Al Gore's Earth in the Balance 10: Rights

For my write-up today on Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit,  I'll talk about something that Gore says on pages 277-278.  Gore says that "The emphasis on the rights of the individual must be accompanied by a deeper understanding of the responsibilities to the community that every individual must accept if the community is to have an organizing principle at all."  Gore then says on page 278 that the West has prioritized the rights of the individual over the rights of the community, posterity, and the earth itself.  Even when environmental damage is criticized, Gore maintains, the emphasis is on the individual rather than anything larger than the individual, for the spotlight is often on how individuals have been negatively affected by environmental damage.

This is a particularly controversial passage in Gore's book.  In my post a while back on the topic of the environment in Newt Gingrich's Real Change, I say the following:

"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)."

Where do I stand on this?  I don't know.  On the one hand, I can see Newt's point that embracing a notion of communal rights can lead to a slippery slope in which the government can find an excuse to infringe on individual rights.  Moreover, I think that it would be going too far to say that the community has "rights" that are inviolate (but whether or not Gore is arguing that, I'm not sure).  On the other hand, I agree with Gore that we should look beyond what affects individuals in the here and now, in a specific country, while not ignoring the broader human community, ecology, and posterity.  In addition, I'd be hesitant to say that even individual rights should be absolute, especially when an individual exercising his rights can infringe on the well-being of the community.

I'd probably embrace a fairly broad interpretation of the principle that we have rights, but our rights should not infringe on the rights of others.  But I don't have a full-fledged system on when the government should be able to violate individual rights.  Would I be open, for example, to the government using eminent domain to seize people's property in order to create a mall that can employ people in the community and uplift the economy?  I'd be very hesitant to be open to that, to tell you the truth.

Newt Gingrich's Real Change 8

I finished Newt Gingrich's Real Change.  In my latest reading, Newt talked about what we should have done after September 11, 2001.  Essentially, he said that we should have educated the public about Islamic extremism, which would have convinced even people on the Left that defeating radical Islam coincided with their own value of tolerance.  Newt also says that we should have gained foreign allies and made the U.S. Government more efficient so that it could handle the War on Terror more effectively, and that we also should have built roads in Afghanistan and modernized the country "so farmers could make money without relying on the illicit heroin trade for a living" (page 296).

I'm not sure what I feel about the War on Terror nowadays.  It really hasn't been on my radar lately, to tell you the truth, though I'm sure that it's still on the radar of those who lost loved ones in 9/11, or who lost loved ones in the wars that we fought to prevent another 9/11.  I agree with Newt that our government should be efficient so that it could protect the country.  As far as going into other countries and effecting regime-change goes, however, I'm not sure how reliable of a policy that is, since it breeds resentment, and it takes a lot of money and effort to keep anti-American forces from gaining ground----and, even if we win for a while, the anti-American forces can still come back.

What I appreciated about Newt's commentary was his statement that we should go beyond such platitudes as "stay the course".  I myself blush when I consider that I bought into the "stay the course" platitude.  But I did so because I thought that I had to choose among the options that were presented to me, and one side was saying that we should "stay the course", whereas the other side was saying something different.  But there's nothing wrong with critiquing how we "stay the course", if we choose to do so.  I applaud those who did that, such as Bill Clinton, who criticized the mismanagement of money in the Iraq War.

Newt Gingrich's Real Change 7

I read a significant chunk of Newt Gingrich's Real Change, but I don't want to comment on every single chapter and Appendix that I read.  Rather, I'll highlight two things that stood out to me in my latest reading.

1.  In "Chapter Eighteen: The Next Generation of Air and Rail Transportation", Newt argues that unions are impeding progress in terms of air transportation.  In essence, the unions are seeking to preserve jobs that would be made obsolete through technological advancements, and the result is inefficiency.  Newt believes that these workers should be trained for other lines of work.

This has been a debate that has existed throughout history.  Which is more important: Workers or progress?  Many have said that we don't have to choose.  Defenders of unions maintain that unions bring productivity to companies.  Opponents of unions or believers in progress hold that a free economy would take care of workers who are laid off due to progress.  I am not an expert on this issue, but I guess where I fall is here: I think that unions may very well impede progress, but, if workers were fired, I'm not optimistic about them being able to find other jobs, or at least jobs as good as what they have in the airline industry.  I tend to side with the workers, for, if we are technologically advanced, and yet there are people who can't support themselves and their families, what have we gained?  But I'm sure my position has its share of downsides.

2.  Newt is a big advocate of offering financial prizes for people who develop technological breakthroughs----such as breakthroughs in space technology, green technology, etc.  He believes that this approach bypasses inefficient bureaucracies and encourages the next Wilbur and Orville Wright----people who were not part of the academic elite yet brought about flight when the academic elite was still struggling to do so.

I think this is a good idea.  So now I'm for progress, whereas in my last item I was against it?  Well, progress can create jobs!  Hopefully, there could be enough progress creating jobs to take care of those who lose their jobs due to progress!

Newt Gingrich's Real Change 6

In Newt Gingrich's Real Change, I read "Chapter Twelve: Real Change for Social Security" (which Newt wrote with Peter Ferrara of the Institute for Policy Innovation); "Chapter Thirteen: American History Requires Real Change in the Judiciary"; and "Appendix 4: D-Day Radio Prayer of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, June 6, 1944".

1.  In Chapter 12, Newt defends allowing people to invest part of their Social Security payroll tax in stocks and bonds that would be approved by the U.S. Treasury Department.  Employers would contribute to this account as well, and, if the return falls short of what the government promises people in terms of Social Security, then the government would pay them the difference.  According to Newt, this would take care of the coming insolvency of the Social Security system, as well as the problem of the government raiding the Social Security trust fund to spend money on other projects----for a good percentage of that money under the system that Newt supports would be in the hands of the people, not the government.

But there is a problem that people have identified in this sort of proposal.  People's payroll taxes are going to the current recipients of Social Security.  If people are allowed to invest part of their payroll tax rather than contributing it to the Social Security trust fund, then there will be a shortage in the trust fund, and the government will have to find the money to pay current recipients of Social Security at the present level.

Newt actually addresses this problem.  First, he says that the amount that we allow people to invest should start at a manageable level and then go up.  That means that we should not start out allowing people to invest a significantly large chunk of their payroll tax, but we should start out at a more manageable rate.  Second, Newt states that the economy will grow as people invest part of their payroll tax into the stock market, and that will increase revenue and make up for the lost money in the Social Security trust fund.  Third, Newt says that the government should cut spending in other areas so there will be money for the Social Security trust fund.

Some people think that the current Social Security system is in danger of becoming insolvent, and that the trend of each Social Security benefactor being supported by fewer and fewer taxpayers will result in dramatically higher payroll taxes.  Others don't think that the situation is that bad.  As I read Newt, I can see how one could have a dismal view of the future of Social Security, since payroll taxes have gone up over the years.  

Is Newt's solution the way to go, however?  I fear that people could lose their money through bad investments or the stock market crashing, and stock market crashes do occur, as we saw in 2008.  The government would then have to step in and pay people the guaranteed amount of Social Security, with a possibly depleted Social Security trust fund.

2.  Newt's chapter on the judiciary was basically about how courts are attacking religion in the public square.  But there were some interesting things in this chapter.  For one, Newt talks about how the Federalists in America's early days supported a strong judiciary, whereas the Democratic-Republicans feared judicial tyranny.  Second, Newt discusses how the current system actually encourages people to sue public schools and the public square to remove religious items from their midst.  Essentially, the rule is that the defendant has to pay the legal fees of the plaintiff, if the plaintiff wins (even partially). 

Newt acknowledges that this sort of rule is appropriate for civil rights cases, especially when there are people who cannot afford to launch civil rights lawsuits when they are the victims of discrimination.  But Newt does not deem it appropriate for Establishment Clause cases.  Newt supports the Public Expression of Religion Act (which I do not think passed), which does not require defendants to pay the legal fees of plaintiffs in Establishment Clause lawsuits.  The court would still be able to order the removal of religious items from the public square, but the defendant would no longer have to pay the legal fees of the plaintiff.

Is this a reasonable policy?  It could discourage people from initiating Establishment Clause lawsuits, and Newt may actually like that, since he says on page 172 that people in a democracy may have to live with things that they don't like (presumably religion in the public square).  On the other hand, I have a hard time imagining the ACLU giving up just because the defendants would not pay the plaintiff's legal fees.

Newt Gingrich's Real Change 5

In Newt Gingrich's Real Change, I read "Chapter Ten: An Immigration Policy That Makes Sense", and "Chapter Eleven: Real Change to Achieve Enduring Prosperity for American Workers".

1.  In Chapter 10, I learned more about the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli immigration bill.  Many on the Left point to this bill to argue that Ronald Reagan would be out of place in today's anti-immigrant Republican Party, for this bill (which Reagan supported) granted amnesty to illegal immigrants.  But that's only part of the story.  Yes, the bill granted one-time amnesty, but it also proposed border control and an employer verification program to ensure that illegal immigrants were not hired.  The problem with the law, Newt contends, is that the government did not follow through on border control and employer verification.

I found something that Newt says on page 125 to be a bit odd: "The elites on the left oppose border control, oppose English as the official government language, oppose expanding legal immigration, and want to find a way to allow everyone here illegally to stay, all while prohibiting illegal immigration in the future."  What Newt characterizes as the leftist elite's position appears rather muddled.  Either that's because there are liberals who have a muddled view on immigration, or because Newt is characterizing positions other than his own as the leftist position.  Newt is for securing the borders, legal immigration, making English the official language, and having foreigners get visas to work in the U.S.  Some of that is actually to the left of what some right-wingers think about immigration----for there are right-wingers who want a moratorium on legal immigration and oppose a guest-worker program because it places foreigners in competition with Americans for jobs. 

2.  Chapter 11 is about tax policy.  Newt supports abolishing the capital gains tax on investments because doing so will encourage productivity and create jobs, plus capital gains tax cuts have led to an increase in revenue.  He wants for Americans to be able to choose between the current tax system and a sort of flat tax.  This flat tax is not exactly regressive, however, for it exempts $13, 200 for each adult and has a "$4,000 exemption for each child or dependent" (page 142).  Newt states that "This would mean no federal income tax on the first $46,165 in income for a family of four."

I'm not sure how the capital gains tax cut encourages productivity, and I'm receptive to learning about this issue.  But, if the capital gains tax cut increases revenue, I guess I'm open to it.  Some have disputed that tax cuts increase revenue.  They may say that revenue increased in the 90's because the economy was good at that time, due to the information revolution.  Or they may attribute the increase in revenue under Reagan to Reagan's tax increases.  Or they may point out that the Bush tax cuts resulted in declining revenues over some years, and, when revenue numerically increased, it was a smaller proportion of GDP than revenue was before the Bush tax cuts. 
  
Another point that Newt makes in this chapter is that companies are leaving the U.S. to go to Europe (i.e., London) because of litigation and high corporate taxes in the U.S.  Does that demonstrate that European socialism does not hamper the economy?

Newt Gingrich's Real Change 4

In Newt Gingrich's Real Change, I read Chapter 9: "An Example of Real Change and a Failure to Change: Giuliani's New York City versus Iraq as Contrasts in Change Leadership".

1.  Regarding Rudy Giuliani, Newt essentially argues that Mayor Giuliani of New York City and Boston police chief Bill Bratton developed strategies that dramatically brought down the crime rate in New York City.  Critics have maintained that Giuliani does not deserve all or any of the credit for this decrease in crime.  I've heard some say that Giuliani's police chief brought down the crime rate.  Others maintain that the national crime bill that passed under President Bill Clinton brought down crime on a national level, including in New York City.

Newt himself does not assert that Giuliani deserves all of the credit.  After all, Newt states on page 104 that "thanks to the efforts of Mayor David Dinkins [who was Giuliani's Democratic predecessor], there would be 4,000 more policemen joining the force..."  But I agree with Newt that Giuliani deserves some credit.  On page 104, Newt talks about how Giuliani and Bratton proposed for anti-drug units to work at night, which was when the drug dealers worked.  That sounds like a reasonable way to fight drug crimes.

2.  What interested me in my reading of Newt's commentary on Iraq was how Newt and the advocates for the policies that he criticized had some of the same goals.  At least that's my impression.  Both did not want for the Americans to appear to be imperial aggressors or occupiers in Iraq.  Newt, for example, praises White House envoy Zalmay Khalilzad for attempting to organize an interim Iraqi government consisting of Iraqis, but Newt believes that these efforts were obstructed when American bureaucrats entered the picture and botched up attempts to rebuild the country.

But I think that even those Newt criticizes did not want for America to be seen as an unwelcome and imperialistic presence in Iraq.  Newt acknowledges that a small number of troops were able to topple Saddam Hussein in an effective manner, but he believes that more American troops were needed to help Iraq rebuild and to keep the country safe.  Those who supported keeping the number of American troops in Iraq low, however, did so because they did not want for Americans to become tied down in the region (as occurred in Vietnam), and perhaps also because they did not desire to appear imperialistic.  Newt criticizes the American Army in Iraq for focusing on the training of Iraqi soldiers rather than countering insurgents, but those who emphasized the training of Iraqi soldiers probably did so because they wanted for Iraqis to take charge of their own country and security so that Americans would not have to run the country, creating resentment among Iraqis who would see Americans as occupiers.

Newt Gingrich's Real Change 3

I read three chapters in Newt Gingrich's Real Change: "Chapter Six: Replacing the Old Order: America Has Done It Before and We Can Do It Again"; "Chapter Seven: Becoming a Citizen Leader"; and "Chapter Eight: Replacing the Old Order: Lessons from Britain and France".

1.  What stood out to me in my reading of Chapter 6 was Newt's references to the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration states: "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness."  Newt then spends this chapter discussing systemic transformations throughout American history: the American Revolution, the replacement of the Articles of Confederation with a strong central government, Jeffersonianism, Jacksonianism, Lincoln Republicanism, the progressive movement, the New Deal, and Reaganism.  Regarding Lincoln Republicanism, Newt says on page 71 that it "shifted the focus of American political philosophy from the Constitution back to the Declaration of Independence".  He probably means that Lincoln Republicanism did so by highlighting the Declaration's principle that all men are created equal, in its opposition to slavery.  The Constitution, however, did not treat slaves as full human beings, as well as mandated that runaway slaves be returned to their masters.

Newt is probably a strict constructionist, one who wants for judges to be faithful to the text and original intent of the Constitution, and so I'll be taking the thoughts in the above paragraph in a direction that Newt most likely did not intend, and probably would find abhorrent.

During the health care debate, conservatives were telling me that the federal government has no authority to do anything about health care, for the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that the federal government can only do what the Constitution explicitly states, while all other powers are reserved to the states and the people.  I found such reasoning to be troubling.  There were people in the United States who were suffering and dying at the hands of America's health care system, and my conservative friends were appealing to some archaic notion of federalism to argue that the federal government should do absolutely nothing about that problem!  That made me think: the government is meant to serve us and to promote the general welfare.  If it is set-up in such a way that it is doing the opposite or hindering this, then there is a problem.  I think of government the same way that Jesus in Mark 2:27 thought about the Sabbath: The government was made for humanity, not humanity for the government.  In my opinion, if the Constitution is designed to prevent the government from helping people, then there is a problem with the Constitution.  I'm NOT calling for the overthrow of the U.S. Government, mind you, but I'm just saying that I'm wary of conservatives who put an archaic notion of federalism above the lives and well-being of American citizens.

2.  I enjoyed some of the advice and the stories in Chapter 7.  Newt talked about a 174-page book that he has read and reread since 1969, Peter Drucker's The Effective Executive.  Newt states that, according to this book, being an effective leader is not a matter of "intelligence or looks or charisma".  Rather, it's a matter of sharing your vision with others, and of listening to what they have to say with openness.

Newt also talked about Albert Einstein, who had a hard time getting an academic job and had to be a clerk in order to support himself.  But that ended up being a good thing, for Einstein was not held-back by the group-think that pervades academia, and he could approach issues in fresh ways. 

In a sense, what Newt says about Drucker and what he says about Einstein are contradictory: we should be a team-player working with others, and yet we should strike out on our own and see problems in fresh ways that the herd's radar does not pick up.  Perhaps there's a place for both.  After all, Einstein's work had to interact with other scientists at some point, otherwise it would not have been accepted and put to use.

3.  Chapter 8 essentially lauds Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain and Nicolas Sarkozy of France, who took steps to liberate their respective countries' economies from things that were holding those economies back (i.e., statism).  Newt talks about France and how its workers have had a short work week along with considerable vacation times, and he doubts that they'll be as productive as countries where people work long hours (i.e., China and India).  The result, according to Newt, could be a decline in revenue in France, which is so necessary to pay for the French social programs.  But Newt states that Sarkozy has sought to encourage work.  For instance, Sarkozy proposed that overtime pay be tax-free.

I'm all for people working.  At the same time, it would be nice if they had time to spend with their families.  I know a lady who moved to Italy from the United States, and she says that she likes Italy because at least she can have lunch with her family.  In the U.S., she was always on the go, and so she couldn't do that.  I hope that Europe's way of doing things is not as perilous as Newt says.  But I'm far from being an expert on this topic.

Newt Gingrich's Real Change 2

In Newt Gingrich's Real Change, I read three chapters: "Chapter Three: The Unreformed Left: Why Democrats Can't Deliver Real Change"; "Chapter Four: Katrina, Michigan, and Beyond: How the Old Order Is Failing America"; and "Chapter Five: Failure in Education: Death Knell of the Old Order".

Newt essentially criticizes public sector unions because of the exorbitant and costly benefits that they bring to public employees.  This includes teachers' unions, which oppose merit pay and school choice.  Newt cites Detroit as an example of a place where the presence of well-paid teachers does not entail positive educational outcomes.  While Newt acknowledges that unions have a valid place in our economy, he also criticizes private-sector unions, for he laments an attempt by unions and their congressional allies to take away the right of workers to vote by secret ballot on whether or not they want to organize, thereby leaving workers vulnerable to "intimidation and extortion".

There is another side to these issues.  Defenders of public sector unions have questioned that the unions are to blame for financial messes, attributing the messes to other causes (i.e., tax cuts for corporations), and they have regarded union-busting as a step in the wrong direction.  Teachers' unions have argued and have attempted to document that areas where teachers are paid well attract good teachers and have positive educational outcomes.  There is also an argument that school choice allows private schools to cherry-pick the richer or better students, while leaving the other students in underfunded and inadequate public schools.  And some have contended that the claim that unions want to eliminate the secret ballot is merely anti-union propaganda, for the goal of the Employee Free Choice Act is to make it easier for unions to organize and to protect workers from management (see here).

I don't dispute that Newt may have a point in his critiques.  As a voter, I'm presented with options, and I have to pick the one that I think is better, even though all of the options presented to me are imperfect.  Overall, I stick with the Left because I believe that it protects the vulnerable.  But a part of me is glad that the Right exists because it points out abuses in the system, and that can encourage Democrats to try to correct those things in an attempt to find common ground with the other side.

Newt Gingrich's Real Change 1

In Newt Gingrich's Real Change, I read Chapter One, "The Myth of Red America versus Blue America", and Chapter Two, "An Unreformed Right: Why Republicans Failed to Govern Successfully".  I have three items.

1.  I thought that Newt's tone was contradictory, in areas.  He criticizes the Republicans for running polarizing rather than solutions-oriented campaigns and for appealing primarily to the base and not independents, yet he says that most of the nation is center-right whereas liberals are a fringe minority, which is a polarizing statement.  He asserts that most of the country is center-right, noting that liberal Democrats have lost badly in Presidential elections and that Democrats only come to power when Republicans botch things up, yet he excoriates Republicans in the House and Senate for being too accustomed to being the minority party (even when they are the majority), while he states that Democrats at least have strategies to govern.  This presumes that people are comfortable enough with the Democrats to give them power for long periods of time!  Newt says that Democrats know how to build coalitions, whereas Republicans don't know how to govern, yet he criticizes Republicans who are overly cooperative with Democrats.

2.  I applaud Newt for being solutions-oriented.  But there is a salient part of his political method that appeals to polarization.  Politicians and pundits have blamed him for shattering the spirit of cooperation that used to exist in Congress.  And Newt has not minced words in bashing his opponents in the 2012 race for the Republican nomination for President.  If only he could be more of the solutions-oriented leader that shines through his books, speeches, and debates.

3.  Is America center-right?  I agree with Newt that some of the items he lists indicate a center-right orientation: a belief that public schools should have a moment-of-silence, a view that there should be more drilling for oil, and support for nuclear power and a flat tax with exemptions.  But I don't think that it's particularly center-right or right-wing to view Al-Qaeda as a threat, for even Democrats hold that point-of-view.  Moreover, I think that many Americans would be uncomfortable with the far right----with its criticisms of Medicare and Social Security.

Newt Gingrich on Health Care in Real Change

I read the material about health care in Newt Gingrich's 2008 book, Real Change.  I have four items.

1.  One topic that Newt addresses in Real Change that I did not see in Saving Lives & Saving Money is doctors and dentists who defraud Medicare and Medicaid----by overbilling the government or by requesting reimbursement for services that they did not perform.  Newt believes that this problem costs the health care system money, and he attributes it (at least in part) to bureaucratic incompetence.  After all, he says, while federal bureaucrats go home at 5, defrauders work long hours to figure out ways to cheat the system!

2. On page 227, Newt states that "Allowing individuals to pass their health costs onto others reinforces the attitude that their health is not their problem and adds to the irresponsible, unhealthy behaviors that bankrupt the current system."

I don't think this is entirely fair.  For one, a lot of individuals do not solely pass their health costs onto others in America's health care system.  Even many who have health insurance have high premiums and copays, plus their insurance company may choose not to pay for certain treatments.  Second, it's the current health care system that discourages preventative care, by making people reluctant and afraid to see a doctor on account of high medical costs.

To his credit, Newt is a strong advocate for preventative care.  He wants for the government to lead by example by incentivizing that, and he presumes that private health insurance companies would then follow its lead.  I hope so!  You'd think that private health insurance companies would support preventative care, since that costs them less than catastrophic care, leaving a larger profit for them.  At least that's my opinion about how it would work, and I could be mistaken.

3. On page 235, Newt favorably quotes Franklin Roosevelt, who stated: "The success or failure of any government in the final analysis must be measured by the well-being of its citizens.  Nothing can be more important to a state than its public health; the state's paramount concern should be the health of its people."

I think that this sentiment is biblical (if that matters to you), for Ezekiel 34:2, 4 criticizes the rulers for not curing the ill or binding the broken.  Moreover, the U.S. Constitution talks about promoting the general welfare.  The government is supposed to be concerned about the health and well-being of the country's citizens.

Unfortunately, when I hear many conservatives and libertarians talk, the vibe that I get is that they don't think the government should be concerned about health care.  For them, the government should keep out of it, and people should be responsible for their own health----for good or for ill.  I respect conservatives and libertarians who talk about ways to bring down the cost of health care, but I do not care for the callous approach that some of them appear to convey when discussing what the government's role should be (or should not be).

4.  Did Newt Gingrich support a health insurance mandate, which now is a significant part of President Obama's health care plan (though I am writing this post on April 7, before the Supreme Court has decided on whether or not the mandate will remain a part of the health care law)?  I did not see that in Saving Lives & Saving Money (which was published in 2003), for, while Newt highlighted the importance of universal coverage, he focused on how to make it cheaper for people to purchase health insurance, without mentioning a mandate.  In Real Change, however, he appears to support a mandate.  On page 276, Newt states: "...we should insist that everyone above a certain level buy coverage (or, if they are opposed to insurance, post a bond)."

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?