Trump: Abuse of Power, 2016-2020

After the American Century

The most serious aspect of Trump's perforance as president was how he abused his position and seized power. A Constitutional crisis emerged in the Trump years. The office of the president was abused, the foreign service weakened, scientific expertise dismantled, and the Justice Department turned into a political tool. The problems began with Trump’s 2016 campaign and continued in the White House. As the New York Times summarized the conclusions of the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, released in late August 2020: “Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign sought and maintained close contacts with Russian government officials who were helping him get elected. The Trump campaign accepted their offers of help. The campaign secretly provided Russian officials with key polling data. The campaign coordinated the timing of the release of stolen information to hurt Hillary Clinton’s campaign.” The Times concluded: “the American people could reelect a man who received a foreign government’s help to win one election and has shown neither remorse nor reservations about doing so again.” Only in a deeply troubled country could a politician receive 70 million votes after such revelations. 

Trump not only received Russian help, but orchestrated many illegal actions by his closest aids, many of whom ended up pleading guilty to felonies. His longtime personal lawyer, Michael Cohen paid $130,000 in hush money to two women whom Trump had affairs with. Cohen pleaded guilty to bank fraud, tax evasion, and violating campaign finance laws. Trump’s campaign chairman Paul Manafort was convicted on eight counts of bank and tax fraud, and he was accused of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to launder money. Trump’s assistant campaign manager, Rick Gates, was convicted of money laundering, tax evasion, and bank fraud. George Papadopoulos, Trump’s foreign policy advisor, served as a go-between to the Russians and relayed valuable information about what they had hacked from Hillary Clinton’s campaign. He was convicted of lying to the FBI about these activities. All of the crimes were committed by close associates to assist Trump. Yet after these crimes and other suspicious activities were uncovered by the House of Representatives’ impeachment enquiry, the Republicans blocked all attempts to investigate further. Trump was never questioned in person, and he was not held accountable. His closest associates were convicted criminals, but the Republican-controlled Senate found it unnecessary to call a single witness in a sham impeachment trial. 

The fact that Trump was never held accountable for his collusion with Russia was part of a larger pattern. The federal government under his control operated with inadequate Congressional oversight or control. The Constitution decrees that only Congress can allocate funds. But when Congress refused to pay for a wall along the Mexican border, President Trump seized money allocated for other purposes and used it illegally to start building the wall. Furthermore, the president often ignored Congress in other ways. He refused to send officials to testify before Housecommittees, including matters of national security. 

Many departments of government were headed by appointees who had never been approved by the Senate, as required by the Constitution.  Trump fired cabinet secretaries and other important officials and then appointed an “acting” head who was never vetted by the Senate. They included individuals with grossly inadequate qualifications, who were selected because of their loyalty to the president. Acting secretaries may temporarily fill a position until there is time for a Senate hearing. But repeated appointment of loyalists with little or no experience while avoiding Senate hearings violated Trump’s oath of office. Like every president, he swore to abide by the Constitution, which declares that the Senate must approve cabinet appointments. He had 21 cabinet secretaries confirmed in Senate hearings, but he fired many of them and appointed 28 acting secretaries without hearings. They included the acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell, an outspoken conservative and Trump loyalist with no qualifications in the area of intelligence. Grenell replaced another acting director, Joseph Maguire. Even Homeland Security has had an acting director, Chad Wolf.  The Republican-controlled Senate did not fulfill its constitutional duty to evaluate, and if necessary to reject, those nominated, and the press did not treat the massive avoidance of confirmation hearings as a major problem. 

During the Trump years, the placement of the Justice Department in the executive branch became a major problem, because it was investigating the president and his advisors. The Justice Department does not simply carry out programs mandated by Congress. It must seek out and prosecute crime. The problem with locating Justice in the Executive branch of government became obvious in the case of Michael Flynn, one of Trump’s close associates. Flynn confessed to several crimes and was awaiting sentencing. But under pressure from the White House, the Justice Department suddenly announced that it no longer would prosecute the case. Likewise, when a special prosecutor of impeccable reputation was assigned to investigate the possible collusion between Russia and the Trump election campaign, the president obstructed and openly attacked the investigation. It would be more sensible to place Justice under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Then the president could not fire or intimidate attorneys who prosecute cases that affect him or his associates. To preserve the integrity of the Department of Justice, it ought to be removed from the Executive’s control. That change requires an amendment to the Constitution. 

The president illegally reallocated funds for projects that Congress did not approve, he brazenly ignored Congress when it suited him, he interfered with the work of the Justice Department when it investigated him, he escaped accountability for felonies committed for him by his lawyers and campaign managers, and he misused his office by pardoning associates convicted of felonies, so that they never went to prison. When the legislature loses control over the expenditure of funds, when it loses control over leadership appointments, when the president orders the civil service not to testify at its hearings, when he constantly interferes with the Department of Justice, when he pardons those convicted for crimes by associates to aid him, then there is a deep constitutional crisis. The federal government became unbalanced under Republican control. Crimes went unpunished, and the president’s usurpation of power was not challenged. 

Encouraged by his successful contempt for Congress and the rule of law, the logical next step after he lost the 2020 election was to attack the election itself and the legal system, and then orchestrate an insurrection.  Should be be elected again in 2024, then the worst is yet to come, and it is certain.

Trump: The Anti-Science President

After the American Century

Perhaps readers have forgotten that Trump displayed an ignorance of science matched only by his attacks on scientific insitututions.

The Trump attack on science was so egregious that respected journals which never took sides in politics felt they had to do so in 2020. During 175 years of publication Scientific American never endorsed a presidential candidate, but in 2020 it broke with tradition and endorsed Biden, declaring, “Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” It noted, “Trump has proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that increase our scientific knowledge and strengthen us for future challenges. Congress countermanded his reductions. Yet he kept trying, slashing programs that would ready us for future pandemics and withdrawing from the World Health Organization. These and other actions increase the risk that new diseases will surprise and devastate us again.” The damage to these major scientific institutions had to be repaired, along with establishing a science-based response to the COVID-19 pandemic, once Biden took office.

The most prestigious scientific publication of all, Nature, warned in January, 2024, that Trump "promised to limit the authority of federal agencies and employees, including scientists." That would weaken the US, even as US leadership in science and technology is being challenged by other nations that have increased their investment research and education.

Most people recall the later Trump years of the pandemic, when he made silly recomendations about COVID that revealed an astounding ignorance. But his hostility to science was present from the beginning of his presidency. His first budget contained large cuts in key scientific institutions, notably the National Institute of Health. 

Reagan vs Trump on the value of NATO

After the American Century

NATO is under attack. Not from Russia but from Donald Trump. He is the first American president ever to suggest that US allies ought to be attacked. He is the first to openly encourage Russia to make such an attack. If he becomes president, he will drive Europe away from the US, increase the danger of a wider war in Europe, and undermine the rule of law internationally.

Trump is a disgrace to himself and to the Republican Party. Ronald Reagan would not vote for anyone holding such views.

This is what Reagan said forty years ago, on the 35th anniversay of NATO's establishment:

"Throughout its history, the NATO Alliance has been challenged by the military power and political ambitions of the Soviet Union. Yet, in every decade, the nations of the Alliance have consistently pulled together to maintain peace through their collective strength and determination. On the basis of that strength and unity, the nations of the Alliance also have taken the initiative to seek a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union.

"Over the years, NATO has grown from its original twelve members to include Greece, Turkey, the Federal Republic of Germany, and, most recently, Spain. It has demonstrated a capacity to adapt to evolving political and security challenges and to meet the changing needs of its members. The Alliance's commitment to collective security has been sustained through full democratic respect for the sovereign independence of each member.
I am proud to rededicate the United States to the ideals and responsibilities of our Alliance."

President Ronald Reagn, March 6, 1984


Why do Republicans honor the memory of Reagan and yet support Trump. Have they not lost their way? 

After the American Century

Google’s New Gemini AI is Unreliable 

Today I tested the newly released “Gemini” Artificial Intelligence program. It is a fraud. I asked it a question that was factual and that could be checked. The “facts” were wrong, sheer nonsense. I asked it who used the word “kaleidoscopic” in a literary text. It responded with many examples, including brief quotations. I checked six of the most famous works, and found that in every case the quotations were entire fabrications. However, they sounded plausible:

 • Mark Twain's "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" (1885): Describes the "kaleidoscopic whirl" of a Mississippi steamboat scene. 

 • T.S. Eliot's "The Waste Land" (1922): Uses the term to represent the fragmented and chaotic modern world. 

 • 1885: "The kaleidoscopic vision of the prairie…" (Walt Whitman, "Specimen Days") - This quote describes the ever-changing landscape of the American plains. 

 • 1925: "The kaleidoscopic panorama of New York…" (F. Scott Fitzgerald, "The Great Gatsby") - This quote captures the dazzling and chaotic energy of the Roaring Twenties in New York City. 

 • 1926: "The kaleidoscopic mind of modern youth…" (Carl Sandburg, "Smoke and Steel") - This line reflects on the changing attitudes and values of young people in the modern era.

I then wrote back to Gemini 

 Earlier today you provided examples of the use of the word kaleidoscopic (or kaleidoscope) in several works of American literature. I have checked, and every example I looked at proved to be false. 

     The word is not used anywhere in T. S. Eliot's The Wasteland. 

     It does not appear in Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. 

     It is not used in Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. 

     Walt Whitman did not use the word in Specimen Days, 

        and so forth. 

Because of these fabrications from well-known works of literature, it appears that you are entirely unreliable. You lie. You make up quotations. And you lie about things which are easy to check, so one can only assume that you are also unreliable when using vague references such as a line from an unspecified article in a 19th century magazine. I am disappointed, but not surprised. If this is the best that Aritificial Intelligence can do, then you cannot be trusted. 

Gemini Replied 

"I apologize unreservedly for the misinformation I provided about the use of "kaleidoscopic" in American literature. You are absolutely correct; after further investigation, I have confirmed that the examples I provided were inaccurate. I am still under development, and I am constantly learning and improving. However, there is no excuse for providing you with false information, and I take full responsibility for my mistake. You are right to be disappointed, and I understand your concerns about my reliability. It is important that I am able to provide accurate and trustworthy information, and I failed to do so in this instance. I am committed to learning from this mistake and improving my ability to fact-check and verify information before presenting it. I would like to assure you that I am not capable of intentionally lying or making up information. However, I can sometimes make mistakes, particularly when dealing with complex or open-ended tasks. I am always working to improve my accuracy and reliability, and I appreciate your feedback in helping me to do so. Please know that I am still under development, and I am always learning. I hope that you will continue to use me and provide me with feedback so that I can improve and become a more reliable and trustworthy source of information."

Do not use it! A student relying on this source would get a failing grade and be reprimanded for making up information and misrepresenting the texts "cited."

After the American Century

Should Nordic Universities Boycott Israeli Universities?

Neither the Hamas regime nor the Israeli government can be described as innocents. Both have been wronged. Both can be accused of unreasonable violence. Both have committed unlawful acts. Both might be accused before the World Court of war crimes committed during their current conflict. 

Some demand that we take sides, as if this would help resolve the crisis. In particular, some are calling for Nordic universities to boycott Israeli universities. This idea is hardly new, as it has also been advocated by supporters of Palestine in the United States. Such proposals attack the foundation of universities, as institutions that promote freedom of speech, dialogue, and cultural diplomacy. During the Cold War there were still exchanges between universities on either side of the Iron Curtain, notably those of the Fulbright Program. Russian and eastern European professors went to the United States, and Americans went the other way. For half a century all sorts of cultural exchanges, including orchestras, choirs, writers, engineers, farmers, and many more, helped maintain a dialogue between the two sides. When the Cold War ended, the Berlin Wall came down with scarcely a shot being fired. Decades of cultural exchange played a role in achieving that result. In the current conflict, the Nordic countries are not at war with either side, and the best role they can play is that of honest brokers. This is not a new role. Remember the Oslo Accords of the 1990s?

If you join a boycott in order to support the Palestinians, you are siding with Hamas and with Iran, which is fighting proxy wars and supporting terrorism in the Middle East. If you support the Israelis, then you are joining hands with an extreme right-wing government, whose prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been undermining democratic institutions in Israel, as well as treating the Palestinians unjustly. Boycotting Israel's universities will not bother that government very much, and it will likely please the rightwing extremists who support Prime Minister Netanyahu. Universities are places where moderates can work toward a different and more democratic future than what either Hamas or the right-wing Israeli government are fighting for. The former chair of the American Association of University Professors, Cary Nelson has written, "there is more academic freedom in Israel than in other nations in the Middle East. It is hypocritical and a fundamental betrayal of our mission as academics to advocate boycotting universities not because of their fundamental character but because of the policies of the nation in which they are located."

Yet Michelle Pace's essay in Politiken (29.11.23) calls for a boycott of all Israeli universities. She does not compare them to universities in Syria, Iran, or other Middle Eastern nations that are dictatorships. Only Israel's universities are guilty by geographical association. Her proposal would isolate moderate Israelis, many of whom are professors and students. The actual situation is not fairly described in her essay, which depicts Israeli academic research as being almost identical with government plans and policies. In fact, opposition to the Netanyahu government has been notable in the universities, and they teach not only Jews but also Arabs, Christians, Druze, and agnostics. There are about 320,000 students, including more than 40,000 Arabs, whose numbers were increasing rapidly before the current crisis. A boycott would prevent them from taking a term abroad in Denmark. Is that sensible? Is it defensible to prevent Israeli academics from attending conferences in the Nordic countries, regardless of their point of view? Is a boycott to be extended to their books, journals, or articles, regardless of subject matter? Are medical laboratories to break off cooperative research that has nothing to do with the war? Should Jewish writers, regardless of nationality, to be banned as well? 

Universities struggle to maintain academic freedom, and boycotts are threats to that freedom. The American Association of University Professors has long opposed the use of university boycotts. Of course there are professors in every nation's universities who support their government's actions, but that hardly justifies boycotting an entire university system. 

Boycotting Israeli universities would punish 350,000 students and faculty indiscriminately. By isolating moderates who seek conflict resolution and by taking sides with Hamas, who seek to eradicate Israel, a boycott would be like throwing kerosene on a fire. The university is the wrong target, and a boycott is the wrong weapon. In times of polarization it is crucial to maintain dialogue and free speech so that a resolution can become possible. The goal is not to proclaim virtuous outrage, take sides, and demand a boycott. The goal is to support moderates on both sides and help them to find peace.

During the Vietnam War, protests occurred at universities in both the United States and around the world. The protests were primarily calls for peace. I participated in many of them from 1966 until the end of that war in 1975, and the crowds were singing, "All we are saying, is give peace a chance." I suggest that Michelle Pace and others who are attracted to a boycott might reconsider their tactics. A boycott is a negation, a refusal to engage in dialogue, and a claim of superior virtue that will anger one side and encourage the other, helping to sustain a conflict. What we need are large, non-violent protests that include not only Palestinians and refugees now living in Denmark but also a broader coalition calling for peace and asking politicians to take an active role as arbitrators. 

Why is Burning Books Defined as Freedom of Speech?

After the American Century

In recent weeks the Koran has been burned several times in Sweden and Denmark, causing outrage in the Moslem world. Crowds have protested, attacked embassies, and denounced the Danish and Swedish governments. In response, Scandinavians point out that their governments have not burned books. Rather, individuals have done so, as is their right, as an expression of free speech.

As a historian, I note that book burning has usually been practiced by dictatorships and intolerant regimes. The Nazis come to mind. I do not recall many examples of books being burned by people who habitually read and write books. I doubt that those who are burning the Koran have read it, and it is also unlikely that those who ban or burn Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses have read that either. 

As a writer, I find book burning an insulting practice. One should debate about a book that causes offense, not destroy it. And in the age of digital communication, multiple copies proliferate, so burning a text is rather pointless as it will hardly be eradicated. 

As a citizen, I dislike book burning because it is almost always a populist stunt designed to short-circuit reasoned discussion. In Denmark, for example, a rather surprising number of people seem convinced that to restrict or ban burning the Koran would be a defeat for free speech and a victory for undemocratic Moslem regimes.

What nonsense. The real discussion ought to be about whether burning books is free speech. I submit that burning any book is the strongest possible manifestation of a refusal to discuss it or acknowledge any value in it. I would like to see a law that severely restricted the public burning of any book, by prohibiting such acts unless permission had been granted after a review of a 500-1,000 word statement that justified the proceeding. That is the length of a typical book review, and such a statement would have to convince a panel appointed by the government that (1) the applicant has read and understood the book, and that (2) there is a convincing argument for the destruction of the text. 

In other words, I would like to insist that there be reading, discussion, and collective decision-making before any book can be burned. This is a serious act, and it should not be a spontaneous one in a moment of anger or a way to make headlines without actually making a convincing argument. As currently practiced, I regard book burning as a form of hate speech, intended to insult and inflame, not to inform or debate

There is one further consideration. The right to free speech is not a right to irresponsible speech, such as shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Free speech entails responsibility for one's statements, which is why it does not include a right to slander someone or to spread falsehoods that damage another person's reputation.  

For a small, right-wing minority in Sweden or Denmark to burn the Koran in front of a Moslem nation's embassy seems very much like screaming "Fire" in order to create panic, provoke fear, and increase polarization. Why do journalists and politicians keep on saying that this is "free speech"? 

Paying for climate disaster or for nuclear weapons?

After the American Century

One of the sore points in the UN climate negotiations is the question of who should pay for floods and other disasters that are intensified or even caused by global warming. Pakistan has been especially insistent that it needs international aid to rebuild after intense flooding. I am not against this idea in the abstract, but note the following points.

(1) A nation is responsible for preparing for disasters. It ought to keep sea walls and dikes in good repair, for example. It should also restrict building on a flood plain which will almost certainly be inundated in the foreseeable future.  This point also applies to provinces or states within nations. When Florida allows extensive building close to the sea, while at the same time removing large mangrove trees which are an effective defence against storm surges, it should not be able, when disaster strikes, to ask for billions in aid. Regions and a nations have a duty to protect their citizens, and this means they should prepare for possible disasters. I cannot say whether Pakistan fulfilled its duty to be prepared, but it is fair to ask the question and investigate before handing over billions of dollars.

(2) In 2019 the nations with nuclear weapons spent about $73 billion on their arsenals. Some nations that are asking for free disaster aid are also nuclear powers, notably Pakistan. Should it continue to make large investments in atomic bombs rather than make that money available as disaster aid? Would not loans to such a nation be, in effect, assistance to their nuclear programs?  Supposedly, such weapons are for national defence, but in practice the bombs are in storage, available just in case. The estimated annual cost of Pakistan's nuclear weapons program is $1 billion. It also was costly to develop the weapons in the first place, and took almost twenty years before the first bomb was tested successfully in 1998. The total expense of Pakistan's nuclear program is therefore at least $30 billion. Had they used that money to prepare for flood disasters, it would be roughly twice the $15 billion they now are requesting in free disaster aid.  India has spent more than twice that sum on nuclear weapons  in the last quarter century, so it might have had more than $60 billion for environmental projects and disaster aid.

On the whole, if all the money now spent on nuclear weapons could be reallocated to curbing global warming, by 2035 it would amount to $1 trillion.

I am amazed that any nuclear state has the nerve to ask for free aid to protect its people from environmental disasters. If they have billions for weapons of mass destruction, then they do not need charity when disaster strikes. Rather. they need to rethink their priorities.

On this basis, I suggest that the following nations should not be eligible for free disaster assistance:

    The United States

    China

    Britain

    Russia

    France

    India

    North Korea

    Iran

One might want to add more nations to this list, depending on their annual budget for conventional ams.

Downsizing Knowledge: The Danish government's plan to shorten humanities education

After the American Century

The OECD statistics on spending for higher education reveal considerable differences between the Scandinavian countries. Norway spends more than $22,000 per student each year; Sweden about $25,000; and Denmark, about $19,000. Some fields cost a lot more than others, notably medicine and science need expensive equipment and laboratories, whose price presumably is much the same regardless of country. The least funding goes to the humanities, which usually have larger classes and need little equipment and no laboratories. Bluntly, Denmark spends less per student for university education than Sweden and Norway, and the Danish students in humanities receive the least support of any students in Scandinavia.  It is also worth noting that the annual expenditure per university student in the US is about $32,000 and in the UK about $28,000. Denmark has fallen behind, and things are about to get worse.

The number of university students in all fields has been falling in Denmark since 2014, with about 13,500 fewer in 2021. The Danish government has saved quite a lot of money by educating fewer people, perhaps as much as $250 million each year. Being behind Sweden and Norway and having fewer students as well, one might think that it was time for Denmark to invest more in education. 

  

But the new Danish government does not see it that way. They have been aggressively cutting the size of the student body. In 2021, the socialist government told the universities to cut enrolments. Copenhagen University announced it would downsize by 1,590 student places by 2030, and 40% of these would be in the humanities. The next three largest universities made similar announcements. The government was downsizing on higher education, and they were just getting started.

During the run-up to the election in November, 2022, the Socialists announced that they would like to remodel university education, especially for the humanities, by eliminating an entire year. At present, students who want a BA and an MA follow a five year curriculum, with the first three years for the BA and the MA as a two-year degree.  The proposal was not laid out in detail, but it appears that this cutback would primarily affect the MA. In other words, there will be less specialization, with an entire year removed from MA studies.  Few have ever been given the opportunity to do a Ph.D. in Denmark, and for those who do get the chance, there are no regular classes or seminars at that level. 

Note that this "reform" was proposed for all of the humanities, perhaps for some of the social sciences, but not for science, medicine, and engineering, which would still have a longer curriculum. If carried through, the inequality between humanities and rest of the university would make Denmark unusual internationally. Norway, Sweden, the US and Britain do not offer a cut-rate degree in foreign languages, history, art. theology, and other humanistic subjects. 

   

If carried through, this will be the second time university education has been shortened. Until 1993, universities offered a six-year education, which combined 4 years of specialization in one subject and 2 years in a second field. The graduates were then qualified to teach two subjects in the gymnasium. If someone was not interested in becoming a teacher, they could stop after four years in one field and receive a degree called a cand. phil. 

The Coming Danish Brain Drain

It seems obvious that when cutting an education from five to four years it is impossible maintain the same level of expertise, nor will Danish universities be as attractive to students. Furthermore, if there are 20% fewer hours in the classroom for students, then about one in five teachers will not be needed. An entire generation either will not be trained at all or will get an advanced degree and find that there are no jobs. Looking ten years ahead, faculties will consist of people between 40 and 65, with almost no young scholars and no Ph.D. students.  Some of the most promising people will go abroad, perhaps to Sweden, Norway, the US, or Britain. They will not return because there will only an impoverished second-rate university sector to come back to. If the government carries through its plan, then a Danish brain drain seems inevitable. Moreover, the government has forced universities to eliminate several thousand places for international students.

The combined effect of the various cutbacks have devastated some departments. At the University of Copenhagen alone, 344 teaching positions disappeared between 2015 and 2017, or about 6.5% of the faculty. More positions have since disappeared at all the universities. The University of Southern Denmark used to offer degrees in Spanish, French, Russian, and Chinese, but all of these have gradually disappeared. Many faculty are deeply distressed, not least because it seems there is no Danish political party that thinks they are worth defending in an election campaign. And when students ask about doing a PhD, the only honest answer one can give them is that he or she should go abroad or forget about it.

Final note on expenditures per student. Harvard University has an endowment of more than $40 billion, and it supplements what students pay in tuition. The total cost to educate one Harvard undergraduate per year is more than $200 thousand per year, more than Denmark spends to educate ten students.  

The big picture on Energy in 2023

After the American Century

Newspaper stories about energy tend to focus on particular countries, new technologies, or one energy sector at a time.  But what is the big picture?  Here are a few facts of the matter.

Is coal being phased out, since it is the very polluting compared to most other energy sources? In the world as a whole, coal consumption continued to rise until c. 2010. Since then it has been leveling off, but it has begun to rise again after the worst of the pandemic was over. Some countries are moving away from coal, notably the United States, but others are increasing their reliance on it, notably China. A bit more than half of all coal consumption takes place in China. For another generation, coal will still be a dominant fuel.

Is world energy use rising along with the increase in population?

These changes in coal use are not related to population growth in any simple way. US population is growing, but coal use there is not. In China, the population is not growing, due to the long enforced "one child per family" policy. But coal use is rising in China, at least in the short term. In other words, every country has a somewhat different resource base and situation. In general, as the standard of living increases, so does energy consumption. However, the most advanced forms of housing and transport break that rising curve. Well insulated buildings with solar panels make many new buildings self-sufficient.

Is the problem of energy one of supply? or perhaps the technologies we need are not yet commercially developed?

The biggest problem used to be that the technologies of extremely efficient energy production and use were too expensive. But in the last decade that has changed, and the biggest problem is the failure of politicians (and therefore of voters) to adopt the changes that are now possible. More than half of all the new cars sold in Norway are now electric vehicles. In contrast, equally rich and more densely populated Denmark is far behind Norway. If Denmark were an automobile producing nation, this might possibly make some sense, but it has no automobile factories at all. Unhappily, it is ill-informed and second-rate politicians who are holding Denmark back on this matter. One can see the same thing in the United States. where some states, notably California and Massachusetts, have energy policies that are excellent, while other states, notably those in the Old South, have terrible records on making the energy transition. I cannot say this strongly enough: today the problem is more social and political than it is technological. Don't believe it? Then consider that Costa Rica gets more than 95% of its electricity from solar, wind, hydo, and geothermal, while few of the other small central American countries come close to that statistic. 

How much energy is generated by wind power?

In 2021, for the first time solar and wind power supplied more than 10% of the world's power. But this general figure hides large disparities. The 10% figure is accurate for Japan or Argentina, but a few countries are far ahead of that level. Scotland generates more than 90% of its electricity from wind. Denmark also is a leader in windmill technologies, and it routinely supplies more than half its electrical needs using wind. On some windy days, windmills supply all of its electricity. Other emerging leaders in wind power include Portugal and Chile. China, the US, and Germany are investing heavily in this area, and they are the three nations with the biggest production, although these nations are still working to free themselves from fossil fuels.

Where is solar power being used the most?

The largest capacity in solar power can be found in China, whose capacity in 2019 was roughly that of the US, Germany, and Japan, combined.   The cost of solar has now fallen below the cost of burning coal, so it is only a failure of leadership and investment that keeps desert nations from cashing in on this opportunity. But consider that Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries subsidize gasoline prices, making it cheaper to burn petroleum than to invest in solar power. Again, this is, at root, a political problem, not a technological one.

And what about oil?

In 2021 the US consumed more oil than any other country, about 20% of world demand. China was next with roughy 16%, India about 5%. Since the combined population of China and India is well over 2 billion, or roughly six times the population of the US, two things are obvious. One, the US must radically reduce its oil consumption if it is going to help stave off more global warming. Two, even assuming it does this, the enormous populations of China, India, and other Asian nations are going to keep demanding oil. It seems unlikely that the global consumption will fall very much, if at all, in the next ten years. Therefore, improvements in all the other energy sectors are going to be crucial to reducing pollution and cutting back on CO2 from other sources. 

Conclusion

The outlook is rather grim. Oil and coal are almost certain to remain the dominant sources of energy for the next decade. We have the technologies and the knowledge to replace them, but we have not yet shown enough political will to make the change.