Students at every grade need to learn climate science

[beecee]

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-students-grade-climate-science-expert.html

The National Climate Assessment, released the day after Thanksgiving, offers motivation and opportunity to bring climate topics into the classroom at every grade level.

Even the youngest students are ready to learn about climate science, according to Michael Wysession, professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences in Arts & Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis and executive director of the Teaching Center.

Wysession, who has co-authored more than 30 textbooks, helped write a position statement on teaching climate science adopted by the board of directors of the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) in September 2018. The NSTA has a membership of more than 50,000 teachers and other educators at the K-12 grade levels.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-students-grade-climate-science-expert.html#jCp

Nice article....And appropriatley yesterday [Friday 30th Nov] Student of all ages right across Australia had a strike day in protest against the Liberal Coalition government's lack of action and concern over climate change....see....

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-30/australian-students-climate-change-protest-scott-morrison/10571168

Students strike for climate change protests, defying calls to stay in school

Updated about 5 hours ago

Thousands of Australian students have defied calls by the Prime Minister to stay in school and instead marched on the nation's capital cities, and some regional centres, demanding an end to political inertia on climate change.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Do you agree or disagree with our kids taking such action? Should this "strike" tactic be tried elsewhere?

[Sensei]

22 hours ago, beecee said:

Nice article....And appropriately yesterday [Friday 30th Nov] Student of all ages right across Australia had a strike day in protest against the Liberal Coalition government's lack of action and concern over climate change....see....

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-30/australian-students-climate-change-protest-scott-morrison/10571168

Students strike for climate change protests, defying calls to stay in school

Updated about 5 hours ago

Thousands of Australian students have defied calls by the Prime Minister to stay in school and instead marched on the nation's capital cities, and some regional centres, demanding an end to political inertia on climate change.

The main "problem" of Australia is that they have abundance of coal.. (which means there is large pressure of lobby of industry to maintain the status quo of fossil fuels production and usage)

"Coal production in Australia increased 13.6% between 2005 and 2010 and 5.3% between 2009 and 2010.[2] In 2016, Australia was the biggest net exporter of coal, with 32% of global exports (389 Mt out of 1,213 Mt total), and was the fourth-highest producer with 6.9% of global production (503 Mt out of 7,269 Mt total). 77% of production was exported (389 Mt out of 503 Mt total)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia

(looking at graph production increased by 400% from 1980 to 2012)

These kids should start from persuading their parents and family to invest in solar panels and alternative renewable energy sources for their own home usage.

 

Edited December 1, 2018 by Sensei

[naitche]

 

Agree @Sensei

Never too young to learn about human impacts on earth and its resources, but over reliance on Govt. to solve problems that start with the individual and their own choices won't have the broader  reaching effects needed.

An expectation of responsible choice at the individual level works its way up.

Edited December 3, 2018 by naitche

[Ken Fabian]

2 hours ago, naitche said:

 

Agree @Sensei

Never too young to learn about human impacts on earth and its resources, but over reliance on Govt. to solve problems that start with the individual and their own choices won't have the broader  reaching effects needed.

An expectation of responsible choice at the individual level works its way up.

I disagree - responsibility at the government department level is, in a very legal sense, obligatory (or should be), but individuals have wide discretion to believe whatever they like. Collective actions that are beyond the scope of individual choice are what governments are for. Our civic institutions are necessary to put responsibility and decision making beyond the reach of individual self interest.

I think a significant part of the counter-messaging by opponents of climate responsibility and climate action has been make the issue a will-of-the-people decision in order to justify those holding positions of trust and responsibility failing to take the expert advice seriously and failing to act, using a combination of widespread misinformation, apathy and denial to prevent appropriate policy from being developed, enacted or used effectively. That it appears that the tide is turning - a lot of people are informed and concerned and beginning to demand governments like Australia's act - doesn't let governments off the hook; they have had close to 3 decades of consistent expert advice, but many within governments not merely failed to act, they were (and many still are) active participants in misinforming their constituents.

[coffeesippin]

On 12/1/2018 at 1:26 PM, Sensei said:

The main "problem" of Australia is that they have abundance of coal.. (which means there is large pressure of lobby of industry to maintain the status quo of fossil fuels production and usage)

"Coal production in Australia increased 13.6% between 2005 and 2010 and 5.3% between 2009 and 2010.[2] In 2016, Australia was the biggest net exporter of coal, with 32% of global exports (389 Mt out of 1,213 Mt total), and was the fourth-highest producer with 6.9% of global production (503 Mt out of 7,269 Mt total). 77% of production was exported (389 Mt out of 503 Mt total)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia

(looking at graph production increased by 400% from 1980 to 2012)

These kids should start from persuading their parents and family to invest in solar panels and alternative renewable energy sources for their own home usage.

  

 

It would be a fun day off school .. they'll graduate and buy SUVs and big houses  plus a cottage and a powerboat plus a jetski and take jet airline vacations to distant beaches in foreign lands, etc etc etc.   Just like their parents and their parent before them.  

22 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

I disagree - responsibility at the government department level is, in a very legal sense, obligatory (or should be), but individuals have wide discretion to believe whatever they like. Collective actions that are beyond the scope of individual choice are what governments are for. Our civic institutions are necessary to put responsibility and decision making beyond the reach of individual self interest.

I think a significant part of the counter-messaging by opponents of climate responsibility and climate action has been make the issue a will-of-the-people decision in order to justify those holding positions of trust and responsibility failing to take the expert advice seriously and failing to act, using a combination of widespread misinformation, apathy and denial to prevent appropriate policy from being developed, enacted or used effectively. That it appears that the tide is turning - a lot of people are informed and concerned and beginning to demand governments like Australia's act - doesn't let governments off the hook; they have had close to 3 decades of consistent expert advice, but many within governments not merely failed to act, they were (and many still are) active participants in misinforming their constituents.

And when government comes and takes your car and tells you to take public transit?  Will you be one of the few happy people on the bus?

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

It would be a fun day off school .. they'll graduate and buy SUVs and big houses  plus a cottage and a powerboat plus a jetski and take jet airline vacations to distant beaches in foreign lands, etc etc etc.   Just like their parents and their parent before them.  

And when government comes and takes your car and tells you to take public transit?  Will you be one of the few happy people on the bus?

We'll all be driving Teslas.

[coffeesippin]

29 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We'll all be driving Teslas.

That's a soft sarcasm?   Yes, must be.

[Sensei]

35 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

It would be a fun day off school .. they'll graduate and buy SUVs and big houses  plus a cottage and a powerboat plus a jetski and take jet airline vacations to distant beaches in foreign lands, etc etc etc.   Just like their parents and their parent before them.  

In your response you are hiddenly suggesting that the all these things are not possible to be powered by alternative renewable energy sources. Which is obviously not true. Arnold Schwarzenegger yesterday (3rd December) on COP24 in Katowice in Poland said that his Hummers are 1) electric 2) hydrogen-powered and 3) hybrid.

If everybody would have two electric cars, the first one could be used to store solar energy in one day, while using second one, then swap them the next day. Without having to sell power to grid, nor having to have expensive powerful accumulators in the house.

[MigL]

Two electric cars ?
Have you priced a Tesla model S ?

Maybe the American and Canadian governments should have given money to Tesla instead of bailing out those idiots at GM.
Teslas would have been cheaper and a whole lot of people wouldn't be losing their jobs.

[Sensei]

1 hour ago, coffeesippin said:

And when government comes and takes your car and tells you to take public transit?  Will you be one of the few happy people on the bus?

Why somebody in government would like to take cars powered by renewable energy sources.. ?

BTW, to stop the all fossil fuel powered cars they just can shutdown gasoline stations.. (they will bankrupt anyway, when number of electric cars will be much higher than fossil fuel powered cars, and nobody will need their product)

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

Two electric cars ?
Have you priced a Tesla model S ?

Tesla is the only electric car on this planet? I don't think so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_electric_cars_currently_available

According to this list Nissan Leaf is for $22,490 ($7500 federal tax credit included). So true retail price is ~$30k.

https://www.energysage.com/electric-vehicles/costs-and-benefits-evs/electric-car-cost/

 

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by Sensei

[Ken Fabian]

20 minutes ago, coffeesippin said:

And when government comes and takes your car and tells you to take public transit?  Will you be one of the few happy people on the bus?

I had in mind things like carbon pricing that make the externalised costs part of the pricing of various transport choices, not forced vehicle confiscations.

I want reasoned and reasonable responses to climate change from governments - preventing unreasonable responses as well as promoting reasonable ones is a legitimate thing ordinary people can do when they vote. Facing up to it - taking the expert advice seriously - should be the barest minimum to expect, not something an irate public has to demand from someone holding high office.

Climate change is not about socialist versus capitalist, it is about accountability and responsibility. It is not anti-free enterprise to want accountability and costing of climate externalities.

 

[DirtyChai]

39 minutes ago, MigL said:

Maybe the American and Canadian governments should have given money to Tesla instead of bailing out those idiots at GM.
Teslas would have been cheaper and a whole lot of people wouldn't be losing their jobs.

We're probably getting  a bit off topic here, and I really don't want to go back to hell and debate the bailouts all over again.

There's still a lot that can be said for both sides of the issue, but in the end, the bailouts saved 1-2 million+ jobs and 100+ billion dollars in unemployment benefits, plus any other government assistance (food/medical/housing) to help deal with the fallout. . .

Edited December 4, 2018 by DirtyChai

[Raider5678]

13 hours ago, Sensei said:

BTW, to stop the all fossil fuel powered cars they just can shutdown gasoline stations.. (they will bankrupt anyway, when number of electric cars will be much higher than fossil fuel powered cars, and nobody will need their product)

It might sound grand to those of you living in a world of riches where you make more than a thousand or so a month, but it's a stupid idea to the majority of people because we can't simply afford to go out and buy a $30,000 car simply because the government decided to shut down all the gas stations. But whatever. It's not like any of us could use the next two years worth of wages for anything. Like food. Or housing. Or water. Or clothes. Or electricity. 

But wait, I forgot, it doesn't matter that we're living pay-check to pay-check already, we can just take out a $30,000 loan for those electric cars that we can't afford. It's just an extra 20% in interest rates. Who needed that extra $6,000 to put towards paying some of our kid's college?

 

 

13 hours ago, Sensei said:

If everybody would have two electric cars, the first one could be used to store solar energy in one day, while using second one, then swap them the next day. Without having to sell power to grid, nor having to have expensive powerful accumulators in the house.

Great! Now we can 2 $30,000 loans to the checkbooks. That $12,000 used to pay interest wouldn't have covered the cost of our kid's new cars anyways since they have to be electric. 

Because having a second electric car isn't an "expensive powerful accumulator". $30,000? Pocket change. It's not like we could just buy a solar battery for $2,000 to power our solar roof that cost us $30,000 more, on top of the two cars. $18,000 in interest? That's nothing.

 

Must be nice living in a world where the idea of throwing away $100,000 is nothing, and the common sense to think before you buy isn't necessary, or the idea that there are those of us who simply can't afford to just switch over to electric cars because the government decided to just shut down all the gas stations. It's not like it employed anybody anyways. Who need's a job when you're as rich as Sensei?

Edited December 4, 2018 by Raider5678

[Strange]

13 hours ago, Sensei said:

BTW, to stop the all fossil fuel powered cars they just can shutdown gasoline stations.. (they will bankrupt anyway, when number of electric cars will be much higher than fossil fuel powered cars, and nobody will need their product)

Most of the companies in that industry are actively researching and investing in alternative fuel technologies (its not like they don't know there is a crisis). Killing those companies would remove a large amount of funding for that research. It would also cause chaos with empty supermarket shelves, shortages of medicines, etc.

It might be sensible to incentivise them (and other companies) to move quicker, but shutting them down is not practical.

[naitche]

On 04/12/2018 at 1:23 PM, Ken Fabian said:

I disagree - responsibility at the government department level is, in a very legal sense, obligatory (or should be), but individuals have wide discretion to believe whatever they like. Collective actions that are beyond the scope of individual choice are what governments are for. Our civic institutions are necessary to put responsibility and decision making beyond the reach of individual self interest.

Yes government has a large responsibility and I don't deny that at all, but I  we disagree on the role government should take.

I don't agree that civic institutions  role should  be to put responsibility and decision making beyond reach of individual self interest until and unless it conflicts with collective responsibility and decision making. Even then I believe the role taken should be to maximise the likely hood of repercussions for those  who place self interest above common interest. As recognised by common expectation.

To serve and facilitate collective interest and expectation where demonstrated.

 Environmental expectation starts with recognition  and familiarity of  common interest.  So common interest responses are expected out of self interest. Combat misinformation ( as is happening )  So certain choices are expected where practical or possible, out of self interest.

Corporate self interest is harder for civic institutions to control or contend with. The choices made by individuals largely  directs those. Macron is discovering that individual self interest often decides Government. 

If electric and other more energy efficient cars were a more accessible and practical  option for the individual,  and  energy efficiency is priority such government action is not necessary. The expectation is promoted, and  becomes more within reach.

The students have been provided information contradicting  the misinformation:  enough to finally tip the scales of expectation. The strike I feel would be better directed at  making their expectations  'of and on'  individual choice felt, starting at home.

Change is unlikely with out the need to make sacrifices that start at a personal level. That needs recognition and acceptance.

Governments can do a lot, tho' not without support.

We have been very slow to achieve recognition and a level of familiarity. Much less of personal  response-ability, or  acceptance (that would drive personal sacrifices).

 

 

Quote

I think a significant part of the counter-messaging by opponents of climate responsibility and climate action has been make the issue a will-of-the-people decision in order to justify those holding positions of trust and responsibility failing to take the expert advice seriously and failing to act, using a combination of widespread misinformation, apathy and denial to prevent appropriate policy from being developed, enacted or used effectively. That it appears that the tide is turning - a lot of people are informed and concerned and beginning to demand governments like Australia's act - doesn't let governments off the hook; they have had close to 3 decades of consistent expert advice, but many within governments not merely failed to act, they were (and many still are) active participants in misinforming their constituents.

Government representatives are no less less likely to act according to misinformation than any one else. Recognition,  familiarity and acceptance of the problem  comes first, of necessity,  If there is a a cohesive Human identity on whos behalf the sacrifices are made.  Recognition and responsibility must be inclusive.

Its natural that some  never achieve recognition. Environmental  expectation when achieved still largely directs response.

 

On 04/12/2018 at 1:23 PM, Ken Fabian said:

 

 

7 hours ago, Strange said:

Most of the companies in that industry are actively researching and investing in alternative fuel technologies (its not like they don't know there is a crisis). Killing those companies would remove a large amount of funding for that research. It would also cause chaos with empty supermarket shelves, shortages of medicines, etc.

It might be sensible to incentivise them (and other companies) to move quicker, but shutting them down is not practical.

Agree. Personal choices made provide incentive, if that response-ability is recognised.

Edited December 5, 2018 by naitche

[Raider5678]

13 hours ago, Strange said:

Most of the companies in that industry are actively researching and investing in alternative fuel technologies (its not like they don't know there is a crisis). Killing those companies would remove a large amount of funding for that research. It would also cause chaos with empty supermarket shelves, shortages of medicines, etc.

1

Granted maybe my post was uncalled for. You put it a lot more..........cleanly.

[naitche]

The Human identity needs to change direction.

Thats our environment.

The present condition of that environment  doesn't support the new direction.

Its condition is directed to growth and consumerism, in direct conflict with conservation of resources. thats  needed to preserve  potential  for new direction as  conditions alter or manifest. 

 

Governments can't create support for the new direction. Our actions support it. Or they don't.

Governments  can only impose  conditions, in hopes they drive us in  the new direction.  That demonstrates the price of adapting to climate change

But accepting  new direction means taking responsibility for it, and its conflict with the old.  Until we accept  that at an individual level,  The human condition isn't supportive of  the new direction. 

The benefits aren't being demonstrated.  Thats  pretty much beyond the  resource of governments.

When responsibility is accepted at the individual level, then Government can be informed how to support or facilitate collective actions beyond the means or scope of individuals.

Asking Government to take responsibility for climate action  is denial of our ability to respond to our own conditions, which demonstrate the benefits of changing them. Demonstration of  benefits is needed to drive support.

[naitche]

Effective climate action varies according to local needs and conditions.

Applying a universal 'cost' to adapting to climate change will have unintended consequence.

It doesn't provide direction, or   change  the current direction. 

It doesn't present solutions.

 It  blocks direction. 

It will interfere with  efforts  to tackle climate change effectively, according  to local needs and conditions.

It sacrifices local conditions.

Edited January 5, 2019 by naitche