Worry about declining birthrates while there is an oversupply of refugees around the world doesn't make sense.

With an oversupply of people around the world seeking better countries to live in, it doesn't make sense that folks are worried about declining birthrates. I tend to avoid thinking about racism as a motivation for people's thinking, but there is a logic to blaming this situation on racism and or nationalism. Folks prefer growth from their own kind, rather than from other populations.

Growth, itself, whether from immigration or local births, does create it's own problems such as shortage of housing, increased traffic and environmental limits.

Still, lack of population growth effects the economy. Less young workers paying into Social Security, for instance.

We need to figure out how to have a sustainable economy that doesn't require constant increase in consumption while at the same time we are facing a huge amount of people wishing to migrate to better lands. Our tendencies toward tribalism, racism and nationalism, versus seeing the world as a global village, stands in the way.

Environmentalists need to help us reduce demand for fossil fuels. Just restricting supply can raise fuel prices and just lead to right wing populism.

I've heard of supply side economics as well as demand side economics. I got to thinking, is there supply and demand side environmentalism? Yes. I looked up on Google.

I believe that the emphasis on supply side environmentalism has been a mistake, for the most part. That is trying to reduce climate change by restricting oil drilling, for instance, thus restricting supply. It leads to populist rebellion against higher fuel prices. Leads to the rise of politicians like Donald Trump.

Demand side environmentalism works better. That is figuring out how to reduce the need for fossil fuels in people's lives and in the economy. Things like public transit, for instance and encouraging use of rooftop solar energy. Heat pumps, electrification, lifestyles and cultures of less consumption and so forth are dealing with the demand side.

Taxes on supply, such as carbon taxes or Washington State's Cap and Trade rules are somewhat hybrid, supply and demand side restrictions. I tend to support these, but raising taxes and or restricting supply can run the risk of political pushback.

In our liberal state (Washington) our cap and trade law did survive a repeal attempt in 2024 in spite of people complaining about this state's higher gas prices than in other states.

I'm glad that law survived. Washington tends to be a more liberal state than most. Still, it seems like working on the demand side is a safer way to go. Restricting supply, while people are still dependent on a product, is politically dangerous.

The law of unintended consequences and populism.

Looks like the current regime of Trump, voted in by populist and tax cut sentiment, continues to benefit the wealthy. This Christmas shopping season is mostly fueled by the top; the K shaped economy. The wealthy and billionaires are the main beneficiaries of current policy. The stock market goes up as well. Most stock owned by the wealthy.

As the political pendulum swings, the Trump regime is loosing popularity. Popular opinion does tend to flounder back and forth, but it is changing again.