California Adopts Stringent Landfill Methane Rule: Updated to Require Faster Leak Response Times, More Monitoring of All Sites, and Third-Party Technology Verification

    

     The State of California recently completed a three-year evaluation process culminating in a final landfill gas emissions regulation that is considered to be the most stringent in the U.S. The Landfill Methane Rule was first adopted in 2010. The new provisions are an upgrade to that rule. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency in charge of the rule, noted that the changes are in line with state targets intended to lower methane emissions 40% below 2013 levels by 2030.

     Jacob Wallace of Waste Dive points out that California was the first state to specify methane emissions from landfills rather than all air emissions, as other states have done. Landfills emit CO2, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and other air pollutants. Methane, however, is the major component of landfill gas, followed closely by CO2. Requirements for the installation of gas collection and control systems earlier in a landfill’s life and new trends such as the use of drones to monitor gas leaks are becoming increasingly common. The California rule covers 188 landfills and requires 153 of them to install gas collection and control systems. CARB estimates that local governments will see compliance costs of about $6.1 million annually, which can be recovered by raising fees.

     The new rule requires landfill operators to fix leaks faster when third-party monitoring detects them. The state was the first to use drones and satellites to monitor landfill emissions. Wallace notes:

“Reacting to new technology in the market, the rule would also require using “handheld or drone-mounted laser scanners to identify leaks in inaccessible areas that are currently excluded from monitoring.” The rule seeks to encourage the use of continuous wellhead monitoring technologies by reducing regulatory barriers and clarifying certain language as well.”

     The rule updates are expected to go into effect in 2027. The chair of CARB, Lauren Sanchez, attended the COP30 meeting in Brazil with Governor Newsom and noted that methane emissions continue to be a major topic.

“This is an especially exciting moment to take action on this area of work, because we have technologies to now help us detect, measure and address methane emissions,” Sanchez said in her opening statement. “When combined with strong regulations, these technologies can help us make real progress on cutting pollution here and now.”

     The upgraded rule includes new monitoring requirements for landfills with and without gas collection and control systems. Landfill operators will also be required to respond to detected leaks via third-party technology verified by CARB — including the agency’s own California Satellite Methane Project.

     A summary of the rule's changes is given below:

References

 

California adopts most stringent landfill gas rules in the country: The three-year process culminated in a final regulation that sets some of the most stringent rules in the country for landfill gas control systems. Jacob Wallace. Waste Dive. November 21, 2025.  California adopts most stringent landfill gas rules in the country | Waste Dive

California’s landfill methane rule proposal tightens gas rules: The proposed rule would tighten restrictions for landfill gas collection and control systems and expand the role of remote monitoring programs. Jacob Wallace. Waste Dive. September 25, 2025. California’s landfill methane rule proposal tightens gas rules | Waste Dive

Public Hearing to Consider the Proposed Amendments to the Regulation on Methane Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste Landfills. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons. Date of Release: September 23, 2025. Scheduled for Consideration: November 20, 2025. California Air Resources Board. Landfill Methane Regulation 2025 ISOR

U.S. DOE: Resource Adequacy Report: Evaluating the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid. July 2025: Summary, Review, and Commentary

      In July 2025, the U.S Department of Energy released its ‘Resource Adequacy Report: Evaluating the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid.’ In the executive summary, it is noted that firm, dispatchable generation was not being added fast enough to replace retiring coal plants and older natural gas units. They state that an intervention is necessary to meet growing demand from AI data centers, manufacturing, and re-industrialization. The latter two have yet to manifest. The DOE’s report relies heavily on the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Interregional Transfer Capability Study (ITCS). The focus of the methodology of the report is on power demand, assumed load growth, assumed supply in light of retirements, magnitude of outages, and duration of outages. 

     Outage magnitudes utilize a metric known as Normalized Unserved Energy (NUSE), which is not standard in the U.S. but is being used more and more as an indicator. The duration of outages is measured in Loss of Load Hours (LOLH).

     The DOE has focused on an upgraded reliability standard, as described below:

“DOE’s methodology recognizes that the traditional 1-in-10 loss of load expectation (LOLE) criterion is insufficient for a complete assessment of resource adequacy and risk profile. This antiquated criterion is not calculated uniformly and fails to adequately account for crucial factors such as the duration and magnitude of potential outages. To provide a comprehensive understanding of system reliability and, specifically, to complement current resource adequacy standards while informing the creation of new criteria, the methodology uses the following reliability standard:

• Duration of Outages: No more than 2.4 hours of lost load in an individual year. This translates into one day of lost load in ten years to meet the 1-in-10 criteria.

• Magnitude of Outages: No more than an NUSE of 0.002%. This means that the total amount of energy that cannot be supplied to customers is 0.002% of the total energy demanded in a given year.”

     DOE ran reliability simulations based on these metrics. Below are LOLH and NUSE maps and some key findings of the plant closures case vs. the no plant closures case.

     The report notes:

“By 2030, without considering any generation retirements, an additional 12.5 GW of generating capacity is needed across PJM, SPP, and SERC to reduce shortfalls.”

     DOE’s methodology considered the availability of each generation source, outages, derates, load growth, AI growth, import/export capability, storage, demand response, retirements, additions, and idealized, or perfect capacity required.

     The report goes on to assess concerns in each region, comparing planned retirements vs. no retirements. The reality will likely be somewhere in between these scenarios. Data analysis for the PJM region is shown below.

     Below is a comparison of the existing generation stack with the different scenarios, including planned retirements and no retirements.  

     They do seem to make a good case that some plant retirements should and will be delayed, and these are mainly coal plants. I also know of an oil-burning plant in Baltimore whose retirement was delayed. I think a lot of the concern is with the availability of baseload or otherwise dispatchable power. Generally, each region has winter and summer reliability plans, resource adequacy protocols, and redundancies. However, as we found out during 2021’s Winter Storm Uri, sometimes the problem is too big for resource adequacy reserves to handle.  

     I also believe that amendments need to be made in cases where AI data center load growth is projected to be high enough to trigger power cost rises. In those cases, consumers should be protected from having to contribute to this growth, especially residential customers, but all consumers as well. The same could be said to be true for intermittent renewables integration. Those costs should be paid by developers and utilities, not other customers.

     There is certainly some concern about future resource adequacy, and there is also uncertainty about how much load growth AI data centers will ultimately need. There are, of course, other load growth drivers such as electrification and EVs, manufacturing and re-industrialization, and cryptocurrency mining.

     In August 2025, the DOE, citing persistent grid stress, extended three critical reliability orders, part of the emergency orders derived from Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act. These three extensions were issued for plants in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Puerto Rico. DOE also argued that closing these plants could raise power costs to customers served by those plants. Environmental groups and some public officials have opposed the retirement delays.

 

References:

 

Resource Adequacy Report: Evaluating the Reliability and Security of the United States Electric Grid. U.S. Dept. of Energy. July 2025. DOE Final EO Report (FINAL JULY 7).pdf

Federal Grid Interventions Enter a Second Phase as DOE Extends Emergency Orders. Sonal Patel. Power Magazine. August 28, 2025. Federal Grid Interventions Enter a Second Phase as DOE Extends Emergency Orders

US Plans to Use Emergency Powers to Stop More Coal Closures. Ari Natter. Bloomberg. September 24, 2025. US Plans to Use Emergency Powers to Stop More Coal Closures

Communities unite to oppose coal plant policy keeping expensive operations running: 'Unjust and unreasonable'. Tina Deines. The Cool Down. October 30, 2025. Communities unite to oppose coal plant policy keeping expensive operations running: 'Unjust and unreasonable'

 

Nigeria Needs Natural Gas: Renewables Are Fine Too but Homegrown Gas Will Solve More Problems Faster

     Africa's biggest oil producer, Nigeria, suffers from chronic problems of unreliable power. It also flares a lot of natural gas, which can and should be captured and used to feed power plants to provide electricity. This was noted many years ago, and I have been talking about it for nearly a decade. They also need investment in the expanded natural gas industry. While renewables can also be good for Nigeria, especially solar, since the country has good sun access, natural gas offers much more for much lower costs.

     Nigeria has recently updated its climate plan to nearly double its natural gas power capacity by 2035. It has long had problems in its Southern Niger Delta region, where oil and other fuels are often stolen, illegal refineries crop up, and accidental explosions have killed many people. The bulk of the natural gas infrastructure will likely be in the northern populated cities, away from the poverty, crime, militant, and terrorist-ridden areas. Climate activists are trashing the move to build more gas power plants, invoking ideas like stranded assets. However, expanding natural gas is by far the most pragmatic energy policy.  

     Nigeria's Sovereign Investment Authority has put aside $500 million to invest in renewables, mainly solar, for the 85 million people in the country who do not have access to electricity. These solar-based mini-grids are a great and necessary investment, but they won’t solve the bigger problems. They work great for providing rural access to power. This fund is known as the Distributed Renewable Energy (DRE) Nigeria Fund. Solar-powered irrigation may be very useful for the country’s farmers. 61% of Sub-Saharan Africa’s population of 1.8 billion is involved in agriculture, and 80% of those are smallholder farms. These farmers have limited access to basic mechanization, and drought is a common issue. Solar-powered irrigation could help improve yields and feed more people. One study noted that a $3 billion investment could yield $5 billion in benefits.

     H.E. Bola Ahmed Adekunle Tinubu, President of Nigeria, made the pragmatic statement that gas should be harnessed as carefully as possible:

“Nigeria will work harder and be productive with our own gas. It is an economic necessity that we should embrace.”

     Nigeria is estimated to have over 210 trillion cubic feet in gas reserves, the biggest in Africa. That is quite a lot of gas that can power the country and its industries, including transport. Gas processing plants owned by Seplat Energy expect to soon have a throughput of 1BCF per day. Pipelines and compressed natural gas stations (CNG) are being built. As of June 2025, there were 22 CNG stations, with 12 more under construction. The 614-kilometer Ajaokuta–Kaduna–Kano pipeline, designed to carry gas deep into northern Nigeria, is being built. The NLNG Train 7 project is expanding the country’s LNG capacity by 35% and setting the stage for growing LNG exports. The nearly 7000 km $25 billion Nigeria–Morocco Gas Pipeline is being built across 13 West African countries. It is among the longest offshore pipelines ever planned. Feasibility and engineering phases are completed, and a final investment decision is expected soon. The pipeline is expected to eventually bring more gas to Europe. Nigeria already exports 32% of its total gas exports to Europe and 50% to Asia.

     As shown below, Nigeria’s gas flaring rates have remained more or less steady over the past decade. The country and the multinationals working in the country should address this issue better, but it will take investment by both. The same could be said for the power transmission sector. The need for upgrades and maintenance will grow as the natural gas and power systems grow. Strategic investment decisions with government and industry collaboration will be needed.

     In addition, some important ancillary industries are popping up in the country to support its oil & gas industry as a whole. Forbes Africa reports:

“Bell Oil & Gas, a wholly Nigerian-owned firm, recently commissioned a facility to fabricate valves and oil country tubular goods, a first for the country. “We were the first and remain the only local company with a composite pipe fabrication facility in the country,” says CEO Dr Kayode Thomas. “Our plant is staffed entirely by Nigerians, a deliberate choice to show the world that Nigerians have the skill and capacity to lead in this industry.” Local content is on the rise, with major projects like the Dangote Refinery set to become the world’s largest single-train refinery capable of processing 650,000 barrels of crude oil per day.”

     Gas is already reducing energy costs, replacing more expensive and more polluting diesel, kerosene, and biomass, especially in rural areas, helping those areas to prosper.

“Nigeria is indeed redefining its future with the tools it has long possessed, moving from aspiration to execution. In the workshops of Lekki, the pipelines of Ogun, and the terminals along the delta, that promise is being forged into progress.”

     As can be seen in the graphs below from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Nigeria produces much more gas than it consumes, about 600-700 BCF annually. Unfortunately, 200-300 BCF per year of this gas is typically flared so that oil can be produced. Nigeria currently exports 32% of its total gas exports to Europe and 50% to Asia.

     The country is powered mainly by natural gas, with hydropower a distant second. Renewables like solar and wind produce a tiny amount. The country also exports electricity to neighboring countries. The power system in the country, however, has many challenges with big transmission and distribution losses, and blackouts are common. Many people utilize biomass and diesel generators for the necessary backup power.

     The Guidebook on Nigeria’s Energy Transition, published in May 2024, noted other energy transition funding availability. I found the three graphs below to be interesting regarding the economic, environmental, and social impacts of a fossil fuel phase-out compared with the same impacts of a renewables phase-in. In one sense, oil would be replaced by mining, since Africa hosts big reserves of energy transition minerals.   

    

 

References:

 

Officials spark backlash with controversial plan to boost energy supply: 'A risky strategy'. Joseph Clark. The Cool Down. November 2, 2025. Officials spark backlash with controversial plan to boost energy supply: 'A risky strategy'

Nigeria gives fossil gas a bigger role as “transition fuel” in climate plan. Vivian Chime. Climate Home News. September 25, 2025. Nigeria gives gas a bigger role as "transition fuel"

Guidebook on Nigeria’s Energy Transition. Tengi George-Ikoli and Nafi Chinery. February 2024. Guidebook on Nigeria Energy Transition.pdf

Government makes unprecedented $500 million move to jumpstart power supply: 'Game-changer'"We are creating a scalable model." Geri Mileva. The Cool Down. April 9, 2025. Government makes unprecedented $500 million move to jumpstart power supply: 'Game-changer'

Study reveals massive potential of solar-powered irrigation: 'Generating potential profits of over $5 billion per year'

"Furthermore, surplus electricity generated by these systems could serve other energy needs." Erin Feiger. The Cool Down. October 11, 2023. Study reveals massive potential of solar-powered irrigation: 'Generating potential profits of over $5 billion per year'

The Power Beneath Nigeria’s Energy Revival. Penresa. Forbes Africa. May 28, 2025. forbesafrica.com/africa-undiscovered/2025/05/28/the-power-beneath-nigerias-energy-revival

Country Analysis Brief: Nigeria. Last Updated: November 18, 2025. Energy Information Administration. Country Analysis Brief: Nigeria

 

State Capitalism: China’s Version, Norway’s Version, Trump’s New Version, the Differences Between State and Free-Market Capitalism, and the Differences Between Globalism and Globalization

     State capitalism refers to state ownership of companies and businesses. That distinguishes it from free market capitalism. It does not complement free market capitalism but rather distorts it. According to Wikipedia:

“State capitalism is an economic system in which the state undertakes business and commercial economic activity and where the means of production are nationalized as state-owned enterprises (including the processes of capital accumulation, centralized management and wage labor). The definition can also include the state dominance of corporatized government agencies (agencies organized using business-management practices) or of public companies (such as publicly listed corporations) in which the state has controlling shares.”

     In my 2017 review of Ian Bremmer’s 2010 book The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations? I wrote that state capitalism is:

“…capitalism assisted and otherwise propped up by states through nationalized industries, sovereign wealth funds, and other mechanisms. The strong influence of these state capitalisms on the global free market show that the concept of a global free market is illusory or at best only partial.”

     State capitalism is also often partial and might be better termed as state-enhanced or state-assisted capitalism. China offers a very good example where the state props up businesses, basically nationalizing them, subsidizing them, and keeping them immune from vulnerability to undesirable market forces.

  

Subsidization to Improve International Competitiveness as State Capitalism

     State subsidization of domestic industries is a very important means of state capitalism that gives domestic companies significant market advantages. If the subsidization is too high, it can trigger pushback from the market. It should be pointed out that subsidization of renewable energy and energy storage is not state capitalism in that its goal is not to support those industries so that they compete better against the industries of other nations, but that they compete better against other forms of energy generation. China is a country that subsidizes for state advantages rather than for energy source advantages. Thus, its subsidization is deemed state capitalism. For this reason, some pushbacks, perhaps in the form of tariffs, are warranted.

 

Protectionism: Tariffs and Value-Added Taxes as State Capitalism

     Tariffs, if they are more than reciprocal and too high, can be seen as a form of state capitalism in the form of protectionism. It is an instance of a state conferring advantage on its businesses and disadvantage on the businesses of others. However, the triggering of reciprocal tariffs immediately cancels those advantages, and domestic businesses can be disadvantaged as well as foreign industries. Thus, tariffs are often described as a lose-lose scenario, or as Paul Blart noted: “nobody wins with a headbutt.”  

     According to the Wall Street Journal, 71% of CEOs say tariffs are killing their businesses. They are also worried about the independence of the Federal Reserve.

 

Sovereign Wealth Funds and Public Investment as State Capitalism

     Of course, every country wants to secure advantages as it can, preferably within the limits of trade rules. Countries with excess cash from exports, often crude oil, develop sovereign wealth funds that are state investments in markets. These state-controlled funds “produce” profits. Thus, they can be seen as a state controlling the means of producing those profits, not technically socialism, but a form of state capitalism. Ian Bremmer notes in his book that the three main tools of state capitalism are national oil (and gas) companies (NOCs), other state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and sovereign wealth funds (SWFs). NOCs may be fully or partially owned by states. He also points out that state capitalism is not socialism, but a form of nationalism. Sovereign wealth funds are simply “state-managed pools of excess cash that can be invested strategically.” State capitalism distorts free markets. Bremmer notes that as of 2010, there were 50 SWFs, with half begun since 2000. Now, in 2025, even the U.S. has a small one started. Some are open and transparent, like Norway’s. Others, especially in authoritarian countries, are more secretive.

 

Norway’s Version

     Due to the great success of drilling for oil & gas in the North Sea, Norway was able to generate excess cash and start a sovereign wealth fund that has become quite large. It is essentially a “petro-state,” though not often acknowledged as one. The state oil & gas company, formerly Statoil, now Equinor, is, or was, 60% owned by the state. The country of modest population is well endowed with oil & gas and now with wealth. This wealth has allowed them to pursue decarbonization and expand social programs. It is a success story, but still one that depends on distorting free markets for state advantage.

 

China’s Version

     China manipulates markets, currency, and controls resources in order to gain leverage. It has long distorted markets to its advantage and will continue to do so. Some pushback is good.

     In China, Premier Wen Jiabao gave a statement in a 2008 CNN interview that Bremmer says amounts to a definition of Chinese state capitalism: “The complete formulation of our economic policy is to give full play to the basic role of market forces in allocating resources under the macroeconomic guidance and regulation of the government.” He also talked about giving full play in markets to both the ‘invisible hand’ and the ‘visible hand.’ The Chinese opening to capitalism began with Deng Xiaoping and Zhao Ziyang. The opening happened deliberately, gradually, and slowly. China picks its favorites and provides massive long-term subsidies for those favorites. That makes its system thoroughly a state capitalism.

 

Other State Capitalisms

     The Gulf States, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have large SWFs. They fluctuate between open markets and state control. State capitalism is complementary to authoritarianism simply because it increases state control. Thus, authoritarian countries often have some degree of state capitalism. Authoritarian states also often exhibit protectionism, censorship, and human rights abuses. Russia is a state capitalist, but in reality, it is a form of crony capitalism with rampant corruption, rampant propaganda, state control, and human rights issues = totalitarian.

 

Trump’s New Version

     Some recent moves by Trump have been called state capitalism. The massive tariffs in the early part of his tariff wars certainly fit the definition. Indeed, any tariffs beyond reciprocal ones meant to even the playing field, rather than give advantages, could be seen as state capitalist. The country taking a 10% stake in semiconductor companies is another example, although that is too small a percentage to argue that it is state control.

     Timothy Noah of The New Republic wrote that CEOs are not happy with Trump’s actions so far:

"They claim Trump’s “state-driven capitalism”—which I think is more accurately termed fascist corporatism—offends their sense of patriotism, what they really seem to resent is having routinely to pay Trump tribute, either by enriching him personally or by helping him try to plug the $3 trillion revenue hole he created with his idiot Big Beautiful Bill."

     In response to Trump’s forays into part ownership of companies such as Intel and Nvidia, CEO’s expressed dismay.

"The Trump administration’s drift toward a quasi-socialist statism, seizing ownership from private shareholders, dictating staffing, and selectively blocking moves into strategic markets based upon politics and kickbacks," they said.

     Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argues that our state control is devised to counter China’s

“When you are facing a nonmarket economy like China, then you have to exercise industrial policy,” said Bessent, who spoke at an “Invest in America” forum sponsored by CNBC.

     He also noted that the pharmaceutical, shipbuilding, semiconductors and steel industries are legitimate targets for government aid and protection. However, he previously denigrated Biden for basically the same behavior, describing:

“… {Biden’s} subsidies for domestic semiconductor production as “a horrible, horrible thing.” Bessent last year accused Biden of pursuing “the discredited economic philosophy of central planning” in a speech to the right-of-center Manhattan Institute.

     Bessent did caution that the small stakes in strategic companies were limited and mainly a response to China, and that we need to be careful not to overreach that reciprocity.  

     A Wall Street Journal article noted

“…that Trump is “imitating the Chinese Communist Party by extending political control ever deeper into the economy.” Economist Daniel J. Smith warns that this trajectory “risk[s] leading us down the road to serfdom that Friedrich Hayek warned against in 1944.”

     Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act is seen by some as a form of state capitalism, meant to prop up industries, although the goal of decarbonization and its benefits also fits in there as well. However, the level of interventionism has been upped considerably under Trump, who also has a penchant for pushing CEOs around as he sees fit, calling for their removals.

     An article by Michael Chapman for the libertarian Cato Institute sees the Trump trends as worrying. If the government can take stakes in chips, steel, critical minerals producers, and military technology, what is to stop it from expanding to other companies and industries? Expressing disapproval, he writes:

“Such policies represent a betrayal of America’s founding principles. The nation was built not on state control but on liberty, private property, and the right to pursue happiness without government coercion. If those ideals are abandoned, state capitalism will not make America great again—it will make it unrecognizable.”

     Bremmer noted in a recent video that he agrees with some of the reciprocal efforts to balance the playing field with market manipulators like China, but that some are overkill, such as using state capitalism to reshore U.S. manufacturing. He sees it as problematic that U.S. companies are lobbying the government for market advantages over other companies, which he refers to as oligarchy and kleptocracy. He notes that in capitalism, one is responsible for both profits and losses. Bremmer notes that state capitalism in the U.S. is not likely to endure and do well long-term. This is partially due to the ever-changing political climate, where leaders in the executive branch and Congress often change and bring about changes in policies. He also notes that much more of the benefits of state capitalism go to the wealthy. Paying for access is a problem in the U.S. and is getting worse, he says. He thinks the answer is more capitalism, not less, but it must be in a competitive environment where no one gets to capture the political process, and losses are seen as responsibilities. He says there has been a rise in far-right populism that is anti-capitalist and that there is also rising far-left anti-capitalism. I will say that I think far-left anti-capitalism has been around for a long time and is a defining feature of Progressivism.

 

Globalism vs. Globalization

     Bremmer also notes that when globalism is seen as the same as globalization, then the pitchforks come out. The website ChooseLoveNotFear gives definitions of globalization and globalism and distinguishes the two. First is globalization, which they define below.

“Globalization is a process that has evolved organically over time, primarily driven by technological advancements and improvements in transportation. These developments have facilitated increased interaction and integration among people and businesses worldwide.”

     The site describes globalism as an ideology, more specifically as a collectivist ideology:

“Globalism: A Collective Ideology”

“In contrast, globalism is an ideological movement that seeks to transcend national boundaries and promote a global governance model. This concept is often associated with collectivist policies and the influence of international organizations.”

     The site identifies important globalists as George Soros and the World Economic Forum’s Klaus Schwab, and especially his Great Reset idea, as basically a radical socialist movement seeking radical wealth redistribution.

“The debate between globalism and globalization continues to shape our world. While globalization emphasizes interconnectedness and economic growth within the framework of nation-states, globalism pushes for a centralized global governance model that often conflicts with national sovereignty. Understanding these distinctions is essential for navigating the complexities of modern geopolitics and economics.”

 

References:

 

Globalism vs. Globalization: Understanding the Differences. Choose Love Not Fear. 2024. globalism

State capitalism. Wikipedia. State capitalism - Wikipedia

The End of the Free Market: Who Wins the War Between States and Corporations?  Ian Bremmer. (Portfolio/Penguin 2010).

Argentina's Milei to partially privatize nuclear power plants operator. Eliana Raszewski. Reuters. September 16, 2025. Argentina's Milei to partially privatize nuclear power plants operator

'Shakedowns': Here's why CEOs are finally turning on Trump. Lesley Abravanel. Alternet. September 23, 2025. 'Shakedowns': Here's why CEOs are finally turning on Trump

Exclusive-Trump administration seeks equity stake in Lithium Americas amid loan talks. Ernest Scheyder and Jarrett Renshaw. Reuters. September 23, 2025. Exclusive-Trump administration seeks equity stake in Lithium Americas amid loan talks

Trump to expand government stake in strategic sectors to combat China. David J. Lynch. Washington Post. October 15, 2025. Trump to expand government stake in strategic sectors to combat China

Trilogy Metals shares surge as US acquires 10% stake. Reuters. October 7, 2025. Trilogy Metals shares surge as US acquires 10% stake | CNN Business

Trump’s “State Capitalism … a Hybrid Between Socialism and Capitalism” Won’t Make America Great Again. Michael Chapman. Cato Institute. August 28, 2025. Trump’s “State Capitalism … a Hybrid Between Socialism and Capitalism” Won't Make America Great Again | Cato at Liberty Blog

Is American capitalism still capitalism? | Ian Bremmer's Quick Take. YouTube. GZERO Media. August 2025. Bing Videos

 

 

 

Global and National Debt: Non-Adjusted and Adjusted Debt-to-GDP Ratios by Country

Global Public Debt

     Global public debt is estimated to have passed $100 trillion. Governments are borrowing despite high interest rates. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the global debt-to-GDP ratio is at 95.1% at the latest tabulation and is expected to pass 100% by 2030. There are different views and much debate on how much debt is sustainable.

 

National Debt

According to an article in Love Money:

  “…some economies are more than able to sustain a super-steep ratio that would lead others to collapse.

As for when a debt-to-GDP ratio starts to harm growth, there isn't a magic number beyond which “economies slow. That said, experts have cited figures between 40% and 100%, with the bar set lower for emerging economies.”

     Government debt-to-GDP ratios may be different than household debt-to-GDP ratios. Some countries are legally bound to keep debt-to-GDP ratios below certain thresholds. These vary. Corporate debt is another variable that should be taken into account.  

     Whether a high debt-to-GDP ratio is harmful or whether a low one is beneficial is dependent on several factors. One is the nature of a country’s investments. For example, if the debt is in foreign currency, it may be more susceptible to currency volatility and high inflation. The Love Money article by Daniel Coughlin looks at the nuances of the debt of several countries, showing the different aspects of each economy and how they are leveraged. The debt-to-GDP ratio alone is only one economic indicator among many.

“For developed countries, a debt-to-GDP ratio of 60% is the conventional benchmark for fiscal health. Like the 40% figure for emerging economies, this number has faced increased scrutiny in recent years. Within the European Union, however, 60% is the legally mandated limit – though many member states exceed it, with the bloc's average sitting at a hefty 83.6%. Like Sweden, the Netherlands remains comfortably below the 60% threshold.” ​    

     Argentine President Milei enacted libertarian reforms that lowered the ratio in Argentina to 73.1% from 155.4% in 2023. Milei recently agreed to a new $20 billion IMF bailout, which will increase that ratio significantly upward, at least for a while.

     In terms of magnitude, the U.S. is the undisputed king of debt at $36.2 trillion, which is more than double what runner-up China owes. Italy, Singapore, and Japan have among the highest ratios. Japan has the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world, yet it has good creditworthiness.

“Japan's debt is mostly held in yen, which is itself a leading reserve currency, and owned domestically. Interest rates are very low by global standards, making the liabilities manageable, plus the government has ample foreign reserves and assets.”

     Debt-to-GDP ratios by country determine that country’s relative level of debt vs. other countries. The graphs below are simple debt-to-GDP ratios.

     World Economics Research, out of London, makes some adjustments to that data based on what is known as Purchase Power Parity (PPP), with further adjustments for the estimated size of the informal economy and the non-updated GDP data, as better explained below.

“World Economics has upgraded each country's GDP presenting it in Purchasing Power Parity terms with added estimates for the size of the informal economy and adjustments for out-of-date GDP base year data. Using the World Economics GDP Database it is possible to see more realistic debt levels for each country.”

     Below is a simple histogram I made using the data above for the 30 countries with the highest adjusted debt-to-GDP ratios.

     I know that there are great advantages to having low debt, in my case, household debt. Due to having no mortgage, no car payment, no health insurance, and no homeowners' insurance, I can live cheaply. However, if I need a more reliable car, if my health deteriorates, or if something major breaks down, I may need to borrow again at some point. However, I hope not.  

 

 

References:

 

Debt to GDP Ratio by Country 2025. World Population Review. Debt to GDP Ratio by Country 2025

How deep in debt is America compared to other nations? Daniel Coughlin. Love Money. November 16 2025. How deep in debt is America compared to other nations?

Debt-to-GDP Ratio by Size. ESTIMATES FOR DEBT-TO-GDP IN PPP INT$ ADJUSTED for BASE YEAR AND INFORMAL ECONOMY. World Economics. Debt to GDP Ratio | 2025 | Economic Data | World Economics