Let’s start with a very simple truism: you can’t have prosperity without people.
Human beings are the most valuable resource, because it is human ingenuity that creates and cultivates all other earthly resources. We as human beings are the custodians and protectors of the planet, not its destroyers, as the radical environmentalists would have you believe.
The richer and more technologically advanced we become, the more likely we are to avert a catastrophic event like a giant meteor crashing into the planet and destroying all life.
Which brings us to a potentially ruinous trend: many countries are literally running out of people.
This alarming chart on births and deaths in Europe is a terrifying glimpse into the future of a new dark age of the western world, if birth rates don’t start rising — and quickly. Europeans are becoming extinct.
Negative population growth is a sure killer of prosperity and human flourishing. It’s also contrary to Christianity and most other religions, which instruct us to “be fruitful and multiply.”
It’s not just Europe. Japan and Korea will cut their populations in half over the next 80 years if they don’t start moving away from one child per couple rates of propagating.
Why are rich countries depopulating the planet?
For 60 years, prophets of doom like Paul Ehrlich (“The Population Bomb”) and governments around the world — including our own — warned that we all had a moral obligation to save the planet by having fewer babies. There were periods of forced abortions, forced sterilizations, forced birth control, and — in advanced nations like in Europe and the U.S. — a cultural sneering at families with four or five or six kids.
That mendacious propaganda campaign worked all too well. Look what it has wrought.
There are other explanations. As we have gotten richer — and especially as women’s earnings have risen — the “cost” of having a child in terms of lost income, has risen. Women are less likely to have more than one or two children. To be clear: I’m NOT suggesting that women should be paid less!
Marriage rates have declined, and vows are coming later in life, so the median year for a woman to have a child keeps rising — leaving fewer fertility years left for multiple children.
Religiosity has declined somewhat in our more secular “me first” society. That’s sad because childless couples tend to be less happy. And why have kids if you don’t believe there is a divine reason we were put on this planet?
The solutions to this problem aren’t obvious. Pro-natalist government policies, like paying people to have kids and offering free childcare have had spotty levels of success.
The U.S. has delayed the demographic crisis happening in Europe and much of Asia through immigration of young workers. Not only do immigrants increase the population, but they tend to have more kids than native-born Americans.
But even with immigration, we in America have an obvious aging problem.
One simple step is to start celebrating as a society the virtues and the self-sacrifice of motherhood. Our schools and our teachers and our clergy and our political leaders need to keep pushing the message that the greatest contribution men and women can give to saving our species is to have more kids — as soon as possible.
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a cofounder of Unleash Prosperity, and a former senior economic advisor to President Donald Trump.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes faced a setback last week in her legal challenge against President Donald Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ Tariffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a favorable ruling for the President, allowing the tariffs challenged by Mayes’ and eleven other state Attorneys General to remain in effect pending appeal.
The appeals court blocked an order from the U.S. Court of International Trade, which struck down the tariffs on May 28th in State of Oregon, et al., v. Trump, et al. The appeals court acknowledged the Trump tariffs’ raise “issues of exceptional importance” and agreed to expedite the case. It will hear arguments before the entire court on July 31st. In the ruling, the court found that “both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits” and stated, “The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance.”
Responding to the ruling, President Trump wrote on Truth Social, “A Federal Appeals Court has just ruled that the United States can use TARIFFS to protect itself against other countries. A great and important win for the U.S.”
The May 28th ruling against the President resulted from two separate lawsuits, one brought by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses which depend on foreign imports and the second from a coalition of 12 states including Arizona.
I'm leading a coalition of attorneys general in urging the Court to step in and block the President’s reckless and unlawful tariff scheme before it does even more damage.
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) May 13, 2025
Mayes claimed in a post to X that “The president does not have the authority to implement tariffs unilaterally.”
Big news! The US Court of International Trade just struck down Trump’s illegal tariff scheme as invalid under IEEPA. The president does not have the authority to implement tariffs unilaterally. Glad to have co-led this case with Oregon to protect Arizona families and small biz. pic.twitter.com/wkN9R0m87U
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) May 28, 2025
White House spokesman Kush Desai responded to the ruling saying, “The Trump administration is legally using the powers granted to the executive branch by the Constitution and Congress to address our country’s national emergencies of persistent goods trade deficits and drug trafficking. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ stay order is a welcome development, and we look forward to ultimately prevailing in court.”
At issue in the case are the discounted reciprocal tariffs that the Trump administration announced on April 2nd, which apply a 10% minimum tariff across the board, particularly in Europe, while applying more punitive tariffs, as high as 49%, in the case of Cambodia which charges the U.S. a 97% tariff or 34% initially for China, which at that point charged 67% on U.S. imports.
Through subsequent negotiations with China and a ratcheting upward of the tariffs, the U.S. duties on China stabilized at approximately 55% and will remain there under a new trade deal, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC.
Despite the legal imbroglio with leftist State AGs, President Trump announced Wednesday that China’s duties on U.S. goods will remain at 10%, where they paused in May when both sides agreed to a 90-day reprieve, and he provided a glimpse into the new agreement pending with Beijing.
In a post to Truth Social, Trump wrote, “OUR DEAL WITH CHINA IS DONE, SUBJECT TO FINAL APPROVAL WITH PRESIDENT XI AND ME. FULL MAGNETS, AND ANY NECESSARY RARE EARTHS, WILL BE SUPPLIED, UP FRONT, BY CHINA. LIKEWISE, WE WILL PROVIDE TO CHINA WHAT WAS AGREED TO, INCLUDING CHINESE STUDENTS USING OUR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOOD WITH ME!). WE ARE GETTING A TOTAL OF 55% TARIFFS, CHINA IS GETTING 10%. RELATIONSHIP IS EXCELLENT! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!”
“It’s an absolutely sh*t situation.” That is the assessment of Norway’s energy minister, Terje Aasland, about his country’s electricity costs rising to record levels due to its exports of power to the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark and other European countries.
It is an outcome that many warned the Norwegian government would come about as the decisions were made to build the interconnects to export power into the European Union and the UK. Those critics were of course ignored as those in charge of Norway’s fortunes at the time felt compelled to genuflect to the demands of the EU and other globalist organizations.
Norway derives the vast majority of its electricity from hydropower, which currently provides 90% of the country’s power generation. Most of the remainder comes from wind power, and the nation enjoys a large excess of generating capacity on most days. Thus, all other factors being equal, it made some financial sense to establish those interconnects to sell the surplus into other countries.
But it only made sense when those other countries were taking care to ensure the continuing health and adequacy of their own electric grids. That certainly has not been the case in either the UK or Germany, whose governments have in recent years chosen to discard a former wealth of reliable baseload capacity provided by coal and nuclear plants in favor of relying too heavily on intermittent, weather-dependent wind and solar.
Now, when the wind stops blowing and the sun isn’t shining, those customers of Norwegian power exports drain the host country’s surplus, causing the extremely high energy costs to flow back upstream, hitting Norwegians with abnormally high utility bills. It all came to a head this week when low wind speeds, combined with abnormally cold temperatures on the European mainland, caused power rates in Norway to spike to as high as €1.12 ($1.18) per kilowatt hour (kwh).
By comparison, the average electricity rate per kwh in New York is around 22 cents, while Texans typically pay around 15 cents per kwh. What that price spike meant for Norwegians on December 12 is that taking a 5-minute warm shower would have cost them $5. Doing the same in Texas would have cost around 16 cents.
Naturally, public outrage in Norway over these needlessly high electricity rates is now causing policymakers there to run for political cover. The Financial Times reports that both the ruling leftwing Labour Party and conservative Progress Party are now making plans to campaign next year on platforms to limit or end the export of electricity via these international interconnections.
That is a prospect that no doubt sparks fear in the hearts of the central planners in both Germany and the UK, where electricity imports from Norway play a central role in their own emissions reduction plans. Those plans involve the willful destruction of reliable baseload power stations and forcing power costs to dramatically increase, which in turn results in heavy industries like steelmaking and other manufacturing to leave the country. In that way, these governments are essentially exporting their emissions to China, whose own government is only too happy to serve as home to these heavy industries and power them with the hundreds of coal-fired power plants they build each year.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom and his fellow Democrats have pursued essentially the same strategies in California in this century, with predictable results: Californians pay among the highest power rates in the United States as their power grid has become overloaded with intermittent generation and increasingly reliant on imports from other states. Rather than exporting its emissions to China, California exports them to Nevada and Utah and other U.S. states.
The Biden administration has attempted to take the entire country down this same economically ruinous path for the past four years. Fortunately, voters awakened just in time this year to head off the most damaging impacts now being seen in Germany and the UK.
For Norway, is this an example of the law of unintended consequences setting in? Sure, to some extent. But it is also a clear example of entirely foreseeable consequences stemming from poor policymaking by multiple national governments flowing across borders. This “sh*t situation” was all avoidable, and frankly should have been.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
