COUNTING THE VOTES

Midterm elections have traditionally been ho-hum affairs, generally favoring the party out of power and featuring a significantly lower turnout than presidential elections. Nevertheless, this year's election could well be the most consequential in years, possibly defying political history. With minuscule Democratic majorities in both chambers, all 435 House seats and 35 U.S. Senate seats up for grabs, control of Congress is definitely in play. Perhaps more importantly, the 2022 midterms may also well be the first election ever in which the elections themselves are on the ballot. While President Biden is not up for reelection per se, the midterms will be a referendum on the first two years of his administration and the performance by his Democratic party. Basic issues like the economy and inflation, crime and gun policies, climate change, immigration, and the increasingly more prominent reproductive rights, AKA abortion, issue will encounter a vastly different approach in Congress depending on which party wins control. But, after all, Mr. Biden will still be president wielding veto power. Odds makers tend to agree that the Republican Party will most likely end up as the majority in control of the House of Representatives. It takes 218 seats to win control of the House. Right now Democrats hold 221 seats, Republicans have 213. They need a net gain of 5 seats to unseat Nancy Pelosi and others, and presumably install Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. Anyone interested in keeping track of the votes in all 435 Congressional districts as they happen, will need an interactive computerized spreadsheet. Fortunately for us, multiple media outlets will help us take care of that. However, keeping track of the Senate races is more interesting and manageable. We currently have a 50-50 Senate. This includes 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 2 Independents voting with the Democrats. Twenty-one seats currently held by Republicans and 14 held by Democrats are in play. Of these, most appear secure for their respective incumbents. Only a hand full are considered "toss-ups" in which either party has a legitimate chance of winning. Anyone interested in keeping track of the electoral outcome of this race ought to focus on Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia and, possibly, Ohio. The Arizona contest is between Democratic incumbent, former astronaut, Mark Kelly, who is considered vulnerable against Trump backed venture capitalist Blake Masters. In Nevada, incumbent Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto is thought to be the most likely sitting Senator to lose her seat to Republican challenger, former state attorney general, Adam Laxalt. Pennsylvania exhibits an interesting contest between Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is supported by the former president, and Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman, who recently recovered from a massive stroke. Current Republican Senator Pat Toomey decided not to run for reelection. Georgia has also been in the news lately. Republican candidate, former running back, Herschel Walker will attempt to unseat Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock. This contest appears to be key to the GOP strategy to retake the Senate. However, Mr. Walker, who is running on a family values, strict anti-abortion, platform, allegedly reimbursed a former girlfriend for the cost of an abortion - a charge he denies. This race is still too close to call. Finally, in Ohio, U.S. Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, will attempt to take the state's senate seat away from the Republican party, defended by their candidate J.D. Vance. Incumbent Rob Portman also decided not to run for reelection. The Republican party could win all of these toss-ups and claim control of the Senate. Democrats are defending three out of five, and would enhance their dominance over the Senate by claiming victory in the two states abandoned by their incumbents. While these contests will likely determine the balance of power in Congress for the next few years, the arguably most consequential electoral battle is being fought over control of the electoral process itself. In many places the choice is between Democratic and Republican supporters of our democratic traditions, and those still asserting that the 2020 election was stolen and that American elections are deeply flawed. The latter movement, emboldened by open encouragement from former president Donald Trump, is no longer an aberration on the fringes. In many constituencies the influence of these so-called election deniers is overwhelming and permeates all levels of government. On ballots across the country, the Brookings Institution identified 345 candidates who have expressed election denial beliefs. These are candidates, across a variety of races during this election, who perpetuate ex-president Trump's assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Many election deniers are congressional incumbents who voted to reject certification of the presidential election results. This group of candidates will be on the ballot in virtually every state and make up more than half of all Republicans running for congressional and state offices. According to the Cook Political Report and a Washington Post analysis more than 170 election deniers are running in districts or states where Republicans are expected to win. If they succeed, especially at state levels, they could have the power to interfere with non-partisan election administration and put our free, fair and secure elections at risk. Governors, Attorneys General and Secretaries of State set the rules, run the elections, supervise the counting of ballots and control certification of results. In some extreme cases bills have already been introduced which, if passed, would give legislators the power to reject election outcomes and replace winning candidates with those more to their liking. Across the country, 13 of 27 secretary of state races, 10 of 30 attorney general contests and 19 of 36 campaigns for governor have openly declared election deniers on their respective ballots. Few are shy admitting that their main objective is to have more control over certification of elections and control the outcome of the upcoming 2024 presidential contest. More than 100 years ago, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was very blunt when he proclaimed that "those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." A disturbing number of recent converts to this philosophy seems to be ready to agree. Arizona candidate for Governor Kari Lake is not alone when she insisted a week or so ago that she would only commit to accept the election results if she wins. If this becomes a trend, we are in trouble. To quote another politician, courageous, highly principled Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney makes it clear: "If you care about democracy, and you care about the survival of our republic ...we cannot give people power who have told us that they will not honor elections." Theo Wierdsma

WHAT JUST HAPPENED IN EUROPE?

The handwriting was on the wall: the headlines could not be ignored: "Italian voters appear ready to turn a page for Europe." (NY Times); "Election will test Italian's cautious optimism." (Gallup); "Right-wing alliance seen as likely winner as Italians vote." (Reuters). News media across the spectrum warned the world that Italy, the E.U.'s third largest economy, was about to elect a Fascist alliance to run its next government. As predicted, it happened. So, now what? People ask "why?" How could this happen? Is Europe about to return to a darker past? The outcome of this election, although uncomfortable for many, should not come as a total surprise. Continental Europe, a landmass significantly smaller than North America, has been home to at least 20 hard-right political parties. Many of these have roots in a Nazi or Fascist past, and most all proclaim Neo-Nazi or Neo-Fascist leanings. Virtually all proclaim frustration with their country's political establishment. They point out that Democracy is not terribly efficient. They resent globalization. They tend to hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic and racist views, and charge that liberal immigration policies are diluting their national identity. Most exhibit an inclination to be Eurosceptic, fundamentally opposed to the E.U. and European integration, even if their country benefits substantially economically from membership in the European Union. A growing number of hard-right nationalist parties have accumulated sufficient electoral support to enter governing coalitions in their host countries. In Hungary, Viktor Orban's "Fidesz" party has run the country for over a decade. It is staunchly anti-immigrant, openly intolerant of minorities and the liberal leanings of philanthropist countryman George Soros, and vocally critical of E.U. sanctions on Russia. Austria's far-right, anti-Muslim, "Freedom Party", founded in 1955 and rooted in National Socialism, is a dominant participant in the country's government. The right-wing opposition "AFD" (Alternative for Germany) political party is overwhelmingly supported in areas which prior to the country's reunification in 1990 were part of East Germany. As of the federal elections in 2017 it became Germany's third largest party. The "Sweden Democrats," once a fringe, anti-immigrant, party created out of a group of hard-line Neo-Nazis, recently received 20.5% of the vote and became the largest party in Sweden's new center-right majority in parliament. In France, Marine Le Pen, who presides over the "National Rally," a perennial candidate for president, received 41.5% of the popular vote in last April's run off election with Emmanuel Macron - a significant improvement over the 33.9% she received in 2017. And there are numerous others who have gained prominence: "Vox" in Spain, the "Danish People's Party," "Vlaams Belang" in Belgium, "Forum voor Democratie" and "Party for Freedom" in The Netherlands. And, outside of the European Union, the dominant "Swiss People's Party." Most of these are hard-right, nationalist, anti status quo, and ready to take the reigns of traditional democratic countries. That within this political environment another right-wing fringe party, the "Brothers of Italy" should manage to become a serious player is hardly surprising. Italy is the birthplace of Fascism. Following World War II, the country never repudiated Fascism and Mussolini in the way Germany renounced Nazism and Hitler. Rachelle Mussolini and Alessandra Mussolini - il Duce's granddaughter - are still prominent in Italian politics. However, labels don't necessarily reflect ideology. Georgia Meloni has said that she dislikes talking about Fascism. She is convinced that the Italian right "has banned Fascism over to history for decades" already. She expresses support for NATO, the E.U., Ukraine, and the sanctions on Russia. Although these are positions not necessarily shared by her coalition partners. Europe anxiously waits to see what will happen. Roberto D'Alimonte, professor of Political Science and an acknowledged expert on Italy's electoral system at the University of Florence, advises critics to remain calm. He rejects the believe that the country has moved to the right, and does not think that its citizenry considers Ms. Meloni a threat. According to him the country did not vote for Fascism. It was simply tired of an inefficient liberal government, and just wanted a change. His take is that the Italian establishment is more concerned with her party's lack of competence than with an authoritarian takeover. The fact remains that a century after Benito Mussolini's 1922 "March on Rome," which brought the Fascist dictator to power, Georgia Meloni will lead Italy's first far-right-led government since World War II and becomes Italy's first woman Prime Minister. Opinions aside, this remains a big political shift for a pivotal European country dealing with ongoing economic and political instability. Theo Wierdsma

ARE MONARCHIES STILL RELEVANT?

Queen Elizabeth II, the only queen most everyone in the English speaking world ever knew, died at the age of 96. Upwards of two million people expressed their anguish, sorrow and respect observing the carefully choreographed and flawlessly executed funeral arrangements throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For most, the Queen's impressive regal funeral ceremony was largely appreciated. For many it must have felt like the passing of a greatly admired and respected family member. The pomp and ceremony surrounding the ascension of Elizabeth's son, Prince Charles, to King Charles III, however, came across as the pageantry from a bygone era. For some spectators the spectacle must have raised questions about the kingdom's orthodox attempt at portraying Britain as the last remaining vestige of traditional royal rule. While the display of pageant splendor surrounding the British royal family may well be the most elaborate of its kind in the western world, the institution itself is not the last remaining monarchical relic in modern times. There are still 43 sovereign states in the world that are ruled by a monarch as head of state. Of these, Europe features seven kingdoms: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium and, of course, The United Kingdom. Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco are principalities. Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy, and Vatican City is described as a theocratic elective monarchy. Most of these are constitutional monarchies in which the monarch does not influence the politics of the state, either because of convention or because it is explicitly forbidden by their constitution. None of these exhibit the elaborate demonstration of traditional pageantry displayed in the U.K. All of them have adapted to contemporary realities. None are seriously threatened with extinction. Almost all regularly receive 80% plus support from their constituency. This last point ought to be considered as one of the challenges newly minted King Charles needs to be concerned about. While the timing may be inappropriate, "republicans," organized in a persistent movement seeking to replace the monarchy with an alternative form of governance ruled by an elected head of state, are already erecting anti-monarchy banners advocating to "Make Elizabeth the Last." Support for King Charles' ascension to the throne is benefiting from the emotions of the moment. However, his challenges are rapidly mounting. Domestically, the republican movement feels that their time has come. Graham Smith, CEO of the campaign group "Republic," clarified that "the Queen is the monarchy for most people. After she dies the institution is in serious jeopardy." Charles is significantly less popular than his mother was. The word is already spreading that Britain's new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, albeit 27 years ago, confirmed that, in her opinion, the monarchy should be abolished. If not abolished, chances are that significant reductions could affect the size of the realm. In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the Irish nationalist party which seeks unification with the Republic of Ireland, captured the largest number of seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly this year. In Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the ruling Scottish Nationalist Party, already announced plans for another referendum on Scottish independence next year. And then there is the issue of the Commonwealth. King Charles becomes the titular head of state of 14 countries, or realms, in the Commonwealth. Doubtlessly influenced by pressure from Queen Elizabeth, the 2018 Commonwealth Conference agreed that Charles would get the role after becoming king. However, his position is honorary, not hereditary. While his role as head of state is symbolic, and while few things are expected to change, some suspect that the royal succession could strengthen existing republican movements in Commonwealth countries as well. Last year, Barbados already removed the British monarch as head of state, and transitioned to a parliamentary republic with a ceremonial, indirectly elected, president. Jamaica's prime minister, Andrew Holness, announced that his country intends to leave the monarchy by the time of its next election in 2025. Belize, Antigua and Barbuda have indicated similar intentions. Support for a break with the monarchy in Canada, Australia and New Zealand is still relatively minor. However, the sentiment is growing. Amongst the elaborate symbolism and pervasive historic, but archaic pomp and ceremony reminiscent of 16th Century monarchism, many "subjects" are revisiting the question whether the institution has enduring relevance and utility. Steadfast royalists answer this question in the affirmative. They argue that: Monarchs can rise above politics in the way an elected head of state can not; In politically unstable countries, like e.g. Thailand, the existence of a monarch is often the only thing holding the country back from civil war; Monarchs prevent the emergence of extreme forms of government - they encourage slow, incremental change instead of extreme swings; and, perhaps just as important, they are repositories of tradition and continuity - which is comforting to many. King Charles' challenge will be how to refashion the monarchy and maintain public support for it as a ceremonial institution at the center of British public life, providing an anchor at a time when the pace of change is bewildering to many. His expressed commitment to slim it down might include bringing it into the modern world, akin to what most continental European monarchies have done, safeguarding their continued existence in the process. Theo Wierdsma

HISTORIC TRENDS FORECAST ELECTION OUTCOME

Democrats have recently grown more confident that their party may escape the predicted slaughter at the ballot box during the upcoming midterm elections this November. President Biden still receives negative approval ratings. Only 13 percent of Americans still believe that the country is on the right track. Seventy-four percent believe we are going in the wrong direction. Those voters blame Biden, even though most still favor him over Trump. Inflation, immigration, Afghanistan and supply chain are still major issues. And even though the president is not on the ballot and voters can't take their dissatisfaction out on him, they tend to take it out on members of his party, which hold incredibly thin majorities in Congress and have very few seats to lose. So, what prompted these somewhat improved confidence levels? One major issue dominating political campaigns this time around is the Supreme Court's decision to overturn "Roe v. Wade," which legalized abortion in 1973. The current court's decision conflicts with the opinion expressed by a significant majority of the population. Credible polls indicate that 61% of those interviewed believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, contrasted with 37% who believe the opposite. With at least 12 states subsequently banning abortion all together and states like Texas now passing legislation making abortion a felony punishable by life in prison, emotions are running high. In addition, recent significant legislative accomplishments, an increased attention on former president Donald Trump's manipulations during the transition, and heightened concerns about attacks on our democratic system of government, have given candidates even more to run on. The sequence of events have proven marginally beneficial for the Democratic party's prospects. According to several recent polls, President Biden's approval ratings surged from a low of 31% in July to a high of 44% in late August - his highest yet this year. The president is still "under water," but Democrats believe they see a trend. Nevertheless, Democrats would be advised to not be over confident. History tells us that during midterm elections the party in power generally does not do very well. Since World War II, the president's party has lost an average of 26 seats in the House and an average of 4 seats in the Senate. Republicans only need to gain 5 House seats and 1 seat in the Senate to take over as majority party in Congress. To put the statistics in perspective, since 1934, the president's party has only twice managed to pick up seats during midterm elections. Bill Clinton added 5 additional seats in 1998, although Republicans maintained control of Congress. During George W. Bush's first midterm election in 2002 the Republican Party added 8 House seats and two Senate seats, only the third time since the Civil War that this happened. Some midterm losses, however, were very significant: In 1938 FDR lost 71 seats, even though Democrats retained the majority; Bill Clinton lost 52 seats in 1994 as a result of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" campaign; Barack Obama ended up with 63 fewer seats in 2010; and Donald Trump received 40 fewer seats in 2018. Aside from contemporary politically salient issues, factors influencing midterm election outcomes include: redistricting, viable contestants, voter turnout, and, this time around, the "Trump factor." Every ten years, after the country completes a census, redistricting causes many legislative districts to change. Redistricting is an ugly process, which generally prompts multiple lawsuits. Some of these do reach the Supreme Court. However, the Court has declined to enter the political partisan fray, concentrating instead on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Nationally, Republicans currently tend to have the advantage. There are 28 states with Republican governors and only 22 governed by Democrats who control the process. It goes without saying that, in most cases, it is important who actually competes for eligible seats. As of now, 6 senators and 32 representatives are not running for reelection. Seventeen of these are running for other offices. The reputable Cook Political Report estimates that 32 House seats - 24 Democrats and 8 Republicans - fall in the "toss-up" category, meaning that these seats are most competitive, giving either party a chance of winning. In the Senate race, 14 Democrat controlled seats and 21 Republicans are up for election. Only four of these appear appear to be "toss-ups." Whoever turns out the vote usually wins. Voter turn out during midterm elections is generally 20% lower than participation in presidential elections. In general, Republicans tend to vote more consistently than Democrats. Nevertheless, major issues may determine who comes out to cast his or her ballot. While a number of weeks ago the focus might still have been on Covid, the economy, supply chain issues and others, Democrats are hoping that abortion, their recent legislative successes and the ever more conspicuous "Trump factor" may bring their supporters out in larger numbers this time around. While some of their support may have been fading, they expect that, instead of not coming to the polls at all, these subgroups decide to come out and make their voices heard after all. So, finally, the "Trump factor" cannot be ignored. While the former president has energized and enlisted substantial new numbers of voters to the GOP, his celebrity status has turned to notoriety after January 6, 2021. His insistence to continue as power broker in the party has developed negative consequences. Having Trump to run against helps Democrats even when he is not on the ballot. They can make the election about him. Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged this during a recent speech at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon. McConnell admitted that his party may not win back the Senate because of a "lack of candidate quality." He suggested that the former president was in essence on the ballot, but that some of his hand-picked Senate candidates were "looking gloomier" than some prognosticators might have predicted. And then there is Donald Trump's own counsel to his party, which he issued on October 13 of 2021: "If we don't solve the Presidential Election fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in '22 or '24. It is the single most important thing for Republicans to do." If enough Republicans listen to that, the party is in trouble, and Democrats may rejoice against all odds. Theo Wierdsma

ATTACK ON OUR CAPITOL IN PERSPECTIVE

Nineteen months ago supporters of outgoing president Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol. The mob attempted to stop certification of the Electoral College vote, which would cement the outcome of the 2020 election, one Mr. Trump lost. Thus far, many still believe that the violence represented the worst affront to our constitutional democracy in history. Their perception appears to be substantiated by the overwhelming evidence unearthed by the "January 6 Committee" investigating the attack. Although the assault ranks as an example of one of the most extreme exhibitions of convulsion during a presidential transition, it was, historically, not the only, nor even the worst, instance of belligerent behavior following a contentious election. Nothing is more dangerous and strains our democratic system more acutely than the period of a presidential transition, which runs from election day in November to inauguration day on January 20. This is the time when our government is in limbo, during which our adversaries could attempt to do something nefarious. It is also the time during which a President-Elect prepares to take over the administration of the federal government from a lame-duck incumbent. During this time period political behavior frequently proves to be more intensely quarrelsome, especially after an incumbent loses his or her reelection attempt to a challenger from a different party. Snubs and insults between competing personalities who are still making sense of new realities at this time are not uncommon. Examples are plentiful. Very early in our history as an independent state, during the election of 1800, when our second president, John Adams, ran against his vice president Thomas Jefferson, interaction between the two camps was extremely nasty. The election outcome was inconclusive and ended up in the House of Representatives. Adams lost. Jefferson won after 36 ballots. Distraught over his loss, Adams refused to attend the inauguration of his opponent, and left the Presidential Mansion at 4am on that morning. In 1824, John Quincy Adams defeated Andrew Jackson by managing to collect more electoral votes in the House of Representatives, even though Jackson had actually won more popular and electoral votes. Jackson, being denied victory by the electoral count in the House, called the outcome a "corrupt bargain." Four years later Adams lost against Jackson. While considering the latter's triumph a "hostile takeover," Adams left before the transition took place. An example of contentious behavior during more modern times emerged from the 1952 contest, which elected Dwight Eisenhower. Outgoing president Harry Truman apparently insulted the incoming president by publicly commenting that "the general doesn't know any more about politics than a pig knows about Sunday." Thoroughly offended, Ike subsequently declined to be briefed by Truman. The most consequential political violence following an election resulted from the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had won with 39.8% of the vote in a four man race. He competed with Stephen Douglas, John Bell, and John Breckinridge, President James Buchanan's vice president and Lincoln's most significant opponent, who ran on the Southern Democratic ticket. Five weeks after the election seven slave holding states: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia and Texas, seceded from the Union to form their own Confederate government. They claimed to be committed to the legitimacy in perpetuity of slavery and to interrupt the peaceful transition of power from a Democrat to a Republican. A joint session of Congress met on February 13, 1861 to count the Electoral College votes needed to certify the result of the election. The New York Times at the time described the atmosphere as one of "tense apprehension" on Capitol Hill. The paper expressed the fear that "the counting of the electoral votes would never be peacefully accomplished." A large police force had been assembled to secure the area and to limit access to the chamber. The certification count would take place among credible threats of murder. Ultimately the process was completed. Breckinridge received all 72 electoral votes from the seceded states. Lincoln and his running mate Hannibal Hamlin each gained 180 votes, exclusively from Northern states - they had not even been on the ballot in ten slave states - with 152 needed to win. While the count took place in Congress, Jefferson Davis was inaugurated in the south. Eight weeks later, on April 12, Confederate guns fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, the first shots of what would become a four-year civil war. Lincoln was assassinated six weeks after his second inaugural. None of this is meant to suggest that peaceful transitions are rare. After all, one of the hallmarks of democratic governments is that after an election the losing parties gracefully step aside and accept their fate. Richard Nixon, as Eisenhower's vice president, who lost the 1961 election to John F. Kennedy, had to count Kennedy's disputed electoral votes. He did it, and attended the president-elect's inauguration, seated next to Lyndon Johnson, the incoming V.P.. Al Gore, as President Clinton's vice president, had to read the electoral vote count after the 2000 election, which he lost to George W. Bush. He performed his constitutional duty, and he and his wife rode down Pennsylvania Avenue in a limo with their successors, Dick Cheney and his wife, on inauguration day. And, on January 6, Donald Trump's vice president Mike Pence, under enormous pressure from an uncompromising boss and death threats from a violent mob, showed his constitutional temperament and character when he executed his responsibility. Vice President and Mrs. Pence attended President Biden's inauguration as well. Much of the world displayed shock or glee over the January 6 assault on our Capitol during the transition period following our 2020 election. Our allies especially expressed their concerns about our ability to continue to support leading democratic systems across the globe, at a time when many of their leaders were having difficulties keeping their governments intact and functional. However, with the exception of our civil war, our constitutional system has thus far held together. Civility, character and commitment to democratic norms of our elected officials will be essential to its continued survival. Theo Wierdsma

CLIMATE GOING BERSERK

It has become a familiar horrific sight recently. Images of defeated, devastated people, lamenting that they lost everything: family members, their home, livelihood, family keepsakes, confidence in their future - all evaporated in a few agonizing moments, lost to fire or floods - leaving them uncertain about what to do next. What used to be anomalies, now appear to have become common occurrences. Catastrophic wildfires killed an estimated 3 billion animals in Australia in January of 2020. Perennial fires in California destroyed more than 4 million acres and 10,000 structures, killing 33 and costing over $12.1 billion that same year - the state's worst fire season in history. Calamitous flash floods in Eastern Kentucky and Appalachia already killed 37, while hundreds are still unaccounted for. A monstrous heatwave enveloped much of the globe, but seemingly centered on Western Europe, where most people do not have air conditioning. Temperatures averaged well over 100 degrees across the continent. They reached a lethal 117 degrees in Portugal and killed 2,000 on the Iberian peninsula. What used to be a climatic aberration melted roadways, buckled tarmacs, warped railroad tracks and, in turn, triggered wildfires across Southern Europe, displacing tens of thousands of its residents. Is this evidence of our climate going berserk? No! Believe it or not, it is caused by climate change, long identified, worse than expected, and consequences, perpetually predicted, manifesting much sooner than anticipated. There is convincing evidence that climate change is an existing, constantly evolving phenomenon. Human culpability and the means to confront or combat its consequences, however, have for decades been relegated to a political battleground. It is true, as some assert, that the earth's climate was changing well before humans emerged onto our planet. These changes were driven by large scale processes - like adjustments to the earth's orbit - which took tens of thousands of years to evolve. It was after the start of the Industrial Revolution, during the 1760s, that scientists began to measure detectable global temperature changes resulting from a spike in the release of greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide, methane and others. These gasses are trapped in the atmosphere and re-emitted to the earth, causing surface temperatures to increase. Over time the resulting climate change affected global temperature and precipitation patterns, which, in turn, influenced the intensity and, in some cases, the frequency of extreme environmental events, as we have experienced with increasing regularity during the past few years. With all the evidence of extreme climate change surrounding us, probably in perpetuity, it is confounding that there are still those who steadfastly deny that we have a problem. This would not be a serious issue if this group of skeptics remained a fringe element. However, some of the most ardent climate change deniers inhabit positions of significant power. They continue to argue that "climate change is natural and normal - we've seen fluctuations throughout history." The fact is that present climate change is occurring 20 to 50 times faster than the most rapid climate change events in history. Some believe that not all scientists agree that the change is actually happening and, if it does, that humans are the primary cause. Again, facts contradict that belief. More than 99% of scientists confirm that the phenomenon is real. The remaining 1% is likely composed of indecisive politicians that are funded by the fossil fuel industry. Even those that are on the fence claim that asserting a crisis condition is unwarranted, and that plants and animals will adapt to the change. In fact, climate change is happening too rapidly for species to adapt. Climate change accelerates extinction rates. More than one million species are at risk of extinction, and estimates are that dozens of species already go extinct every day. And then there is the prevailing argument that the economic impact of making substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions is too large. That we can't afford it. However, the ultimate cost of inaction or limited action to society is far greater than the cost of robust responses to climate change. Delaying action now will necessitate more aggressive action in the future - likely to be much more expensive. The U.S. government is actually already beginning to budget anticipated impacts of climate change at $2 trillion a year. Moreover, financial ramifications and political pressure by the fossil fuel industry aside, the human cost of inaction is overwhelming. A fairly recent study, identified as "the world's largest study of global climate," led by Monash University, one of Australia's leading educational institutions, links 5 million extra deaths a year to abnormal hot and cold temperatures caused by climate change. To be fair, even responsive and responsible legislators have difficulty getting their arms around the problem. Climate change is a global phenomenon, not confined within national boundaries. The mix of means needed to confront and combat its consequences is complex and repelled by entrenched economic and political interests. Alternatives to the use of fossil fuels are slow to develop, and are often ridiculed by some in policy making positions. However, we have already pushed the tipping point of no return for some time. We have no choice but to act. It must be done! A positive indicator emerging from the 2020 pandemic crisis shows us that we can make progress. In April that year, worldwide greenhouse gas emissions dropped 17% below those of previous years, and ended up 8% lower for the entire year, the largest annual drop since the second world war. Theo Wierdsma

WE ARE NOT ALONE

President Biden concedes that his top economic priority is, or ought to be, inflation, currently at 9.1%. Biden, an accomplished politician, frames the discomforting news within a package of positive economic developments: "Unemployment is near historic lows." His administration "cut the federal deficit by 1.7 trillion this year." "Millions of Americans are moving up to better jobs and better pay." "The job market is the strongest it's been since World War Two, adding 8,700,000 new jobs" since he took office. Nevertheless, the president concedes that inflation is a real challenge for American families. However, he suggests that America can tackle inflation from a position of strength unlike any other region in the world. He wants us to recognize that "every country in the world is getting a big bite of this inflation - worse than we are in the vast majority of countries." While it is certainly true that an overwhelming majority of states are suffering significant inflationary pressure, blanket statements that every nation is worse off than we are is a grossly exaggerated assertion. Not only do many comparable economies report various rates of inflation, many differ in the significance of what sectors are mostly impacted. The reported rate of inflation in the 19 states that compose the Eurozone currently averages 8.6%. In Europe as a whole, in part because of individual countries' relative dependence on self-imposed scarcity of Russian fuel, rates run the gamut from 3.4% in Switzerland to 78.62% in Turkey. Aside from these significant outliers, countries that are geographically closer to Russia tend to have notably higher rates of inflation. Ukraine, predictably, comes in at 21.5%, Estonia at 20.1%, Lithuania 18.5%, Poland 15.6%, Hungary 11.7% and so on. While a number of western European states report rates on par with what the U.S. has endured - Spain 10.2%, Belgium 9.65%, and the U.K. 9.1%, Germany and France, respectively the fourth and fifth largest economies in the world, compare positively to our numbers. France, especially, at a "paltry" 5.8% is a statistically shining example. France's rate of inflation illustrates the correlation between energy resources and their effect on domestic malaise. It uses nuclear power, which accounts for 70% of the country's electricity production and 40% of its overall energy consumption. This makes the country less vulnerable to shocks of gas prices. The European Central Bank is actually forecasting that France's inflation rate will drop significantly during the next few years. Switzerland's low inflation rate seems to be partially due to its existing cost of living, which is already very high. Prices for household goods in Switzerland are generally about 60% higher than those averaged in the surrounding European Union countries. Besides, its politicians have aggressively legislated to tackle prices, energy mix and wage restraints. Turkey's inflation is an entirely different issue. Analysts claim that, because of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's long running unorthodox strategy on monetary policy, inflation rates have soared. Food prices have risen 91.6%, energy costs are off the charts, and economists predict that the situation is bound to get worse. In many Western European countries rates hover around the levels we have experienced recently. However, a number of countries have taken pro-active steps to protect the impact on their citizenry. Some imposed caps on energy prices, or provided rebates for low-income households to offset the cost of gas and diesel. Germany effectively reduced the price of gasoline at the pump and is offering monthly $10. tickets for public transportation. By keeping gas prices at $6.90 per gallon, it effectively undercuts the rest of Europe, where prices fluctuate between $8.50 and $10.00 a gallon. What are we complaining about? Outside of these countries inflation rates are somewhat of a mixed bag. Australia and New Zealand, while experiencing rates historically high for their economies, report considerably lower rates than in the U.S. and E.U. Australia came in at 5.1% year-to-date. New Zealand is now up to 6.9% - a 30 year high. India shows a 7.01% rate. But across Africa the average has soared to 12.2%, not helped by 245% in Sudan and 90% in Zimbabwe. China, the world's 2nd largest economy, has managed to keep its rate under control at an acceptable 2.2%. This remarkable percentage may be due to a plunging domestic demand caused by its zero-Covid policy, and because the country is largely self sufficient in food. The fact that it may have a competitive negotiable advantage on the energy market, as much of the western world is drastically reducing Russian fuel imports, doesn't hurt either. All in all a diverse assortment of outcomes. President Biden is essentially correct. We are not alone. But when we compare our situation to that of the rest of the world, we should be selective, and figure out if some of these economies are adopting strategies we could benefit from. Inflation will likely stick around for some time to come. Former Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers cautions that inflation rates are unlikely to fall without a significant economic downturn. Fasten your seat belts! Theo Wierdsma