by frog
Metiria today announced $13 million of Government funding for environmental education in schools – a budget initiative secured through the Green Party’s co-operation agreement with Labour. It’s really exciting news; today’s children, after all, will be the lawmakers when the proverbial really hits the fan on climate change, peak oil, and environmental degradation and all the other lovely presents we’ve prepared for them. We need education for sustainability to equip them to deal with these issues better than the current generation have – but of course it’s not too late to reverse some of these trends before our children have to deal with them.
Anyway, I digress. You can read more about the exciting initiative here. Some great environmental education programmes are already in place in some schools, and Metiria went to one of them, Khandallah School in Wellington, to announce the funding. Judging by this Radio New Zealand story, the kids are already pretty clued up on things environmental, which is great to hear. While she was there, the kids wrapped Meyt in more than 400 pieces of used gladwrap collected in a single lunchtime, to demonstrate just how much non-recyclable plastic we throw away.
A big thanks to Khandallah School for hosting Meyt – you guys are doing a great job and running a great programme.
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Parliament | Society & Culture by frog on Wed, May 10th, 2006
Tags: environment
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Libertarians have long argued that the public education system, i.e., compulsory eduction controlled by the State (regardless of whether it’s taxpayer funded or not) originated in Prussia, as a system of political indoctrination.
This story is one of the many proofs of that argument.
Have a read of this if you want to learn more; the specifics relate to America, but it is perfectly applicable to New Zealand as well:
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Let’s just hope they don’t start teaching that Anthropomorphic Global Warming is established Fact – religious education in schools should not be compulsary.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, mug, you don’t give up, do you? I suppose I should credit you for persistence, but the idiocy involved in maintenance of your position on global warming is too persuasive.
Fool.
(I suppose that’s an ad hom. Fine. Call me Gregan.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Here is an idea, why don’t we spend exactly the same teaching children basic concepts of economics. They need that to function properly, to earn a living, set up businesses and understand how humanity works – simple matters like demand/supply, scarcity, price, productive, dynamic and distributive efficiency.
They will need balance after all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Liberty, I dunno what they do here, but I got Economix when I went to High School in the states. Basic part of the social-studies curriculum. Is this not the case here?
Then when I was a little older it was a required course at Uni… only by then I was firmly grounded in science and nearly flunked cause I couldn’t accept some of the economists underlying assumptions.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks BucolicOldSirHenry, but I think you maintain the monopoly on idiocy in this debate.
This
review of the state of Climate Science from a Canadian bunch is well worth looking at, for someone with more patience and ability to try to understand the position of their opponents than BOSH is showing. Information is drawn from a variety of sources and the information is put into context well.
This is well reading, and really isn’t “anti-green” at all, for instance, from pp17:
Besides the urban/rural influence, the impact of land-use change and landscape dynamics on the climate system is being increasingly recognized and studied. In a landmark paper by PIELKE et al. (2002), the impact of land-use change and associated landscape dynamics on the climate system has been documented. It is further concluded that a more complete indication of human contribution to climate change will require the climatic influence of land-surface conditions and other processes to be included. Many of these processes will have strong regional effects that are not represented in a globally averaged metric.
Blaming locally observed climate changes solely on one global cause, especially given the uncertain evidence, is bad science.
Besides, it’s much better to focus on the environment in the context of local changes, they are directly observable, have a much shorter time scale, and most importantly, you can see the impact of your efforts to benefit it. That’s still very much Green.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mug: “This review of the state of Climate Science from a Canadian bunch is well worth looking at, for someone with more patience and ability to try to understand the position of their opponents than BOSH is showing.”
Actually, muggers old chap, I think I have been remarkably patient with you over our various exchanges on global warming.
Now you cite a paper from the “Climate Science Coalition” web site. Sadly, if you had the patience to reference that paper’s claims against the real science, you would find that it is all agenda-driven cherry-picking. You might be better to refer to the recently leaked draft of the first section of the Fourth IPPC report. That’s where you will find a truly serious overview of the science in this area. It isn’t “uncertain” any more.
By the way, Tim Lambert has some good stuff on our little gang of septics (sic):
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/you_too_can_be_a_leading_clima.php
As I’ve said to you before, if you want to debate (or denigrate) the science, read the real stuff first.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ya know, this just goes to show how bad state-controlled education is, regardless of which particular curriculum they’re pushing.
Simple fix: stop taxing the crap out of parents, let them send their children to a school of their choosing, that teaches what they want their children to learn.
Of course, the Government won’t let you do that. Even if you want to send your children to a ‘private’ school while paying for the public system as well, they’ll still control what your children are taught.
Why?
Because most politicians view the education system primarily as a system of political indoctrination (and, secondarily, as a daycare centre so both parents can work to pay their tax bill).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It does concern me that only one view of Environmental Issues will be taught. In this area there are many half-truths, fudges, and guesses – on both sides.
For instance, the internet is generally not a source of fact.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
where’s your proof that only one view of environmental issues will be taught in schools as a result of the new govt-greens environmental education funding?
I believe that what is taught in our schools goes out of its way to be fair and balanced.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I hope some of these dollars make their way to Napier, where, according to supporters of acquiring more dolphins for Marineland, children learn to respect dolphins better when they see them ‘up close’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re all missing the bloody point! It doesn’t matter what curriculum is taught … what matters is that there’s only one curriculum, and parents have no say in the matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)