changing emissions while its economy more than doubled): 

U.S. emissions from many of the activities that produce greenhouse gases – transportation, industry, agriculture, heating and cooling of buildings – have remained about the same over the past 30 years. Transportation is a bit up; industry a bit down. And electricity, once the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, has seen its emissions drop significantly.

Next week’s blog will contrast the US absence from the Belem COP30 with the enhanced presence of China and the EU.  

Three days after I post this blog, my wife and I are taking a trip to Washington, DC, to take part in an event organized by the Holocaust Institute. As was clear from my earlier blogs, my focus after my retirement shifted to my Holocaust history, its ramifications for our present reality, and the future of my grandchildren. Just put Holocaust into the search box to scan early entries. My original intention for this week’s blog was to start to cover COP30, which was scheduled to open in Brazil on Monday, November 10^th (see the recent blog on October 29^th). However, reality almost always comes with surprises.

On Sunday, October 31^st, the NYT released an interesting editorial board piece related to the second term of President Trump (Opinion | In Trump’s America, Are We Losing Our Democracy?). The piece immediately triggered in me some important questions that changed my priorities for this week’s blog. Specifically, I wanted to look into the idea of using the editorial to leverage a question that has been bothering me for some time now – how to quantify collective evil, starting with evil governments. My scientific background requires that I quantify any findings for other people to be able to refute or confirm my results. Usually, such quantification needs a reference. This issue serves as a focus of the scientific method, as formulated by Karl Popper, and was mentioned in an earlier blog (June 18, 2012) in the context of climate change. Popper was a philosopher, and collective evil in the form of governments is a topic for social scientists to study; I am neither a philosopher nor a social scientist. Before I proceed, I will cite the NYT’s definition of its Editorial Board: 

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

Below, the editorial board explains the question that the group tried to answer and how they went about doing so:

Countries that slide from democracy toward autocracy tend to follow similar patterns. To measure what is happening in the United States, the Times editorial board has compiled a list of 12 markers of democratic erosion, with help from scholars who have studied this phenomenon. The sobering reality is that the United States has regressed, to different degrees, on all 12.

Our country is still not close to being a true autocracy, in the mold of Russia or China. But once countries begin taking steps away from democracy, the march often continues. We offer these 12 markers as a warning of how much Americans have already lost and how much more we still could lose.

The editorial is long, and what I had in mind was to connect it to a similar analysis of the Nazi regime, which came to power in 1933 and was responsible for the Holocaust during WWII. I had to ask AI (through Microsoft Copilot) for help. The topic that I posed is the following: “Transition of the Nazi Regime from Democracy to Autocracy Following NYT Analysis of the second Trump regime.” The response came out in the form of two answers: one was summarizing the NYT editorial and the other was extending the analysis to the Nazi regime.

First, the summary of the editorial:

An October 31, 2025, New York Times interactive opinion piece by the editorial board argues the U.S. is shifting toward authoritarianism under President Trump, identifying twelve markers of democratic erosion. The article suggests that while not yet a full autocracy, the initial, difficult-to-reverse steps of democratic backsliding have begun, citing examples like prosecuting political opponents and stifling dissent. Read the full analysis at The New York Times.

The analysis concluded that of the 12 markers discussed, 7 of them had just started within Trump’s administration, while 5 of Trump’s actions were already shifting the focus of the government.

This was followed by a similar analysis of the Nazi regime’s transition to autocracy after gaining power in 1933:

The Nazi regime’s consolidation of power in Germany after Adolf Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933 can be analyzed through several common markers of democratic erosion:

• • • • Undermining or Controlling the Judiciary and Rule of Law: Following the Reichstag fire in February 1933, the Nazis used the subsequent Reichstag Fire Decree to suspend basic civil liberties (freedom of speech, assembly, privacy) and detain political opponents without trial [3]. They established the Volksgerichtshof (People’s Court) to try political crimes with predetermined outcomes [3].
      • Silencing the Media: The Nazis rapidly shut down or co-opted independent media outlets through the Editors’ Law (Schriftleitergesetz), which required all journalists to be registered and obey directives from the state’s Ministry of Propaganda, headed by Joseph Goebbels [3].
      • Eroding Electoral Integrity: Although Hitler was appointed Chancellor constitutionally, he quickly called for new elections in March 1933, using the suspended civil liberties and state resources to campaign aggressively while suppressing all opposition parties [3]. The Enabling Act was passed shortly after this election, effectively ending the power of the Reichstag.
      • Marginalizing the Legislature: The Enabling Act of 1933 (“Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich”) allowed the Chancellor and his cabinet to pass laws without the consent of the Reichstag, effectively bypassing the legislative branch entirely and making Hitler a dictator [3].
      • Politicizing the Civil Service and Security Forces: Existing state police forces were rapidly purged of opponents and brought under centralized Nazi control. The SS and Gestapo were established as political security forces loyal directly to Hitler and the Nazi Party, operating outside traditional legal constraints [3].
      • Eliminating Political Pluralism: Through a process called Gleichschaltung (coordination), all independent political parties were banned (the Law Against the Formation of New Parties, July 1933), trade unions were dissolved, and all aspects of civil society were brought under Nazi control [3].
      • Promoting Nationalism and an “Othering” of Minorities: The Nazi ideology was built on virulent antisemitism and the concept of the “Aryan race,” systematically targeting Jewish people and other minorities through propaganda, discriminatory laws (leading to the Nuremberg Laws in 1935), and violence [3]. 

By 1934, the combination of these actions had fully transformed the Weimar Republic from a democracy into a single-party totalitarian state, demonstrating a rapid and comprehensive application of measures that extinguish democratic institutions and norms [3].

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, the Nazi regime’s rise to power in 1933 involved systematic actions to dismantle democratic institutions and suppress opposition. These included prosecuting political opponents, stifling dissent, bypassing the legislature through the Enabling Act, and consolidating control over state governments and military forces. For more details, visit encyclopedia.ushmm.org.

According to an analysis applying criteria from a New York Times editorial, Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime in 1933 exhibited all twelve indicators of democratic erosion. Within months of Hitler becoming Chancellor, the regime systematically weakened accountability institutions, tightened executive control, purged opponents, suppressed dissent, and eroded civil liberties, leading to a one-party state. More details are available on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum website.

According to a New York Times editorial, the 1933 Nazi regime under Adolf Hitler demonstrated a rapid and extreme progression across all twelve indicators of democratic erosion identified by the publication. These markers include stifling speech, prosecuting political enemies, bypassing the legislature, and undermining free elections, all of which manifested intensely and rapidly within months of Hitler becoming Chancellor. For more details, visit The New York Times.

After reading the NYT piece and the AI response on the similarities between the current happenings and the rise of the Nazi regime, I thought that I had seen a similar analysis earlier. I went to my library and, indeed, I had. I found a small book that I had previously read, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century, by Timothy Snyder, shown in Figure 1. The book can be bought for $9.

Figure 1 – The book’s cover

The book consists of a short prologue and 20 lessons addressed to the “average” citizen of the US. It came out in 2017, after President Trump’s inauguration into his first term. The last sentence of the prologue reads as follows: “This book presents twenty lessons from the twentieth century, adapted to the circumstances of today…”

The 20 main lessons are cited below. They are phrased as rules or directives; for the explanations and instructions, I strongly recommend either spending the $9 or finding a copy in the library and reading the book.

• • • Do not obey in advance.
    • Defend institutions.
    • Beware the one-party state.
    • Take responsibility for the face of the world.
    • Remember professional ethics.
    • Be wary of paramilitaries.
    • Be reflective if you must be armed.
    • Stand out.
    • Be kind in our language.
    • Believe in truth.
    • Investigate.
    • Make eye contact and small talk.
    • Practice corporeal politics.
    • Establish a private life.
    • Contribute to good causes.
    • Learn from peers in other countries.
    • Listen for dangerous words.
    • Be calm when the unthinkable arrives.
    • Be a patriot.
    • Be as courageous as you can.

The specific references to 20^th-century history, not surprisingly, are focused on Nazi Germany, with some sprinklings of mentions of the Soviet Union. The same author released an expanded audio version of the book in 2022 with an additional 20 lessons based on Russia’s war on Ukraine.

A similar analysis can provide a solid background, keeping Nazi Germany as a reference for collective evil. However, few will be surprised that most countries in the world—more specifically—all the developing countries, tend to stay out of the conversation. I will return to this issue in future blogs.

(Source: NTT Data)

I finished last week’s blog with a wish to be thankful this coming Thanksgiving. On a personal level, I have some control over my actions and surroundings. On a global level, I have no control so I can only wish. The top picture and the associated link are from the 2024 Intelligence Report of Global Threats. The only threats that this report covers are cyber threats. In previous blogs, I tried to address broader threats. See my June 11, 2024 blog, titled “What Are We Trying to Teach Our Children?” A key paragraph is cited below:

As I have tried to show in more than 12 years that I have been writing this blog, humanity is in the middle of at least 5 existential transitions; all of these started around WWII. They include climate change, nuclear energy, declining fertility, global electrification, and digitization. These transitions started around the time that I was born, but they will hopefully last (if some of them do not lead to extinction in the meantime) at least through the lifetime of my grandchildren (I call this time “now” in some of my writing).

This blog addresses four out of five of these existential transitions that provide early signs of present global threats. These threats are presented in three categories: nuclear war, climate change, and declining population. I will start with nuclear war:

Nuclear War:

I will start with a recent frightening movie – A House of Dynamite. It is a well-made movie; for  those of us who have not seen it, I am including part of a review:

A military expert has praised one aspect of the new Netflix film A House of Dynamite, which has become a huge streaming hit, despite being criticised for inaccuracies.

The political thriller, from Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow, depicts a scenario where a nuclear weapon is fired at the US by an unidentified foe.

From three different perspectives – first from the White House Situation Room, then from the United States Strategic Command, and finally from the President himself, the film repeatedly tracks the 20 minutes after the weapon’s launch and the complex, world-changing decisions that officials might have to make in such a situation.

In terms of public response, the most controversial part of the movie was the ending (spoiler alert!), which doesn’t give the viewers a clear answer to the key question that it raises. We still don’t know—will the missile, loaded with nuclear weapons, hit Chicago and kill more than 10 million people in the metropolitan area, or will it trigger a global nuclear war that could lead to existential extinction? The answer that the movie makers provide to the public is that they wanted to trigger broad thinking about the consequences.

The movie is both frightening and entertaining and is being compared frequently to an earlier movie (1964): Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb. For those who have never heard of this movie, I cite two paragraphs from Wikipedia that describe it, and give my strong recommendation to watch it:

Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (known simply and more commonly as Dr. Strangelove) is a 1964 political satire black comedy film co-written, produced, and directed by Stanley Kubrick. It is loosely based on the thriller novel Red Alert (1958) by Peter George, who wrote the screenplay with Kubrick and Terry Southern. The film, financed and released by Columbia Pictures, was a co-production between the United States and the United Kingdom.

The story concerns an insane brigadier general of the United States Air Force who orders a pre-emptive nuclear attack on the Soviet Union. It follows the President of the United States (Sellers), his scientific advisor Dr. Strangelove (Sellers), a Royal Air Force exchange officer (Sellers), and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Scott) as they attempt to stop the crew of a B-52 from bombing the Soviet Union and starting a nuclear war.

The Dr. Strangelove movie focuses on one powerful, deranged individual. “A House of Dynamite” is based on an overstressed, unprepared, collective system that includes and affects most of us. We are not prepared for such a debacle. The real world is not a movie. The only time that nuclear warheads were used in a real war was in August 1945, toward the end of the American war with Japan. The present nuclear threat was summarized in a previous blog (July 9, 2025). Now, the two largest holders of nuclear weapons are threatening each other (and everyone in between). Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought about confrontations with NATO, following which, we have seen constant threats: Russia burning as Ukraine launches huge attack after Trump WW3 warning – World News – News – Daily Express US

Russian authorities said they intercepted 100 Ukrainian drones across regions overnight, including six near Moscow and 13 over border areas. The assaults disrupted flights at three major airports, including Vnukovo and Domodedovo. The apparent strikes align with Ukraine‘s summer-long campaign against Russian energy infrastructure and coincide with Kyiv’s use of domestically produced long-range drones to hit military and industrial sites. Russian officials have condemned the operation as “terrorist aggression” and vowed reprisals. The strikes occurred 48 hours after US President Donald Trump’s condemnation of Vladimir Putin‘s Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile test, conducted on October 21 and announced publicly on October 26.

Recently, the US was also reported as being interested in picking up nuclear weapons testing again:

President Donald Trump has called on US military leaders to resume testing nuclear weapons in order to keep pace with other countries such as Russia and China.

“Because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis,” he wrote on social media just before meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea.

The US has more nuclear weapons than any other country, Trump said, with Russia second and China a “distant third”. It has not conducted nuclear testing since 1992.

It comes just days after Trump denounced Russia for testing a nuclear-powered missile. The Kremlin says its tests were “not nuclear”.

More frightening is that the nuclear tension is not between the US and Russia, the two largest holders of nuclear weapons, but between Russia and NATO. I asked AI (through Google), who in NATO has the authority shown in the movie, to trigger nuclear war—either to instigate or retaliate. This is what I got:

Authority for a nuclear counter-attack in response to a Russian nuclear strike on a NATO country rests solely with the heads of government of the three NATO member states that possess their own nuclear weapons: the United States President, the United Kingdom Prime Minister, and the French President.

NATO itself, as an organization, does not own or control any nuclear weapons, so a decision to use them is a national one for these three countries, albeit made in close consultation with the Alliance.

I am following the lead of the producers of A House of Dynamite, and letting readers decide for themselves the sanity of the threat.

Climate Change:

The separate threat of nullifying (or reducing) global efforts to mitigate global climate change through the COP process will be transparent after the start of COP30. The US efforts in this direction, after the inauguration of the Trump administration, were described in last week’s blog. The present state of the global effort is summarized by the Guardian:

Recently drafted climate plans from scores of countries fall drastically short of what is needed to stave off the worst effects of climate breakdown, analysis has shown. More than 60 countries have so far submitted national plans on greenhouse gas emissions to the UN, setting out how they will curb carbon for the next decade. Taken together, these plans would cut carbon by only about 10% by 2035 compared with 2019 levels. This is only about a sixth of the drop in global emissions needed to limit global heating to 1.5C.

Going from the statistical abstract to a more concrete scenario, I have been following the effects of Hurricane Melissa, which is now hitting the Caribbean (Death toll climbs to 50 as Caribbean surveys Hurricane Melissa destruction: Live updates):

“The entire Jamaica is really broken because of what has happened, but we remain resilient,” said Jamaican Minister of Education, Skills, Youth and Information Dana Dixon on Thursday. “We will get there… we are going to get to every single Jamaican and give them support.”

In Cuba and Haiti, heavy rainfall caused extensive damage. According to Francisco Pichon, resident coordinator for Cuba at the United Nations, more than 200 communities remained isolated and without communications due to flooding and landslides. The hurricane unleashed catastrophic flooding in Haiti, damaging homes and forcing thousands of people into emergency shelters.

Voices that used to be supportive of major global efforts to mitigate the threats are now starting to retreat:

NEW YORK — Bill Gates thinks climate change is a serious problem, but it won’t be the end of civilization. He thinks scientific innovation will curb it, and it’s instead time for a “strategic pivot” in the global climate fight: from focusing on limiting rising temperatures to fighting poverty and preventing disease. A doomsday outlook has led the climate community to focus too much on near-term goals to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that cause warming, diverting resources from the most effective things that can be done to improve life in a warming world, Gates said. In a memo released Tuesday, Gates said the world’s primary goal should instead be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions in the world’s poorest countries.

We will expand on this shift in messaging during and following COP30, which starts on November 10^th.

Declining Fertility + Digitization (AI):

Very early signs of using digitization, through AI, will show us if we can replace people with machines. The example below, with Amazon’s announcement that it will lay off 14,000 workers, is starting to initiate a global debate on the issues. The two links below demonstrate the stakes:

https://www.aol.com/finance/amazon-may-replace-600-000-120000770.html

As the second largest employer in America, Amazon currently employs around 1.5 million workers. (1, 2) Between 2018 and today, Amazon has onboarded hundreds of thousands of workers, effectively tripling its workforce. (3, 4) But the giant company may be planning a departure from extreme reliance on human employees in the coming years and decades.

According to internal Amazon documents reviewed by the New York Times, some departments within the company are planning to replace employees with robots, impacting up to 600,000 roles. The documents showed that Amazon hopes to avoid hiring more than 160,000 people that it would otherwise need to staff its U.S. warehouses by 2027. (5)

https://www.reuters.com/business/world-at-work/us-senator-sanders-challenges-bezos-amazon-automations-job-impacts-2025-10-28/

SAN FRANCISCO, Oct 28 (Reuters) – U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders on Tuesday called on Amazon.com (AMZN.O), opens new tab founder Jeff Bezos to account for what the Vermont independent said were hundreds of thousands of potential lost jobs due to automation.

“If Amazon succeeds on its massive automation plan, it will have a profound impact on blue-collar workers throughout America and will likely be used as a model by large corporations throughout America,” Sanders wrote in a letter to Bezos, which was exclusively reviewed by Reuters.

Future blogs will follow these developments.

(Source: Dariusz Okraska / EyeEm / Getty Images via History.com)

This blog will be posted two days before Halloween, saying goodbye to October and looking forward to November. I know that November will end with Thanksgiving, and I hope that in addition to saying historical thanks, we will be able to be thankful for other things happening next month. My plan for November is to travel to Washington to take part in an event organized by the Holocaust Institute. This activity triggered in me a fear of disaster and a need to face the state-triggered, “noncreative” destruction in the form of Kristallnacht (November 9, 1938) (more about “creative destruction” at the end of the blog). Meanwhile, COP30 starts on November 10^th in Brazil. What the Trump administration is doing amounts to the state-triggered destruction of mitigation efforts.

As I mentioned in an earlier blog, Holocaust studies are mandatory in schools in many US states, as well as in many other countries. Kristallnacht is generally taught as part of this topic. However, random polling suggests that most people don’t know much about the link between the Holocaust and Kristallnacht. A similar situation holds true for COP30. Most people know in general about climate change, but few know about the role of the yearly COP (Conference of the Parties) meetings to try to coordinate global mitigation. Consistent readers of this blog are different; just put the two terms (separately) into the search box to find out what I have said about these matters in the past.

We now have the tools to provide background without requiring people to make too much effort in reading prior writing. In the next few pages, I show two AI (through Google) summaries on the two events. The two questions that I posed to the AI are slightly different. For Kristallnacht, I simply asked for impact, while for COP30, I was interested in the current Trump administration’s efforts to contradict the group’s decisions:

Impacts of Kristallnacht (AI through Google):

Kristallnacht, or the “Night of Broken Glass,” was a violent pogrom against Jews across Nazi Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland on November 9–10, 1938. It marked a major turning point, escalating Nazi persecution from discriminatory policy to widespread, state-sanctioned violence. 

Impacts on the Jewish community

The direct and immediate impacts on the Jewish people were devastating. 

• • • • Widespread violence and destruction:Gangs of Nazi storm troopers, Hitler Youth, and German civilians destroyed over 1,400 synagogues and other Jewish institutions. They vandalized and looted around 7,500 Jewish-owned businesses and countless homes.
      • Death and humiliation:While sources vary, more than 91 Jews were murdered during the attacks, and many more committed suicide. Jews were also publicly humiliated and assaulted.
      • Mass arrests and concentration camps:Approximately 30,000 Jewish men were rounded up and sent to concentration camps like Dachau, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen. This marked the first instance of mass arrests of Jews based solely on their religion. While most surviving detainees were later released, the experience was brutal.
      • Forced emigration:For many German and Austrian Jews, Kristallnacht was the “wake-up call” that there was no future for them in the Third Reich. The number of Jewish people seeking to emigrate skyrocketed in the months that followed. 

Impacts on Nazi policy

Kristallnacht fundamentally altered the Nazi regime’s approach to its anti-Jewish agenda. 

• • • • Escalation of persecution:The violence was a dramatic and public escalation of the anti-Jewish policies that had been in place since 1933. It demonstrated the Nazis’ willingness to use violent tactics to eliminate the Jewish presence in German society.
      • New anti-Jewish laws and decrees:Following the pogrom, the Nazi regime enacted numerous laws to remove Jews from German economic and public life. These included:
        • Prohibiting Jews from selling goods or services.
        • Excluding Jewish children from public schools.
        • Barring Jews from public places such as cinemas, theaters, and sports.
      • Financial extortion:The Nazi regime imposed a collective fine of one billion Reichsmarks on the Jewish community, claiming they were responsible for the damages. Insurance payments for damaged Jewish properties were also confiscated by the state.
      • Paving the way for the “Final Solution”:The lack of significant internal and international resistance signaled to the Nazis that they could continue their violent actions with minimal repercussions. This set the stage for further atrocities and the eventual mass murder of the Holocaust. 

International and societal impacts

The international community and the German public had a mixed reaction to the events. 

• • • • Limited international action:While reports of the pogrom were met with shock and outrage in the United States and Western Europe, little concrete action was taken to help German Jews. This was demonstrated at the Evian Conference in 1938, where most nations refused to admit significant numbers of Jewish refugees.
      • German public complicity or fear:The passive or compliant response of many Germans—whether due to fear or ideological agreement—indicated to the Nazis that they could continue their violent actions with minimal resistance.
      • The beginning of the Holocaust:In a wider context, Kristallnacht is often viewed as a turning point from targeted discrimination to the systematic state-sponsored persecution that would lead to the Holocaust and the murder of six million European Jews.  

AI (Through Google): What Trump’s government activities in his second term contradict COP decisions?

Following his inauguration in January 2025, President Donald Trump’s administration immediately took several actions that directly contradict the decisions and goals of the COP international climate negotiations. The core of his second-term policy is a reversal of previous U.S. climate policy, focusing instead on the expansion of domestic fossil fuel production and deregulation. 

Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

As in his first term, one of Trump’s first acts was to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, which is the key COP-enabled global accord for climate action. 

• • • • Executive Order:On January 20, 2025, Trump signed an executive order to initiate the withdrawal from the agreement for a second time, which will become effective in January 2026.
      • Contradiction to COP:This action directly rejects the core framework and spirit of all COP decisions, which aim to have all nations cooperate on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Undermining international climate finance

President Trump’s government significantly cut funding and support for international climate initiatives, a move that undermines the COP commitment for developed nations to assist developing ones. 

• • • • Funding Cuts:The administration is reducing or eliminating U.S. contributions to climate-focused intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.
      • Impact on Vulnerable Nations:This directly weakens global support systems and disproportionately affects developing countries, which rely on financial and technological aid to transition to clean energy and adapt to climate change. 

Reversal of domestic climate regulations

A series of deregulatory actions dismantled key climate policies implemented by the previous administration. 

• • • • Rescinding the “Endangerment Finding”:The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed rescinding the finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger human health. This move could dismantle the legal basis for American regulations on carbon emissions.
      • Attacks on State Policies:The Department of Justice was directed to challenge state-level climate and environmental initiatives, particularly those attempting to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate impacts.
      • Contradiction to COP:COP decisions call for increasing national ambition to cut emissions, but these actions weaken both federal and state-level efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. 

Expansion of fossil fuel production

The administration is actively promoting the expansion of fossil fuels, directly conflicting with COP’s objectives of transitioning away from fossil fuels. 

• • • • Increased Drilling:Trump has pursued an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that prioritizes oil, gas, and coal. This includes opening up more federal lands and waters to drilling.
      • Coal Promotion:In August 2025, the administration issued executive orders to “reinvigorate” the coal industry by prioritizing coal leases on federal lands and removing regulations that impede production.
      • Contradiction to COP:This policy directly opposes the global push to phase out fossil fuels and accelerate the transition to renewable energy. 

Dismantling of climate initiatives

The second Trump administration immediately targeted climate-focused programs established under the previous administration. 

• • • • Inflation Reduction Act (IRA):The administration has attacked and begun rolling back provisions of the IRA, which provided significant incentives for clean energy technology and production.
      • Climate Science Censorship:Federal agencies have been directed to remove or limit climate-related language from their communications and websites, attempting to downplay climate science.
      • Contradiction to COP:These actions inhibit the large-scale investments in clean energy needed to meet emissions targets and suppress public awareness, both of which are foundational to successful COP outcomes. 
      • Attacks on State Policies:The Department of Justice was directed to challenge state-level climate and environmental initiatives, particularly those attempting to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate impacts.
      • Contradiction to COP:COP decisions call for increasing national ambition to cut emissions, but these actions weaken both federal and state-level efforts to regulate greenhouse gases. 

Expansion of fossil fuel production

The administration is actively promoting the expansion of fossil fuels, directly conflicting with COP’s objectives of transitioning away from fossil fuels. 

• • • • Increased Drilling:Trump has pursued an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy that prioritizes oil, gas, and coal. This includes opening up more federal lands and waters to drilling.
      • Coal Promotion:In August 2025, the administration issued executive orders to “reinvigorate” the coal industry by prioritizing coal leases on federal lands and removing regulations that impede production.
      • Contradiction to COP:This policy directly opposes the global push to phase out fossil fuels and accelerate the transition to renewable energy

Kristallnacht is translated in many languages as the “Night of the Broken Glass.” The link below the picture of broken glass shown in the top of this blog gives more about the event and its origin. It took place in November 1938; WWII officially started 10 months later, with the invasion of the German troops into Poland. I have no idea if the photograph of the broken glass from the link had anything to do with the event. In a sense, it is irrelevant. Similar photographs can be linked to the activities of the present Trump administration in the context of climate change. Both events describe state-supported destruction. The main difference is that the Holocaust, which followed Kristallnacht, took place in the recent (within my lifetime) past, while the devastating impact of climate change is still progressing—at a bit slower of a pace. Sometime, destruction can be followed by a better thing; we call this “creative destruction.” I wrote about it (see June 4, 2025 blog) and two of this year’s Nobel Prize winners in Economics—Mr. Aghion and Mr. Howitt—were awarded for their contributions to the theory of sustained growth through creative destruction. There is no question that the destruction caused by the Holocaust cannot be labelled as “sustained growth.” Similarly, almost the whole scientific community is of one mind, that unmitigated climate change doesn’t leads to sustained growth either. The reality of the Holocaust is now fully transparent. Meanwhile, the reality of climate change is making progress at a slower pace, but its impact on all of us is accelerating. I will follow the results of the coming COP30 meeting and will try to figure out the impact of the new Trump administration on the rest of the global community’s attempts to mitigate the accelerating disaster. Once we reach Thanksgiving, we should have a clearer view.  

Last week’s blog finished with the following two sentences: “Following the nature of the question – ‘reverse declining fertility,’ the responses focus on mitigating declining fertility. The next blog will focus on adaptation to declining fertility, using the same methodology.” I started to follow up with my promise to use AI in this blog, only to immediately realize that it would not be so simple. If AI and automation take over, there will be less need for workers, and therefore fewer jobs. I started with Co-Pilot (Microsoft), asking an identical question to the one in last week’s blog, only replacing mitigation with adaptation. I got a list of some of the same countries that showed up in last week’s blog. The content of what they are doing was basically identical. I decided to skip the country enumeration and focus on the AI summary that is given below:

AI(Co-Pilot) – Adaptation to Declining population by country:

🧠 Strategic Themes Across Countries

• • • Immigration reform is a key lever for countries with declining native populations.
    • Automation and AI are being deployed to offset shrinking labor forces.
    • Family-friendly policies—like subsidized childcare, paid parental leave, and housing support—are central to boosting birth rates.
    • Healthcare and elder care investment is critical as dependency ratios rise.

These adaptations reflect a shift from growth-centric models to sustainability and resilience in demographic planning. If you’re curious how your own country is preparing for these changes, I can dive deeper into its specific strategies.

I needed more specific input, and I tried to slightly modify the question and use a different AI (through Google):

AI (Google): Effectiveness of adaptation to declining population by country

No country has effectively solved the challenges of population decline, as long-term declining fertility has proven extremely difficult to reverse. Adaptation measures have focused on increasing birth rates, boosting labor force productivity, and using immigration to offset population loss, but no single approach has been consistently successful. 

Case studies on adaptation effectiveness

Challenges and conclusions

• • • Pro-natal policies have been largely ineffective:Despite significant investment, measures to boost fertility rates in countries like South Korea and Japan have not achieved replacement-level fertility.
    • Immigration is a key adaptation tool:Countries that have adapted most successfully have used immigration to offset population decline. However, this raises social and political challenges related to integration and cultural change.
    • Productivity growth is crucial:For developed countries, maintaining per-capita GDP growth in a shrinking workforce requires significant investment in innovation and automation.
    • Long-term solutions are needed:Addressing the challenge of an aging society also requires major reforms to social security and pension systems, which are strained by a growing retiree population.
    • A “thriving” mindset:Emerging perspectives, like those in the Nordic countries, suggest that a focus on building resilient communities and improving quality of life may be a more effective adaptation strategy than solely focusing on reversing demographic trends. 

The key sentence in the Co-Pilot response, in my opinion, was “These adaptations reflect a shift from growth-centric models to sustainability and resilience in demographic planning.” The Google AI summary (with the addition of the word “effectiveness”) showed two new perspectives. It stated specifically that no country has yet come out with a policy that can point to a possible solution for population decline. It also singled out the Scandinavian attitude that reversing a declining population might not be necessary. The Nordic countries’ attitude also reflects the fact that declining population inevitably correlates with changing population pyramids, resulting in a major increase in older populations and a decrease in younger ones. This point is basically identical to the key sentence from Co-Pilot quoted above.  Earlier blogs that emphasized environmental impact were driven by an identity with the acronym of IPAT (Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology). Just put IPAT in the search box and scan the results. For climate change specifically, the acronym takes the form shown below (See May 31, 2022):

Following the IPAT calculation, I often hear the perspective that one should not be too concerned with declining population because it would also result in a decline in environmental damage. To me, this suggests a “back to the cave” attitude where the best policy is to return to an earlier time when the average life expectancy was in the 20-40 range. 

Figure 1 – Automation to hit major sectors (Source: SHRM)

Figure 2 (Source: SUSPS)

The two AIs responses have in common that the two adaptation policies that can be used to compensate for fertility decline below replacement, are immigration and automation in forms of robotics and AI. The situation in the US is demonstrated in figures 1 and 2. There are serious issues with both policies. The technology of automation in terms of AI and robotics is in its infancy. Figure 1 is titled “automation to hit major sectors,” meaning sometime in the unknown future. Similarly, Figure 2 shows that in the US, immigration is the most important factor that keeps the population growing. However, as the first blog in this series shows (October 8, 2025), the decline in fertility is global. Even the fertility of Sub-Saharan countries is declining. It is still well above replacement, but declining. Immigration as an adaptation to population decline cannot operate on a global scale. Politically, the reliance on immigration to reverse a declining population is a source of political shakeup in many countries. Here is how AI (through Google) summarized the issue:

Global attitudes toward immigration in 2025 are complex, reflecting a mix of welcoming sentiments in some nations and growing concerns in others. A country’s stance on immigration is shaped by economic conditions, recent migration events, the skills of immigrants, and political discourse. 

Most and least accepting countries

According to a July 2025 Gallup poll, the most and least accepting countries for migrants are: 

• • • Most accepting:Iceland and New Zealand.
    • Least accepting:Macedonia, Montenegro, and Hungary.
    • Other studies have found negative sentiments to be consistently high in Turkey, Italy, and Russia. 

Attitudes in major receiving and sending countries

United States

• • • Shifting views:A July 2025 Gallup poll showed a significant rise in positive attitudes toward immigration. A record-high 79% of U.S. adults said immigration is a “good thing” for the country, a sharp increase from 64% in 2024. The percentage wanting less immigration fell by nearly half to 30%.
    • Reasons for the shift:This change coincided with a sharp drop in illegal border crossings in 2024 and was observed across all major political groups. Support for more stringent enforcement measures, such as a border wall and mass deportations, has also declined since 2024.
    • Top destination:The U.S. remains the world’s top migrant destination, with over 52 million immigrants as of 2024. 

European countries

• • • Mixed sentiment:Public opinion across Europe is often more negative towards immigration than in other regions. A 2018 Pew study found a more negative attitude shift in France, the UK, and Spain.
    • Negative sentiment:In countries that experienced high volumes of asylum seekers in 2015, such as Greece, Germany, and Italy, the initial public perception that immigrants strengthen the country dropped significantly. A 2023 survey identified Austria as the most anti-immigrant country, with other high scores in Germany, the Netherlands, and France.
    • Varied within the region:It is crucial to note that sentiments vary significantly within the European region, and no single view represents the continent. 

Key factors influencing attitudes

• • • Economics:Perceptions of economic conditions and competition for jobs can drive negative sentiments towards immigrants. However, recent research in the U.S. shows that cultural factors can be more influential than economic ones.
    • Culture:Concerns that an influx of immigrants might negatively alter a country’s culture or national identity are a major driver of anti-immigrant sentiment. Positive attitudes are more likely in countries with inclusive integration policies.
    • Skills:Immigrants’ skill level often influences public opinion. Higher-skilled immigrants are generally more accepted than lower-skilled immigrants.
    • Politics:Political rhetoric significantly influences attitudes. The issue of immigration is often contentious and is used by political parties to shape voting behavior. A shift in the political landscape can be mirrored by changes in public opinion, as seen in the U.S. in 2025. 

The AI’s response to the present US attitude toward immigration gave me the impression that it was hallucinating. It happens!

Figure 1 – Predicted population plunge, 2025-2050 (Source: UN, World Population Prospects 2024, via IMF)

I asked AI (through Copilot) what different countries are doing to reverse declining fertility. In this case, the relevant countries include China, Japan, South Korea, Germany, and Thailand. Countries like Ukraine and Russia, which appear in Figure 1, are not included because while war is an “obvious” mechanism for population decline, the change does not reflect fertility rates. I am copying the AI summaries below,

China:

China is ramping up national efforts to reverse its declining birth rate by offering financial incentives, expanding childcare access, and improving reproductive healthcare.

Here’s a detailed look at the key measures China is implementing:

🍼 National-Level Policies

• Childcare Subsidy: As of July 2025, families receive 3,000 yuan (~$418) annually for each child under age three.
• Free Preschool Education: Beijing plans to roll out free preschool nationwide, reducing early education costs for families.
• Epidural Access Mandate: All hospitals with over 500 beds must offer epidural anesthesia during childbirth by the end of 2025, and smaller hospitals by 2027.

🏡 Local Incentives

• Hohhot (Inner Mongolia): Offers up to 100,000 yuan (~$13,900) per family for having a second and third child, paid annually until the child turns 10.
• Hangzhou and Other Cities: Provide childcare vouchers, daycare subsidies, housing support, and job training for parents.

🧬 Fertility Support

• Insurance Coverage for IVF: Public health insurance now covers assisted reproductive technologies (ART) like IVF in cities such as Beijing. Over 32,000 patients accessed these services in the first nine months after coverage began.

⚠️ Challenges and Limitations

• High Cost of Child-Rearing: Raising a child in China costs over 538,000 yuan—more than 6.3 times the GDP per capita.
• Cultural and Economic Barriers: Young people are delaying marriage, and many women cite career pressures, gender inequality, and employment insecurity as reasons for not having children.
• Limited Impact So Far: Despite these efforts, birth rates have only slightly increased in some regions, and the national population continues to decline.

Japan:

Japan is tackling its fertility crisis with a sweeping “New Dimension” strategy that includes expanded child allowances, universal daycare, and enhanced parental leave benefits.

Here’s a breakdown of Japan’s latest efforts to reverse its declining birth rate:

🍼 “New Dimension” Fertility Strategy

Launched by Prime Minister Kishida Fumio in 2023, this initiative includes four major pillars:

• Expanded Child Allowances:
• Monthly payments doubled to 30,000 yen (~$200) for the third child and beyond.
• Eligibility extended to high school students.
• Income caps abolished, allowing all families to receive support.
• Universal Daycare Access:
• Previously, unemployed parents couldn’t use daycare centers.
• Now, all children are eligible, regardless of parental employment status.
• Maternity Expense Coverage:
• Social insurance will now cover maternity-related costs, reducing out-of-pocket expenses.

Enhanced Parental Leave Benefits:

• If both parents take leave, they receive 100% of their after-tax income for up to 28 days (up from 80%).

💰 Financial Commitment

• Japan earmarked 5.3 trillion yen (~$34 billion) in 2025 alone to support families.
• An additional 3.6 trillion yen annually will be spent over the next three years on child allowances, education, and childcare.

🌍 Immigration Reform

• Japan is loosening visa rules to attract foreign workers, especially in elder care and agriculture.
• Goal: Triple the number of foreign workers by 2040 to offset labor shortages.

⚠️ Challenges Ahead

• Japan’s fertility rate hit 1.20 in 2024—far below the replacement rate of 2.1.
• Births dropped to 730,000 last year, while deaths hit 1.58 million.
• Experts warn that cultural shifts, workplace reform, and gender equality are also crucial to reversing the trend.

South Korea:

South Korea is confronting its record-low fertility rate with aggressive national policies, local incentives, and cultural reforms—but the challenge remains steep.

Here’s a comprehensive look at what South Korea is doing:

🍼 National-Level Policies

• Expanded Parental Leave:
• Parents can now take up to 18 months of paid leave.
• Government covers 80% of income for the first 3 months, then 50% for the remainder.
• Childcare Subsidies:
• Monthly cash allowances of up to 700,000 won (~$520) for children under 12 months.
• Free childcare services for children aged 0–5.
• Fertility Treatment Support:
• IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies are fully covered by national health insurance for eligible couples.
• Education Cost Relief:
• Government is expanding free preschool and subsidizing after-school programs to reduce the burden on working parents.

Local Government Incentives

• Hwaseong City:
• Offers 100 million won (~$74,000) in housing subsidies for families with three or more children.
• Sejong City:
• Provides priority housing, free public transport, and childcare vouchers to families with multiple children.
• Other Municipalities:
• Some offer cash bonuses, discounted utilities, and parenting support centers.

👩‍💼 Workplace Reforms

• Flexible Work Hours:
• Encouraging companies to adopt family-friendly schedules and remote work options.
• Anti-Discrimination Enforcement:
• Strengthening laws to protect women from pregnancy-related job discrimination.

📉 The Challenge

• South Korea’s fertility rate dropped to 0.72 in 2024—the lowest in the world.
• Births fell below 230,000, while deaths exceeded 370,000.
• Cultural factors—long work hours, high education costs, gender inequality, and housing prices—continue to deter young couples from having children.

Germany:

Germany is expanding parental benefits, childcare access, and workplace flexibility to counter its declining fertility rate, which fell to 1.35 in 2024—the lowest in nearly two decades.

Here’s a detailed look at Germany’s approach:

🍼 Family and Childcare Support

• Parental Leave Benefits:
• Parents can take up to 14 months of paid leave, with 67% of net income covered.
• If both parents share leave, they receive two extra months of benefits.
• Elterngeld Plus Program:
• Allows parents to stretch benefits over a longer period if they work part-time.
• Designed to support dual-income families and encourage shared parenting.
• Childcare Expansion:
• Federal and state governments are investing in Kita (daycare) infrastructure.
• Goal: Universal access to full-day childcare by 2030.

🏡 Financial Incentives

• Kindergeld (Child Benefit):
• Monthly payments of 250 euros per child, regardless of income.
• Paid until the child turns 18, or 25 if in education or training.
• Tax Relief for Families:
• Families receive income tax deductions and housing subsidies based on number of children.

👩‍💼 Workplace and Gender Equality

• Flexible Work Laws:
• Employees can request reduced hours or remote work to balance family life.
• Employers are encouraged to offer family-friendly schedules.
• Gender Equality Measures:
• Government campaigns promote equal parenting roles and female workforce participation.
• Funding for women’s career re-entry programs after maternity leave.

📉 Fertility Trends and Challenges

• Fertility Rate: Dropped to 1.35 children per woman in 2024, with German citizens averaging just 1.23.
• Births: Only 677,117 children were born in 2024—a 2% decline from 2023.
• Average Age of First-Time Parents: 30.4 years for mothers, 33.3 for fathers.
• Regional Gaps: Berlin had the lowest fertility rate (1.21), while Lower Saxony had the highest (1.42).

Thailand:

Thailand is expanding parental leave, introducing paternity benefits, and enhancing workplace support to address its declining fertility rate, which stands at just 1.2 births per woman in 2025.

Here’s a detailed look at Thailand’s latest efforts:

🍼 Expanded Parental Leave (2025 Draft Legislation)

• Maternity Leave: Increased from 98 to 120 calendar days.
• Employers must pay full salary for the first 60 days.
• Social security covers 50% of wages for the next 45 days.
• Final 15 days are unpaid.
• Paternity/Spousal Leave:
• 15 paid workdays for the mother’s partner, gender-neutral.
• Must be taken within 90 days of birth, paid fully by the employer.
• Carer Leave:
• Mothers can take 15 workdays at 50% pay if the child has health issues.
• Leave must be taken as one continuous period.

🧑‍💼 Employer Implications

• The bill shifts more financial responsibility to employers, especially for maternity and spousal leave.
• Currently, only a minority of Thai companies offer benefits beyond statutory requirements.

📉 Fertility Crisis Context

• Thailand’s fertility rate is among the lowest in Southeast Asia, far below the replacement level of 2.1.
• A recent survey found that while 71% of Thais view the declining birth rate as a crisis, only 35.8% plan to have children.
• Experts warn of a shrinking workforce and urge urgent policy action.

Following the nature of the question – “reverse declining fertility,” the responses focus on mitigating declining fertility. The next blog will focus on adaptation to declining fertility, using the same methodology.

Figure 1 – Fertility rate by world region, 1950 -2021 (Source)

It’s time to shift to a recent global trend that is less dependent on chaotic governments’ decisions. Among the five main global trends that I have discussed throughout my blog  (see June 11, 2024), the one that fits this description best is globally declining fertility. The earliest of my blogs that addresses the issue is “Future Populations” from December 24, 2013. It begins a series that goes through February 25, 2014, including a guest blog by Jim Foreit titled, “How Does Population Decline?” (January 14, 2014). I made a very long comment on Jim’s blog; I’m including two key sentences from it below:

The nature of exponential growth or decline is such that left unchecked they will lead to disasters. As Jim’s blog made clear, we have yet to develop some understanding of how to stabilize populations at any level. The UN fiat of stabilizing the population at replacement rate without suggesting what policies have a chance of accomplishing it, is untenable.

During the 11 years since that blog was posted, the situation hasn’t changed much.

The top figure shows the changes in fertility in the different global regions from 1950 to the present. Over this period, fertility in all global regions has declined. Fertility around the world, except in Africa, is trending around the replacement value of 2.1. Fertility within the rich countries of North America, most of Europe, Australia, and much of Asia is now well below replacement values. (Those of us not familiar with the concept of replacement value are invited to put the two words in the search box for further discussion of the concept.).

A few days ago, we had a visit from two demographer friends. The top graph was an obvious focus of discussion—specifically, the impact of wealth on fertility. The main (in my opinion) point that they raised was the problem of using GDP/Capita as a measure of wealth. To demonstrate the issue, I will focus below on three large countries that together account for 40% of the global population, and include the top representatives of the World Bank’s low-, middle-, and high-income economies: India, China, and the US:

Table 1 (Source: World Population Review)

Median Income 2020      Mean Income 2020      GDP/Capita 2023 (PPP)

US                   $19,306                       $25,332                                   $82,769

India                                                    $1,314                                     $10,166

China                                                   $4,246                                     $24,569

Table 1 and Figure 2 demonstrate the issue. Figure 2 shows the situation in China, but the inequity of wealth distribution is common throughout the world. Fertility, on the other hand, is an intensive function (not dependent on the number of women used for the calculation) of the country, with equal contributions throughout. Understanding such uneven distribution plays a key role in the now “banned” DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) initiatives in organizations supported by the federal government.

Figure 2 – Wealth distribution in China  (Source: Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions)

Now we go to Wikipedia to find out what they have to say on the correlation of fertility with income:

Income and fertility is the association between monetary gain on one hand, and the tendency to produce offspring on the other. There is generally an inverse correlation between income and the total fertility rate within and between nations.^[3][4] The higher the degree of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born in any developed country.^[5] In a 1974 United Nations population conference in Bucharest, Karan Singh, a former minister of population in India, illustrated this trend by stating “Development is the best contraceptive.”^[6] In 2015, this thesis was supported by Vogl, T.S., who concluded that increasing the cumulative educational attainment of a generation of parents was by far the most important predictor of the inverse correlation between income and fertility based on a sample of 48 developing countries.^[7]

Generally a developed country has a lower fertility rate while a less economically developed country has a higher fertility rate. For example the total fertility rate for Japan, a developed country with per capita GDP of US$32,600 in 2009, was 1.22 children born per woman. But total fertility rate in Ethiopia, with a per capita GDP of $900 in 2009, was 6.17 children born per woman.^[8]

Demographic–economic paradox

Herwig Birg has called the inverse relationship between income and fertility a “demo-economic paradox“. Evolutionary biology predicts that more successful individuals (and by analogy countries) should seek to develop optimum conditions for their life and reproduction. However, in the last half of the 20th century it has become clear that the economic success of developed countries is being counterbalanced by a demographic failure, a sub-replacement fertility that may prove destructive for their future economies and societies.^[9]

Figure 3 –  Demographic transition – Wikipedia (By Max Roser – Email from author, author of website http://ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-statistics/world-population-growth, CC BY 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=47036003)

Figure 4 – Global fertility distribution as a function of GDP/capita (PPP) (Source: Medium)

The Wikipedia entry on democratic transitions explains in detail the five stages shown in Figure 3 and their implications on the population pyramids. It shows that in all cases, stages 2, 3, and 4, in which the birth rate considerably increases compared to the death rate, are transitory and eventually most systems return to equilibrium. How long such a transition takes varies among countries and depends on many socio-economic factors. Figure 4 represents 2015 data, showing the random convergences around and below the replacement rate.

Figure 5 –  Total U.S. Fertility Rate by Family Income : r/Natalism

Figure 5 shows another perspective of the fertility dependence on wealth in the US, down to family level.

Figure 5 also shows that the definition of fertility is directly connected to women’s reproductive span. The complexity of the income distribution, down to the family level, is perhaps best illustrated by one individual—the richest individual in the world: Elon Musk. Musk is the dad of 14 kids that he fathered with 4 different women.

Yet, he is taking the position that the global decline in fertility is the most urgent existential threat that the world is facing:

Elon Musk has never been one to shy away from controversial statements. One of his most consistent warnings in recent years has been a warning about the collapse of global birth rates. Recently, he posted a striking map of fertility data from around the world, underscoring what demographers and economists increasingly recognize: the problem facing humanity is not overpopulation but rather underpopulation.

Inadvertently, Musk is putting the burden of solving this existential threat on women. The next blog will focus on the present global efforts to address declining populations.

Figure 1 – Source: The Conversation) 

These are two of the main issues of concern that came out in President Trump’s speech to the UN, as reflected by the White House highlight:

Climate Change:

• • • “I’m telling you that if you don’t get away from the ‘green energy’ scam, your country is going to fail. If you don’t stop people that you’ve never seen before that you have nothing in common with, your country is going to fail.” (Watch)
    • “The challenge with trade is much the same as with climate: the countries that followed the rules, all their factories have been plundered… by countries that broke the rules. That’s why the United States is now applying tariffs to other countries.” (Watch)

Globalization:

• • • “What makes the world so beautiful is that each country is unique — but to stay this way, every sovereign nation must have the right to control their own borders.” (Watch)
    • “The entire globalist concept of asking successful, industrialized nations to inflict pain on themselves and radically disrupt their entire societies must be rejected completely 4and totally — and it must be immediate.” (Watch)

The response by executives of the oil and gas industry was different than expected (Oil and gas executives sour on their cheerleader-in-chief – POLITICO):

President Donald Trump used the world stage this week to sell American oil and gas. But U.S. oil and gas producers are increasingly feeling sour about the president.

A quarterly survey of oil and gas companies released today by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas quotes industry executives who blast Trump on everything from tariffs and policy uncertainty to his attacks on renewable energy.

“Life is long, and the sword being wielded against the renewables industry right now will likely boomerang back in 3.5 years against traditional energy,” wrote one unnamed executive.

The global response was overwhelming:

At a climate summit at the United Nations on Wednesday, the vast majority of the world’s nations gathered to make their newest pledges to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade.

Geopolitical heavyweights including China, Russia, Japan and Germany were there. Dozens of small island states were there. The world’s poorest countries, including Chad and the Central African Republic, were there. Venezuela, Syria, Iran — there, too.

The United States was not.

The implications of the US “defining” climate change as non-existent, in advance of the coming COP30 meeting in Brazil (scheduled to start November 10^th) are predictable, especially after the State Department negotiators were fired:

The Trump administration fired the last of the US climate negotiators earlier this month, helping cement America’s withdrawal from international climate diplomacy. It may also have handed a huge victory to China.

The elimination of the State Department’s Office of Global Change — which represents the United States in climate change negotiations between countries — leaves the world’s largest historical polluter with no official presence at one of the most consequential climate summits in a decade: COP30, the annual UN climate talks in Belém, Brazil, in November.

Without State’s climate staff in place, even Capitol Hill lawmakers who usually attend the summits have been unable to get accredited, a source familiar with the process said.

To support the presidential US positions, facts and data need to be “eliminated” (Energy chief suggests Trump administration is altering previously published climate reports | CNN)

Energy Sec. Chris Wright said Tuesday night the Trump administration is updating the National Climate Assessments that have been previously published, which the administration recently removed from government websites.

“We’re reviewing them, and we will come out with updated reports on those and with comments on those reports,” Wright told CNN’s Kaitlan Collins in an interview on “The Source.”

However, it seems that inertia is irreversible in this case, as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – Global electricity generation by source

Let’s hope!