Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 7

In my latest reading of Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit, Al Gore says that environmental damage is actually costly to the economy, particularly in a long-term sense.  When forests are cut down, what is there left for the timber industry of the future?  When soil is overworked, it eventually loses its productivity.  Gore provides other examples, as well.

What I want to focus on in this post is something that Gore says on pages 193-194:

"Some companies are trying to guess whether the new public awareness of the environment is temporary or permanent.  Major paper mills, for example, facing a round of investment in new capacity, must decide whether the current interest in recycled paper is here to stay.  If so, then large investments in recycling plants will be profitable; if not, they may face serious risks in making such investments.  Such prophecies often tend to be self-fulfilling, of course.  But here is where the government can play an important role----and too often has failed to do so.  The Bush administration talks loudly about the tendency of a free marketplace to solve all problems.  But many of our markets are highly regulated, often in hidden ways.  In the case of the paper industry, for instance, taxpayers currently subsidize the manufacture of paper products made from virgin timber, both as the largest single purchaser and by further subsidizing the construction of logging roads into national forests.  In addition, the federal government pays the entire cost of managing the forest system, including many activities that exclusively benefit the timber industry.  All of these policies encourage further destruction of a critical natural resource."

I'm not entirely clear as to how Gore thinks that the government can help, in the area of recycled paper.  Does he think that the government should invest in recycled paper, if private industries do not do so because they do not find it to be profitable?  But Gore does point out that the government, in certain ways, is already on the side of the timber industry----as a consumer, as a subsidizer, and as a builder of infrastructure that encourages logging.  This reminds me of the libertarian argument that government is part of the problem because it is on the side of special interests, giving them an unfair advantage.  What Gore says also calls to my mind the argument by green conservatives and libertarians that, when land is not personally owned but is owned by the government, the government can easily encourage environmental devastation of that land, whereas private owners would take better care of it (see here).

I wonder, though: Is Gore against the timber industry, which provides a number of jobs?  Could there be a way to maintain the timber industry, while also preserving the trees that are so necessary for absorbing carbon, for giving us oxygen, and for serving as a resource for the timber industry?  Perhaps businesses could replant trees after cutting them down (though it may take a while for the trees to grow).

Newt on the Environment in Real Change

Today is Earth Day! Over the course of this month, I have been blogging through A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple. For today, I will blog about two chapters on the environment in Newt Gingrich's Real Change. They are Chapter Sixteen, "Green Conservatism Is the Real Answer to Environmental Challenges", and Chapter Seventeen, "Energy Strategies for National Security, the Environment, and the Economy".

Regarding Chapter Sixteen, there were some differences between that chapter and A Contract with the Earth. Not contradictions, but differences. Whereas A Contract with the Earth was for America weeding itself off of fossil fuel, Chapter Sixteen of Real Change included building more oil refineries under the rubric of Green Conservatism. Chapters Sixteen-Seventeen also promote nuclear power as a way to reduce carbon emissions, something that did not strike me as a prominent theme in A Contract with the Earth.

Chapter Sixteen of Real Change was also more partisan. It criticized the Superfund and an approach to the environment that emphasizes "lawsuits, paperwork, litigation, and bureaucracy" rather than encouraging the development of new technology that will help the environment (page 191). Chapter Sixteen also disapproves of Al Gore's contention that all humankind and posterity, not just individuals, have rights, for Newt interprets this as "some collectivist and non-democratic elite's interpretation of what is needed" (page 194). In A Contract with the Earth, by contrast, Newt is not partisan but focuses on the good that people are doing to help the environment.

I learned about the polar bear Knut in Chapter Sixteen of Real Change. See here for wikipedia's article. According to Newt, Knut's mother did not feed him, and so human caretakers at the zoo did so, and that outraged animal rights activist Frank Albrecht, who thought that the zoo should kill the bear because it would have died in its natural habitat. I found it sad that an animal rights activist would support killing an animal, for the idea behind animal rights should be the preservation of animal life. As I read some about Albrecht's position, however, I saw that he was concerned that keeping Knut alive would not be in Knut's interest, for Albrecht did not deem it appropriate for humans to feed Knut by hand, in light of animal protection laws, plus he thought that Knut was dying a slow death because he was separated from his mother. Albrecht probably saw killing Knut as a form of mercy-killing. When Knut demonstrated that he could live on his own, however, Albrecht reversed his position that the zoo should kill the bear.

A feature of Chapter Sixteen that I appreciated was Newt's discussion of how the Trust for Public Land will give Atlanta twenty-two miles of parks and trails. Newt did not mention how nature can spiritually edify us, but that's what I thought about when reading that passage: that walking on trails and observing nature will remind us of how small we are and allow us to see nature's beauty, things that Newt discusses in A Contract with the Earth.

Chapter Seventeen of Real Change surprised me because I was expecting a lot of "Drill, Baby, Drill", but that's not what I encountered. Rather, Newt focused on green technology and hydrogen. He even argued that nuclear power could support our conversion to hydrogen power, saying that "Nuclear power has an additional bonus in that nuclear power plants can produce hydrogen for a hydrogen-powered automobile system at night when the electricity grid does not need the power" (page 200-201).

My overall reaction to Newt's discussion on the environment is that green technology should be encouraged and promoted, by government and within the private sector. I would not, however, dispense with government regulations, for those keep businesses accountable. I'm for the regulations being sensible, however, and the focus should be on results: Are the air and water cleaner, and have CO2 emissions been reduced?

A Contract with the Earth 21

I finished A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple. What interested me in my latest reading was the biography of Newt at the end of the book. Among other things, it states the following:

"Since his days as a college professor in western Georgia, where, in the early 1970s, he was an environmental studies professor, he has been involved in a variety of environmental initiatives. He was the founding chair of the West Georgia College Chapter of the Georgia Conservancy. He has championed various environmental causes, including efforts to create the Chattahoochee River Greenway, protect the wild tigers of Asia, and establish the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Marine Sanctuary."

This tells me that Newt has long been concerned about environmental issues, meaning that he wasn't just writing a book about the environment for the sake of writing a book about the environment. He has a record of concern on this issue. On some level, I already knew that, for I remember hearing in 1994 the story of how Newt as a child got involved in the political process by lobbying for a zoo.

But is Newt's political and governmental record environmentally friendly? I'd say "yes" and "no". You can read here, here, and here to see what I mean.

So what are my impressions of A Contract with the Earth? I liked its optimism and its accounts of how people in the private sector are working to protect and improve the environment. Whether their efforts are enough, I'd probably say "no", since environmental problems still remain. But at least they're doing something.

I would have liked to have seen more of Newt's critique of current environmental policy. I wrote here a while back, in discussing an NPR story on Newt's Contract with the Earth:

"According to Gingrich, the environmental movement has turned many conservatives off from caring about the environment. He states that, starting in the 1980's, 'the leading environmental groups on the left — particularly the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters — began to equate the environment with litigation, regulation, taxation, [and] bureaucracy[,] and you were either for their solution or you were against the environment.' For Gingrich, the result of liberal 'solutions' was harm to the economy. As an alternative, Gingrich proposes (in NPR's words) a 'science-and-technology-based, entrepreneurial, free-market approach that incentivizes the development of new systems and new technologies that can lead you to a better environment.'"

I wish that I saw more of a discussion of these issues in Newt's book: the history of environmentalism, and how left-wing environmental policies have failed. I did learn some about the history of environmentalism in the book, for Newt and Maple talked a little about the Muir-Pinchot debate. I just wish I saw more about the history of environmentalism.

A Contract with the Earth 20

In my latest reading of A Contract with the Earth, Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple appear to disapprove of hysterical scenarios about potential environmental and other catastrophes, for they believe that cooler heads can develop technology that will save the day. For example, Y2K was averted through technology, and some of the technology installed to prevent Y2K allowed some potential 9/11 problems to be circumvented years later. And, although Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich in 1968 predicted that there would be a world famine between 1970 and 1985 due to overpopulation, what happened was quite different, according to Newt and Maple: "Instead, the world experienced a precipitous drop in fertility and food was exported by the United States at record levels because of the effects of the so-called green revolution in agriculture" (page 186).

As I have read A Contract with the Earth, I have wondered about the stance on climate change that is held by Newt and Maple. On the one hand, they don't care for apocalyptic scenarios, and they appear to express some doubt as to the extent to which human beings are causing climate change. On the other hand, they advocate the reduction of CO2 emissions, which implies that they believe that humans are contributing to climate change, on some level. In my latest reading, they say that we should seek to reduce CO2 emissions (through public and private encouragement of new technologies) in order to mitigate climate change, and, if that doesn't work, then we'll have to find a way to adapt. Newt and Maple affirm on page 193 that "We cannot afford to be wrong about global climate change", but they do not think that doomsday scenarios and paranoia really help the situation.

A Contract with the Earth 19

In my last reading of A Contract with the Earth, Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple quote a statement by Richard Louv in Last Child in the Woods:

"Nature----the sublime, the harsh, and the beautiful----offers something that the street or gated community or computer game cannot. Nature presents the young with something so much greater than they are; it offers an environment where they can easily contemplate infinity and eternity."

Louv's point (in the words of Newt and Maple) is that "children need exposure to nature for the healthy development of their senses, to learn and to create" (page 181). Louv believes that their lack of exposure to nature has contributed to ADHD. Earlier in the book, on page 176, Newt and Maple refer to the example of Charles Darwin, who was enchanted with nature from an early age and whose "youthful enthusiasm for nature lasted a lifetime" (page 176). (Is Newt a Republican who believes in evolution?)

I believe that nature is valuable apart from whether or not it benefits human beings, but I do agree with Newt and Maple that people lose out when they are not exposed to nature. Nature makes us feel small when we look at its greatness and beauty. It inspires us and makes us think about "infinity and eternity".

A Contract with the Earth 18

For my write-up today of A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple, I'll highlight a passage from page 167:

"Sustained environmental protection and new, safe, and clean environmental technologies will require commitments that cross hardened political boundaries. We face funding shortfalls in energy research, which has plunged to nearly half the levels established a decade earlier. Because venture capitalists tend to fund ideas that are nearly ready for the marketplace, the type of arduous research that produces real breakthroughs can only be funded by astute governments. America used to be that kind of government, but our commitments have wavered in recent years so government incentives for energy research will be issues in future political campaigns."

The impression that I've gotten from much of the book is that the private sector is eager to do the pro-environment thing because it is right and also profitable. Newt and Maple appear to prefer letting the private sector do its magic rather than relying on top down, one-size-fits-all government regulations. In the above passage, however, they acknowledge that doing the right thing is not necessarily profitable in an immediate sense, and so the government should play a key role in getting energy research off the ground.

Newt and Maple argue for strong leadership. Could Newt be that strong leader, though? I respect that he has thought a lot about environmental issues, for he has been an environmental studies professor. At the same time, his support for "drill, baby, drill" and his attacks on his opponents during his Presidential candidacy make me wonder if he can be a unifying leader on the issue of the environment. Moreover, it has been argued that Newt is good at coming up with ideas, but not so much at seeing those ideas through. Granted, Newt got the Contract with America on the table when he was Speaker, but my hunch is that he's come up with far more ideas than he's made into policy.

A Contract with the Earth 17: More on the Muir-Pinchot Debate

In my latest reading of A Contract with the Earth, Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple talk more about the Muir-Pinchot debate, which I discussed in my post, "A Contract with the Earth 14: The Muir-Pinchot Debate".

Gifford Pinchot was President Theodore Roosevelt's head of the U.S. Forest Service, and he believed in conservation but also using the forests to benefit the economy. Newt and Maple state on page 161 that Pinchot "believed that forestry managed wisely should yield economic benefits, whereas romantic preaching was doomed to failure." That "romantic preaching" was done by John Muir, who was more of a preservationist because he thought that nature had spiritual value for people.

Newt and Maple quote Georgia Tech professor Bryan Norton, who offered definitions of conservation and preservation. Norton says the following:

"To conserve a resource or the productive potential of a source-generating system is to use it wisely, with the goal of maintaining its future availability or productivity...To preserve it...is to protect an ecosystem or a species, to the extent possible, from the disruptions attendant upon it from human use."

Newt and Maple then say that "Intense conflict has been generated from these distinctions as they are practiced today, but there is plenty of opportunity to find common ground." And Newt and Maple appear to see value in both points of view. On the one hand, like Pinchot, they talk about how devastating the environment has a deleterious economic impact on human beings, for resources are plundered and the sea-food business suffers when certain sea-creatures vanish. On the other hand, Newt and Maple resemble Muir in that they point out how nature inspires us as well as advocate the preservation of biodiversity.

A Contract with the Earth 16: Caps

On page 148 of A Contract with the Earth, Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple say the following:

"...in a command and control environment with mandated caps on carbon dioxide emissions, Europe lags behind the free-market American achievements, with Europe emitting carbon dioxide at a growth rate three times that of the United States, according to data gathered from 2000 to 2004."

This didn't sit right with me, for a variety of reasons. First of all, how can Europe have a high growth rate of carbon emissions, when it sets caps on them? Are the caps too high? Are people choosing not to follow the caps set by law? Second, I thought that Europe had lower CO2 emissions than the United States. In part, I assumed this because of what Arnold Vinick said on The West Wing: "You want to know why Europe's CO2 emissions are so much lower than ours? Nuclear power!" But there are also statistics that show that Europe has lower CO2 emissions than the U.S., which is number 2, after China (see here). Of course, Newt and Maple mention the "growth rate", which is probably different from how much CO2 is actually emitted. But the latter is relevant, in my opinion.

I still agree with a lot of what Newt and Maple argue, notwithstanding my reservations on this point. I agree that command economies are not necessarily cleaner than free-market economies, and I also believe in encouraging green technology. I still think that caps are necessary, however.

A Contract with the Earth 15

In my latest reading of A Contract with the Earth, Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple talk about such issues as people who have planted trees that have removed air pollution, the role of cleaner cars in reducing pollution, Shell Oil's acknowledgement of human-made global warming and support for alternative energy, and George W. Bush's support as Governor of Texas for renewable energy. This is a very optimistic book, which is why I enjoy reading it. I'd like to think that there are a lot of people out there who want to do the right thing. But there is an opposite tendency in human nature, as well.

A Contract with the Earth 14: The Muir-Pinchot Debate

On page 130 of A Contract with the Earth, Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple say the following:

"The current debate about park management mirrors the Muir-Pinchot debate that arose during Teddy Roosevelt's presidency and continued for many years while Gifford Pinchot headed the National Park Service. The ultimate utilitarian, Pinchot believed that parks and reserves had to be managed. In fact, any park that experiences heavy human visitation will not be successful unless it is managed and managed well."

This passage stumped me somewhat. I was expecting for Newt and Maple to explain what the Muir-Pinchot debate was----as in where exactly John Muir and Gifford Pinchot differed. I can tell that Newt and Maple respect both men. Newt and Maple agree with Pinchot that parks and reserves should be managed well. And the chapter opens with a quotation of John Muir, who said:

"Few are altogether deaf to the preaching of pine trees. Their sermons on the mountains go to our hearts; and if people in general could be got into the woods, even for once, to hear the trees speak for themselves, all difficulties in the way of forest preservation would vanish."

So where did Gifford and Muir disagree? Although Newt and Maple do not say "Muir believed this, whereas Pinchot believed that", what they do share about these men exemplifies their positions, although I wish that Newt and Maple went into more detail.

The wikipedia article here explains where the difference was, as does this article on the Vermont Public Radio site. The wikipedia article states the following:

"In July 1896, Muir became associated with Gifford Pinchot, a national leader in the conservation movement. Pinchot was the first head of the United States Forest Service and a leading spokesman for the sustainable use of natural resources for the benefit of the people. His views eventually clashed with Muir and highlighted two diverging views of the use of the country's natural resources. Pinchot saw conservation as a means of managing the nation's natural resources for long-term sustainable commercial use. As a professional forester, his view was that "forestry is tree farming," without destroying the long-term viability of the forests. Muir valued nature for its spiritual and transcendental qualities. In one essay about the National Parks, he referred to them as "places for rest, inspiration, and prayers." He often encouraged city dwellers to experience nature for its spiritual nourishment. Both men opposed reckless exploitation of natural resources, including clear-cutting of forests. Even Muir acknowledged the need for timber and the forests to provide it, but Pinchot's view of wilderness management was far more utilitarian."

On the surface, the difference between the two-men sounds rather hair-splitting. Both were against ransacking the forests. Both acknowledged that the forests could be used for human commercial and utilitarian purposes, such as timber. But Muir believed that the forests had spiritual value and thus he leaned more towards preservation than Pinchot, who did not share Muir's spiritual outlook and was more open to using the forests for human commercial and utilitarian purposes. According to the wikipedia article, in terms of concrete issues, this meant that Pinchot supported the grazing of sheep in forest reserves, whereas Muir was against that, and Pinchot supported a dam that Muir opposed.

 (UPDATE: Newt and Maple go into more detail on the Muir-Pinchot debate later in the book.)

A Contract with the Earth 13

For my write-up today on A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple, I'll highlight a couple of points from pages 121-122.

1. On page 121, Newt and Maple refer to a TV ad from the Chesapeake Bay Program, which is "a subsidiary of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency". The TV ad was talking about the disappearance of water into a storm drain and the threat that land fertilizer during the spring could end up in the Bay. The announcer says "No crab should die like this", right before he says that "they should perish in some hot, tasty melted butter!" The ad was promoting seafood as a reason to preserve the bay. By preserving the environment, we are preserving things that we love.

But what if our desires come into conflict? We want oil to power our cars, but an oil-spill can ruin the seafood business.

2. Should we preserve the environment only out of our self-interest? On page 122, Newt and Maple say that conservation efforts will be expensive and yet profitable. But they affirm that such efforts should not be motivated by profit alone, for "We will endeavor to cleanse the earth because it is the right thing to do."

A Contract with the Earth 12: Charity

For my write-up today on A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple, I'll highlight a passage from pages 112-113:

"In 2005, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation paid out more than $1.4 billion to worthy recipients, mostly human health-related charities. Warren Buffett added $31 billion to the Gates Foundation to ensure that his money would be used effectively in an effort to enhance the world we live in. As he sat alongside Buffett, Bill Gates proclaimed 'there is no reason that we shouldn't be able to cure every one of those top twenty diseases.' Some of this new money may be allocated to support health-related environmental problem solving, as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has made grants in 2006 and 2007 to support the Trust for Public Land, the United Nations Environmental Programme, and entrepreneurs developing innovative water technologies in countries such as Ethiopia, Myanmar, Nepal, and Zambia."

As I read this passage, I thought about the parable in Luke 12 about the rich man who had a good crop one year and decided to store his crops and take it easy for many years to come. But, because he was not rich towards God, God took his life that very night.

I don't think it's wrong to desire financial security or to want to arrive at a state where one can take things easy. But, in my opinion, it's a waste to have a lot of money, and not to use at least some of that money to make the world a better place: to help find cures for diseases, to bring clean water to Third World areas, etc.

A Contract with the Earth 11: Portland

For my write-up today on A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple, I will highlight a passage that's on pages 94-95:

"Municipalities throughout the nation continue to take small but important steps. No city has been more active than Portland, Oregon, which coalesced around green action decades ago. Portland's greenhouse gas emissions have receded to 1990 levels compared with a national increase of some 16 percent. By all accounts, the measures taken by local industry and government have actually improved the economy. City fathers advocated conversion from diesel to biodiesel, and they have legislated a 10 percent ethanol requirement for other vehicles. The city will also implement wind and solar for government vehicles by 2010, and they have altered streetlamps to use low-power bulbs. For years, Portland citizens have used bicycle trails and an expanded mass transit system to discourage the use of automobiles. This municipal model demonstrates that innovation doesn't have to be costly or complicated. Moreover, Portland's green initiatives illustrate that American cities can start small to improve the environment in their communities. In an interesting footnote, Portland citizens have expressed considerable pride at their growing reputation as America's greener cities."

In Portland, the government does appear to play a significant role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions: it has an ethanol requirement for certain vehicles, government vehicles use solar and wind power, there is mass transit, etc. But, according to Newt and Maple, this is done in a manner that improves the economy and avoids costliness. Governments can have a role in helping the environment, but some ways of going about that are better than others.

A Contract with the Earth 10: Trash and Manure as Fuel

In my last reading of A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple, I read that trash and manure can be used as a power source and are being used as such in some areas (or at least there were plans for that to happen when this book was written in 2007). I think that's cool. I remember the closing scene of Back to the Future, when Doc Brown threw trash into his fuel-tank to refuel the Delorian.

A Contract with the Earth 9

For my write-up today on A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple, I'll highlight something from page 74:

"[Thomas] Eisner [of Cornell University] rightly considered the natural world a vast chemical treasury, but a source of wealth that is diminished by losses in biodiversity occurring throughout the world at a disturbing pace."

Throughout this book, Newt and Maple promote preserving the environment because doing so helps human beings: Nature inspires us, entertains us, and helps us. I think that these points are important, but, so far in my reading of this book, I have not seen this anthropocentrism balanced with other considerations, such as nature's value for its own sake, apart from whether or not it helps human beings. I suppose that, under Christianity, one can argue that such anthropocentrism is warranted, since God in Genesis 1 gives human beings dominion over the earth. At the same time, if I'm not mistaken, God in his speeches to Job highlights aspects of nature that appear to be independent of humanity.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a total preservationist. I think it's acceptable for human beings to kill animals for food. I just believe that, somewhere in our environmentalism, we should have a notion that the non-human elements of nature should be preserved for their own sake, apart from the question of whether or not they help human beings. After all, the world is much bigger than us!

Still, it is cool that there are a lot of chemicals out there that can help us (i.e., cure diseases, etc.).

A Contract with the Earth 8

I have two items for my write-up today on A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple:

1. I've written more than one post in which I've tried to understand and define Newt Gingrich's stance on global warming. On the one hand, he supports reducing CO2 emissions from automobiles. In my latest reading of this book, as a matter of fact, he says that we must "Lead the effort to reduce or eliminate greenhouse gases and airborne contaminants" (page 64). On the other hand, he says on page 55 that "It isn't necessary to link the receding ice to human activity to conclude that polar bears are in trouble if the ice disappears." Does that mean he questions the proposition that receding ice is due to something that we're doing that increases temperatures?

In my latest reading, Newt and Maple talk about efforts within the private sector to counter deforestation. This is good, they say, because more trees can absorb carbon dioxide. Are Newt and Maple implying that carbon dioxide is bad because it traps heat in our atmosphere?

2. On pages 70-71, Newt and Maple quote a speech by Lynn Scarlett, the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget during George W. Bush's Administration:

"The old environmentalism set prescriptive rules, requiring, for example, that ranchers conform to a four-inch stubble rule in which grass may not be grazed to shorter than four inches. Such rules impose one-size-fits-all requirements that may have little relationship to ensuring healthy foliage and ecosystems...it led with the 'stick,' assuming that human motivation to excellence is best achieved through threat of punishment rather than through incentives, example, and inspiration."

I think this is a valuable point. For one, there are a lot of regulations that people tell me about that strike me as pointless. Will the world seriously come to an end if words on a sign are smaller than the designated size, or if grass is shorter than four inches? I'm not saying that a "stick" is not necessary, or that we should simply trust "carrots" to work their magic (as if the incentives thus far have resulted in a proliferation of green technology). What I am saying is that there is a place for thinking outside of the box: for sifting between the regulations that are necessary and the ones that are unnecessary, as well as for seeking other ways to help the environment that go beyond "one-size-fits-all requirements".

Second, I think back to an interaction I watched on C-Span between Diane Feinstein and a controversial Bush II appointee. Feinstein was questioning this guy's environmental credentials, and this guy was responding that what he did actually helped the environment. Maybe he was spinning, I don't know. But he came across to me as reasonable and nuanced in his presentation. Overall, I appreciate that George W. Bush's Administration was open to innovative ways to help the environment. I do think, however, that it should have been more concerned about global warming than it was. I believe that the increase in tornadoes and hurricanes is due, at least in part, to the rise of temperatures due to increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Contract with the Earth 7

I have two items for my write-up today on A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple.

1. On pages 54-55, Newt and Maple talk about the decline in the polar bear population. In the process, they dispute what they consider to be alarmism about global warming. Here are some lines:

"A 21 percent drop in the polar bear population was recorded in Canada from 1997 to 2004 in part due to weight loss in females and concomitant changes in reproductive rates and cub mortality."

"Many environmental groups that have pushed for an endangered species listing promote doomsday scenarios, when, in fact, no one can accurately predict the fate of polar bears----or any other species."

"It isn't necessary to link the receding ice to human activity to conclude that polar bears are in trouble if the ice disappears. We know that, in some locations, ice is receding; the facts are in, and no one disputes the phenomenon. However, whether this trend is precipitous or gradual, the time remaining to correct the problem is surely debatable."

I'm not sure what the point is, here. As we saw yesterday, Newt and Maple tout a certain form of ethanol because it can reduce CO2 emissions. Why do that, if humans do not cause at least part of the global warming, which is melting the ice on which polar bears depend?

2. Something that I appreciated about my latest reading of this book is that Newt and Maple talk about the advancements that have been made in terms of the environment. More people are recycling. Fishing is increasingly being done in a manner that does not threaten the survival of whales. I think it's important to highlight that not everything about the environment is about doom-and-gloom, as much as doomsday scenarios may have to contribute to the debate.

A Contract with the Earth 6: Alternative Fuels

On pages 48-49 of A Contract with the Earth, Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple sound a lot like Barack Obama. Like Obama, they want to wean "industrial societies from their dependence on fossil fuels". They lament that "Although the United States makes up only 5 percent of the world's population, we consume 28 percent of the world's energy." They note that petroleum is a "limited resource" and that foreign oil often puts us at the mercy of anti-democratic regimes. They see promise in algae-based compounds, crop waste, and soy diesel. And they compare the government taking the initiative to promote alternative energy with sending astronauts to the moon.

I have heard Barack Obama say these sorts of things, and I have also heard right-wingers (such as Rush Limbaugh) mock Obama for that. Even Newt Gingrich has criticized Obama for not supporting drilling, enough. Would Newt consider that to be inconsistent with what he says in A Contract with the Earth? Probably not, for Newt has said that he supports an "all of the above" approach to energy independence, which encompasses drilling and also alternative energy.

Newt and Maple tout ethanol as something that can provide "economic opportunity for corn producers". I do not like ethanol for a variety of reason. For one, mixing ethanol into our gasoline increases the price of both gas and also food (see here for my explanation of that). Second, ethanol subsidies primarily benefit big agri-business rather than smaller farmers. Consequently, I like what Newt and Maple say on page 49, when they talk about the benefits of cellulosic ethanol:

"Unlike corn-based ethanol, planting, irrigation, fertilizers, or pesticides are not necessary to convert this raw material for fuel, although the grain crop may require such preparations. Moreover, no farmland is taken out of production because cellulosic ethanol can be made from waste discarded during the retrieval of grains. Wheat straw converted into biofuel reduces vehicle carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent. There is good reason to advance these products so consumers can exercise their preferences in the marketplace."

As you can see, Newt and Maple believe that cellulosic ethanol does not have the same problems as corn-based ethanol. But I'd like to highlight two other points. First, Newt and Maple say that wheat straw can dramatically reduce carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Does this imply that they believe global warming is human-made, on some level? Why else would we want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles? And, if Newt does believe that global warming is partly caused by humans, how does that square with his support for more drilling? Second, Newt and Maple say that products should be advanced so that "consumers can exercise their preferences in the marketplace." In my opinion, this differs somewhat from what Rush Limbaugh says: that the predominance of oil in the marketplace is due to our demand. That may be partially true, but how can we choose an alternative when it isn't even offered to us?

A Contract with the Earth 5: Climate Change

On pages 39-40 of A Contract with the Earth, Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple refer to the problems posed by climate change:

"Incredibly, as water temperatures have risen over the years, the biological foundation of the Pacific food chain has crashed. Like technology, ecosystems are linked, and the creatures along the food chain are also experiencing a sudden and dramatic decline. In the prestigious journal Science, Scripps oceanographer John McGowan reported a drop in zooplankton in the California current of 70 percent, the largest change ever measured in plankton populations. In the thirty-two years since a 1967 aerial survey of kelp forests, the California coastline had experienced a 75 percent decline. The animals that depend on a healthy food chain suffer accordingly; the sooty shearwater, a once common predatory seabird, has declined by 90 percent, just one of many bird species in trouble...Although no one knows the full implications of these alarmist findings, it is clearly a time to rally, not rant."

Newt and Maple focus here on how the increase in water temperatures negatively impacts plants, animals, and coastlines. This coincides with their belief in the preservation of species and their habitats. A number of conservatives would ask "Who cares?" Pat Buchanan said in his 1992 Republican National Convention speech, "And from the...ancient forests of Oregon and Washington, to the Inland Empire of California, America's great middle class has got to start standing up to these environmental extremists who put birds and rats and insects instead of families, workers, and jobs." George Will questioned whether we should even presume that our current environment is something to preserve, for the earth has undergone numerous changes over the years. But, in this book, Newt and Terry maintain that current species and their habitats are worth preserving, for they inspire human beings.

What is lacking, and Newt and Terry may compensate for this later in their book, is a discussion of how global warming disrupts the balance of nature that benefits human beings and ends up harming them. It has been argued that global warming has something to do with the increase in tornadoes and hurricanes. Do Newt and Terry agree with this?

Newt and Terry criticize using science for political purposes, on both the liberal and also the conservative sides. They are against alarmism. And, on pages 43-44, Newt and Terry refer to a 1999 study by Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman saying that the media often treat the views of environmental activists as if they represented the conclusions of scientists, which is not necessarily the case.

But, in places of this book, Newt and Terry maintain that pollution can negatively affect the lives and health of human beings. Do they take the same stance regarding climate change? And do they believe that humans cause at least some of the global warming?

Contract with the Earth 4: Privatization

For my write-up today on A Contract with the Earth, by Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple, I'll highlight something on page 24. Newt and Maple are discussing an essay by ecologist Garrett Hardin, entitled "The Tragedy of the Commons":

"In some settings, privatization, an alternative to the concept of 'commons,' might lead to more accountability by the owner of a limited resource...In Hardin's original essay, the oceans form a 'commons'----a place open to use by all. The ocean, unlike land, is not a place where a family or a company has a vested interest in future productivity. Hardin suggested (and has yet to be proven wrong on this particular point) that the advantages to the individual of overexploiting a commons are much less than the disadvantages to the individual. Yet, the disadvantages to society (eventual loss or diminution of the resource) are much greater than the advantages (a greater supply for a brief period)."

Conservatives and libertarians have often made this sort of argument: that privatization can actually help the environment because the status quo----in which a lot of land and water are commonly held----leads to pollution and the over-exploitation of resources. If these things were owned by private interests, the theory runs, then the owners would treat them better. After all, why would they want to ruin the land and water and thereby cut off their source for future profits? Later in the book, Newt and Maple refer to Ted Turner, who owns land where he raises bison, which he sells so that restaurants can make bison burgers. Ted Turner is responsible in his treatment of the land and the bison on it.

There may be something to this argument. I still have questions, though. First of all, if private interests owned, say, the seas, couldn't that result in higher prices? When the seas are commonly held, a bunch of people can draw from its resources, and the price is lower because there is competition among different companies. But suppose a monopoly or oligopoly was given control of the seas? Would it jack up the price? Second, if (under the status quo) companies think primarily about the present when they ransack the sea's resources, even though in doing so they are acting against their own self-interest by cutting off a source of profits for the future, why should we assume that they'd act according to their future self-interest if they themselves owned the seas?