Customer Reviews

A Contract with the Earth

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Whether you believe we've made tremendous progress in preserving our environment or believe we've made little progress, everyone should agree that there is still a lot more work to be done.

It's refreshing to hear new ideas, fresh ideas from such a familiar figure and such a strong voice for change.

A Contract with the Earth is all about the intersection of business and science.

After all, where would we be today if not for business and science pioneers like the Wright Brothers, Charles Lindbergh, Henry Ford and Thomas Edison? Although few and far between, entrepreneurs such as those men, and leaders like John F. Kennedy and his 1961 goal to go to the moon within a decade are the reasons that we live in the greatest country in the world. We are innovators. We are doers!

I ask all of you out there to reserve judgment on this book until you've read it, and reread it. After hearing another side of the debate, then, and only then can we intelligently enter into a discussion about the solutions to the obvious environmental dilemmas that face America and the World.

This book starts with a laudable call for open-mindedness and for a middle ground of cooperation between Conservatives and Liberals, as the terms are understood in contemporary US politics. However, throughout the book this goal is severely compromised and the book ends with some close-minded, idealogical generalisations. Cooperation and problem-solving simply cannot take place if people allow their idealogies to exclude compromise. The book does offer some good ideas and is exceptional for several reasons: (1) it was apparently intended for Republicans as a positioning paper before the 2008 US election and subsequently extended with an epilogue; (2) Newt Gingrich is a well-known senior Republican; and (3) America is facing fundamentally important environmental problems in an age of radical political polarisation. The authors write: "Currently, liberal politicians operate as if they own the [environmental] issue; in their reaction, conservatives appear to disdain it. As the media overreacts to information and generates sensational headlines, mainstream American tunes out.... we are prone to... learned helplessness. We cope by doing nothing to change the situation [...and...] the problem only deepens." Environmental problems can be addressed by the "silent majority" in America through green conservatism, "a positive, entrepreneurial, market-based, solutions-oriented, mainstream environmental movement conducive to a pragmatic, nonpartisan public policy." But such a movement is in no way uniquely conservative, unless conservatism is defined as everything to the right of socialism. Who on earth is against solutions-oriented policy? Furthermore the authors' support of nuclear power (page 197) is pro-business but not conservative, because a real conservative never underestimates undesirable scenarios if they involve permanent damage to the country.

At a literal level, the book claims to call for objectivity and non-partisan cooperation at solving environmental problems. Unfortunately, this call lacks credibility. Newt Gingrich has a long partisan history. More importantly, the authors frequently lapse into simplistic partisanship by characterising liberals as doomsday environmentalists hostile to market-based solutions and lacking the common sense and ingenuity of conservatives. This is especially so in the epilogue, where the book abandons the pretence of objectivity and switches to ideological dogma. In the beginning of the book (page 13), regulation is admitted as a necessary evil. By the end of the book, regulation is simply evil. Another example article of anti-government mantras: the failure of Amtrack is uniquely due to it being government-run (this firmly held belief ignores all other factors, the failure of privatised railways of the UK and the success of government-run railways in many other OECD countries).

The book can best be understood as the authors' strong plea to conservatives (or Republicans) to let go of and be done with their disdain for environmentalism because maintaining this disdain would be bad for the earth, a missed opportunity for America and, above all, disastrous for the Republicans in future elections. The book was written in the context of the Republicans having problems at the polls and the set-back of the conservative movement. Nonetheless, the authors are usually well-informed and apparently sincere about their environmentalism. If Gingrich proves his sincerity through non-partisan actions in environmental politics, then his call for non-partisan, constructive cooperation should only be welcomed by all.

The authors occasionally sell ideas based on weak empirical data. The business case for carbon sequestration, obviously favoured by big carbon emitters, has become extremely questionable. The idea that reproductive rates stabilise as the affluence of a society increases is no longer certain (Nature, Mikko Marskyla, University of Pennsylvania). The growth of European carbon emissions from 2000 to 2004 was largely influenced by the entry of ten east-European countries to the European Union in 2002.

The chapters are informally structured around high-level themes (e.g. entrepreneurialism, philanthropy), with many interesting bits of information here and there. Regarding the contract referred to in the title, it is very general and abstract, and probably only used because of the intended association with Gingrich's "Contract with America" of 1994. All of the contract's ten articles ("commitments") are obvious: science should be objective and "sound" (amazing!), government can not solve problems alone, people should cooperate etc. None of the contract's ideas are uniquely conservative, again unless conservative is defined as everything that is not socialist. It certainly does not hurt for more people to learn about reducing, reusing and recycling.

Gingrich wants to win over Republicans. He formulates his text to be pleasing for this audience, especially by way of verbose emphasis of what they like to hear (e.g. government policies can be poor) and concise and qualified admissions about what they do not like to hear (e.g., government is necessary). He does admit that unpleasantness must be addressed (no details), but he couches this in a patriotic reminder of how Americans traditionally unite to face adversity (no details). The authors are correct that an overly pessimistic outlook will not sell: "To inspire others to achieve, we must continue to express optimism." However, optimism without clearly exemplary behaviour is worthless, and exemplary behaviour means radical change for individuals. The authors avoid spelling out the wrenching changes that this means. Surely the reader can accept something more than just feel-good.

Again and again (and again) the reader learns that limited government, tax incentives and "prizes" are better alternatives than any form of regulation. This is quite true in many areas, but dangerously unrealistic for great swaths of environmental areas such as international waters, i.e., about two thirds of the planet's surface area. The authors imply (page 194) that the havoc wreaked by trawling can be solved generally if local environmentalist groups simply group together, "purchase the trawling boats" and "buy out each trawler's business". Most local environmental groups would have difficulty buying out a local canoe rental shop and have no chance against giant fishing concerns.

Many pages of nice sounding examples are given, but nice-sounding examples are not statistics. It's a fine thing to learn that something is being done well by some organisation for some specific issue (e.g., that the State of Massachusetts "prefers" to use environmentally friendly cleaning products), but the reader usually doesn't get sufficient contextual information to know whether substantial problems are solved comprehensively. Thus the abundant examples start as inspirational but end up sounding unconvincing. Somewhere buried in the text (page 96) the authors admit that "some caution is advised, as some of these efforts may be regarded as little more than public relations devices." One heartily agrees with this warning, especially with regards to the automobile and oil corporations. The authors are irritatingly pussy-footing about criticising any specific company. If their optimistic approach excludes the possibility of pointing out failure, then it won't work.

The style is tiresome. Much is written in clichés. The following example is not exceptional: "Our environment's current state represents both a unique challenge and a golden opportunity. If we respond with the ingenuity and diligence consistent with our national heritage and our sense of duty, we will not only resolve our environmental problems, but we will also launch an unprecedented epoch of economic prosperity." Undoubtedly the experienced Gingrich also reverts to this wooden style in order to avoid the risk of bad sounding quotes out of context. The book has a lot of good things to say, but granted the style, it is fortunate that the book is short.
As The Economist has always argued, simple taxation of carbon emissions would be the most efficient answer, but that would be unacceptable for ideologues. So much for being "solution-oriented" and "pragmatic".

Gingrich and Maple have created a well thought out bipartisan plan to "save the earth" from exploitation by people who, knowingly or unknowingly are in the process of destroying the environment. Historically Dr. Terry Maple dragged Zoo Atlanta from the abyss and created one of the finest exhibits in the world. Dr. Gingrich, former speaker of the U.S. House and college professor has a vivid imagination for change (real change) and shows his adroit imagination in this work. These men offer many solutions from problems with animal waste to saving plants and animals for future generations to enjoy. I read the book and also listened to an audiobook version. Both are very enjoyable-I urge people of all ages to enjoy this very timely work. Douglas W. Matheson Professor Emeritus University of the Pacific. Stockton, CA

I just read and reread this book. I'm so tired of the gloom and doom meisters, I'm really happy to have found something that is POSITIVE, and explains exactly how to achieve Sustainability. There is much to do in this realm, but they have many examples of what is being done, and other examples of what each of us can do if we want to get involved.
The only thing I would have done better would be to have the examples better documented, so the direct sources of the information could be accessed more easily.

Excellent package I gave one as a gift and have listened to my own twice already. This should be listened to by all people who really want to learn what we really need to do about our mother Earth

I really like Newt.

I think Newt Gingrich is one of the most important political philosophers of our time. From the Conservative Opportunity Society to the Contract for America, he's been on the cutting edge. My complaint with this book is that while his heart is in the right place, the book is short on details, and the devil is always in the details.

Global warming/climate change is a real threat. It's caused by human activity. I've run the numbers, and it can't be significantly slowed, and certainly can't be reversed, without nuclear energy. That having been said, the word "nuclear" only appears in the book once.

Without nuclear energy, and because nuclear probably can't be brought on line soon enough to make a real difference, drastic changes in the American way of life will be necessary to slow down the process of global warming---smaller houses, fewer trips by airplanes, higher thermostats in the summer, lower in the winter. However, Newt and Terry never address these topics.

The placebos, compact florescent lights bulbs, bio-fuels, and others, which make us feel like we are contributing, but which actually deter us from taking effective action, are as close as we get to details.

I left the book feeling empty. Like Rodney King, Newt and Terry tell us "can't we all just get along" but don't give any real guidance about where we are going.

I'm a little disappointed. I still love Newt, but this isn't my favorite Next book.

The Devil is in the Details, and the details have been left out.

Great read with a positive, logical approach and proposed solutions to environmental issues. Perhaps slanted somewhat toward the conservative political view; But not to the point of making the issue partisan.

the book is not intended to be a list of demands. I don't think Mr. Ginrich ever intended this to be a mandate.It's aim is help point out ways and ideas to get people thinking of how to help our country clean up.
We really need something besides 'big brother' solution of population control and a 'mare's nest' of new laws for government control. People truly can make a difference and teach their families to do the same. It's not impossible. Thank you Mr. Ginrich

In "A Contract with the Earth," Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple correctly plead for a bipartisan approach to environmentalism. Gingrich and Maple also rightly emphasize the importance of objectivity, education, green entrepreneurship, partnership of government at all levels with organizations and businesses, the need for a long-term vision, and U.S. world leadership in tackling environmental ills. Unfortunately, "A Contract with the Earth" is ultimately of uneven quality.

To their credit, Gingrich and Maple convincingly show what green entrepreneurship and public-private partnerships can achieve in reducing the human footprint on nature in some particular cases. Chapters 5 and 6 will be of particular interest to readers looking for some success stories such as Costa Rica, Walt Disney, Shell Oil, and Geoplasma. Gingrich and Maple also review with clarity in chapter 7 what some philanthropists such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Richard Branson's Virgin Fuels are working on to address some environmental ills. Furthermore, Gingrich and Maple remind readers that open societies are more receptive to environmental and social reform. Finally, Gingrich and Maple call in chapter 9 for political leaders of substance who exhibit some of the characteristics that Jim Collins has identified in his best-seller "Good to Great."

Unfortunately, Gingrich and Maple seem at times to over-simplify the challenges at hand. Here follow a few examples for illustration purposes only:

1. Gingrich and Maple note that in some respects, the population problem (in the third world) is solving itself, with birth rates falling as nations develop healthy economies with stable, predictable futures. Both authors also point out that the U.S. can handle overpopulation most effectively by targeting foreign aides for emerging democracies with a stable rule of law and growing economies. Unfortunately, Gingrich and Maple fail to mention that U.S. support for family planning abroad began to decline in 1996. The U.S. is not alone in this area. As Jonathon Porritt, Chair, U.K. Sustainable Development Commission, rightly states in BBC-sponsored Planet Earth, good family planning is all about empowering women and girls with literacy and better healthcare to bring birth rates down. Furthermore, both authors omit to mention that the current U.S. administration has banned funding to groups that provides or promotes abortion. Unlike the other regions of the world, Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa, is experiencing fast and ultimately unsustainable population growth as John May of the World Bank and Jean-Pierre Guengant of IRD (French Research Institute for Development) recently observed.

2. Gingrich and Maple lament that the American Government, both Congress and the President, is not doing enough in addressing environmental challenges. However, many Americans are wary of pushing the American Government too far, too fast, because of the high costs involved in solving environmental problems. The new, imperfect compromise over CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards illustrates this point very well.

3. Gingrich and Maple also plead for a plan to significantly and rapidly reduce U.S. dependence on (foreign) oil by considering a serious switch from fossils fuels to renewable alternatives. Since 1974, all U.S. presidents have called for energy independence, but all have failed in this endeavor. Despite the rhetoric, U.S. reliance on foreign oil increased from 36.1% in 1974 to 65.5% in 2006 according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Americans use more oil per person than any other country in the world, with the possible exception of some oil-exporting states. 2/3 of all oil consumed in the U.S. is used for powering U.S. cars and trucks according to the U.S. Department of Energy. The new changes to CAFE standards will probably not significantly alter this picture, especially when one considers the existing vehicle mix and the expected increase in the number of cars and trucks on U.S. roads in the coming decades. In addition, the recent increase in renewable alternatives like ethanol is not without side effects. Think for example about the recent inflation in food prices.

To summarize, Gingrich and Maple offer some interesting ideas in "A Contract with the Earth" to tackle environmental ills. Unfortunately, their book reads at times like an over-simplification of the environmental issues that need to be addressed to find some balance between humanity and its environment.

Local Book Review by John Arthur Marshall, (JAMinfo@AOL.com); President
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation and Florida Environmental Institute, Inc. www.ArtMarshall.org

A Contract with the Earth: Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple; John Hopkins; 2007

Contract with the Earth is an overdue call for local, national and international action in a time of serious need for we planetary occupants to pay much more attention to what we are doing to the planet (destroying our life support system at a seemingly indiscernible rate, with enormous consequences given ubiquitous inaction). This is the major problem that Contract addresses.

Contract might be summarized as a re-call of Teddy Roosevelt conservationism with emphasis on the authors' new advocacy of entrepreneurial environmentalism. All this verges on a matter of insistence, which is good, even great, if twice as many folks that are engaged in the present environmental movement read and heed... Then engage at least one neo-conservationist politician on the need to take on stewardship of the environment as a major issue in the current election debates. We can do it!

As the authors astutely note: Everyone ought to participate in discussions of environmental policies and to that end should have a rudimentary understanding of the processes that make a habitable planet.

Of particular importance in the current elections scenario, the authors identify the need to get the environment elevated as arguably the most important issue confronting society today. How can presidential candidates not pay attention to long-term effects of climate change, and the need for conservation and preservation of what remains of our life support system? A bonus is a call for strategic planning, and adherence to planetary needs.

The authors acknowledge that insufficient attention is being paid by politicians, and with the rest of us, lament that the current administration has been a failure here, even with the late attempt at for lasting legacy to cover inaction regarding potential disastrous consequences in the future.

The author's define the distinction between conservation and preservation in a manner that deserves further consideration. That is left for future readers to discover, in a book that is worth reading, and begging for action by the non-reactive information-overloaded majority.

As President of a tree-planting organization, my most favorite spot in this book is Chapter 8: Renewing the Natural World. This chapter emphasizes the need to preserve rainforests and restore forests and wetlands. Here in Florida we call them forested wetlands, or swamps (lots of cypress and custard apple trees and related species normally in standing water). In the sequence of quotable quotes at the beginning of each chapter, Chapter 8 also holds my favorite quote:

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 perseveration would vanish. John Muir [Founder Sierra Club]; there were also lots of pine trees in Florida. The past-tense is not good.

This quote is an appropriate sequel to another salient section in Chapter 10, with the mention of Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods. Louv amplifies the need for the younger generation to be more exposed to nature, as previous generations were. Something is missing. Louv points out that staying indoors in front of a computer, rather than more exposure to nature, may lead to nature deficit disorder, which he relates to potential attention deficit disorder and maladjustments in life.

As a sixth generation Floridian, following progress of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) I very much appreciate Newt's observation on page 226:

"Florida has the opportunity to become a laboratory that the entire world studies... There are very few places where you have a complex fragile ecosystem this close to this many people". Newt, Associated Press, 1997. Recent AP headlines - Everglades Restoration bogged down - is inappropriate.

The authors also recognize that the proximity of massive land-fills (Mt. Trashmore's we call them) to the Everglades are inappropriate to conservation and preservation of important ecosystems. Currently, local government is considering locating a Mt. Trashmore right next to the Arthur R. Marshall National Wildlife Refuge, a primary subject of CERP implementation. Not only will the landfill be a dominant terrain feature, the creatures this will attract will pose a serious threat to native wildlife, especially wading birds. This could also pose a serious threat to federal funding.

The authors also implore us (again!) to think globally and act locally. OK Palm Beachers, CERP implementation is also about sustaining a viable water supply. This is need to know stuff.

Unfortunately the behavior of government toward CERP, especially in the current federal administration, is much like the authors describe:

The American government, however continues to posture and vent, unable or unwilling to commit or act decisively.... Except possibly to give development overwhelming priority.

If there is one thing that might call for a little reconsideration, it is the authors' inclination to view technological solutions as sometimes preferable to natural one's, without mentioning the precautionary principle, an approach advocated by scientists when there is a dearth of knowledge. Scientists caution on reliance of engineered solutions, as there are always unforeseen, usually adverse consequences here. Humankind's intrusions require natural solutions. Natural solutions are most often perpetual, and the most cost-effective. OK, green energy may be an exception.

At the onset, Contract challenges the readers to take a Test to determine whether (or not) you (the reader) is a mainstream environmentalist. In the end the authors challenge the readers to support the broad principles of the contract, by contributing time and ideas to create together a new kind of environmental movement.

From the Everglades Restoration endeavor, a more widely applicable quote is attributed to the Mother of the Everglades, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, author of Everglades, River of Grass:

If we pass the Test we get to keep the planet!


DISCLAIMER: The Author of this review, an Everglades restoration advocate, is not a professional book reviewer.


John Arthur Marshall
2806 South Dixie Highway, WPB 33405; 561-801-2165