« Back to Home Page

Heartland Institute’s Climate Skeptics vs Children: Bet on the Kids

CSRHUB | Monday February 27th, 2012 | 4 Comments

The following is part of a series by our friends at CSRHub (a 3p sponsor) – offering free sustainability and corporate social responsibility ratings on over 5,000 of the world’s largest publicly traded companies. 3p readers get 40% off CSRHub’s professional subscriptions with promo code “TP40″

By Carol Pierson Holding

Last week, someone posing as a Heartland Institute board member persuaded  a staff member to send him a “new email” board package, which he then released to environmental activist websites. The package contained descriptions of Heartland’s intention to develop curriculum for K-12 children that would recast current teachings on global warming as a scientific controversy.

This change in basic science curriculum is surely as doomed to failure as the challenge to teaching evolution. Already, a group of climate scientists has urged Heartland to “recognize how its attacks on science and scientists have helped poison the debate over climate change policy.” But it is interesting to consider what might happen if such a change were instituted. How vulnerable are children to misinformation about the environment? Do they even care?

It’s a fair question. Children have never been more remote from nature. As a Children and Nature Networks paper summarizing 45 studies on the topic reported:

  • In the early 2000s, 71 percent of mothers recalled playing outdoors every day as children, but only 26 percent of them said their kids play outdoors daily.
  • In 2007, 42 percent of children ages 6 to 17 participated in outdoor activity less than 30 times a year.
  • Between 1975 and 2005, walking and bicycling to school dropped nearly 25 percent.
  • In 2005-2006, children between 8 and 18 spent an average of 6.5 hours a day with electronic media, though 1.75 of those hours are spent with music.


I first considered whether my daughter’s generation would carry the environmental torch in 2005 when I heard talk given by Richard Louv at a Conservation International event. Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods and coiner of the term “nature deficit disorder,” told us a story about when he took his children to a party at a park that sat above a river. His children bounded out of the car towards the water. The party’s host shrieked in fear – they would be unsupervised! and exposed to God knows what! Louv used this story to illustrate that children are raised to see nature as something scary rather than as a source of wonder. Making his nature-deprived argument even more urgent, Louv asked, where will we find the people with the will to safeguard our National Parks and Forests? To run the EPA? Who in future generations will have the visceral love of nature that underscores its protection, even when that protection impedes growth?

Two things give me hope. First, the trend seems to be reversing. Though visits to US National Parks fellin recent decades, there are now signs of rebound, possibly due to the recession or greater public awareness about the benefits of nature for children. A 2005 study by the American Institutes for Research demonstrated that students in outdoor science programs improved their science testing scores by 27 percent.  Participation in outdoor education was directly associated with improved conflict resolution skills and cooperation. Michele Obama’s Let’s Move campaign against obesity is focused on getting kids outdoors again. The National Wildlife Federation has a parallel effort called Be Out There, citing research that connects the lack of outdoor time to not only increased obesity, but also depression, stress, diabetes, ADD and poor performance in the classroom. PTAs are insisting recess be reinstated into the school day.

And I wonder if kids would even buy a teacher telling them that our behavior is not causing climate change. In her post for CSRHub, Cynthia Figge posits that “(Those under 30) have an innate understanding of the ecological and social issues facing the planet. They do not debate whether these challenges exist or are an imperative for their generation.”

Figge calls them “sustainability natives,” arguing that just as citizens under 30 are digital natives for having grown up in an era where it is hardly an option not to be digital, so today’s young people consider sustainability an immutable part of their culture.

At a very early age, society teaches children to act as-if they understand what their older siblings learn in school about climate change in simple acts like separating the recycling at home and outside too, at places like McDonald’s and the movies.

So even if children are faced with a curriculum that demotes climate change to a scientific controversy, they will still act as-if because it’s their native culture. It’s built in to their screen time: the code for bad-guys is someone who smokes or doesn’t recycle. WALL E was their first hero. They cheered inAvatar as much for the aliens as for the natural beauty that man was set to destroy. My bet is that Heartland will be hard-pressed to convince this generation otherwise.

Photo courtesy of Michelle Landwehr.


Carol Pierson Holding writes on environmental issues and social responsibility for policy and news publications, including the Carnegie Council’s Policy Innovations, Harvard Business Review, San Francisco Chronicle, India Time, The Huffington Post and many other web sites. Her articles on corporate social responsibility can be found on CSRHUB.com, a website that provides sustainability ratings data on 5,000 companies worldwide. Carol holds degrees from Smith College and Harvard University.

CSRHub provides access to corporate social responsibility and sustainability ratings and information on nearly 5,000 companies from 135 industries in 65 countries. Managers, researchers and activists use CSRHub to benchmark company performance, learn how stakeholders evaluate company CSR practices and seek ways to change the world.

 CSRHub rates 12 indicators of employee, environment, community and governance performance and flags many special issues. We offer subscribers immediate access to millions of detailed data points from our 140-plus data sources. Our data comes from six socially responsible investing firms, well-known indexes, publications, “best of” or “worst of” lists, NGOs, crowd sources and government agencies. By aggregating and normalizing the information from these sources, CSRHub has created a broad, consistent rating system and a searchable database that links each rating point back to its source.

 


▼▼▼      4 Comments     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup

Comments

  1. February 27, 2012 at 9:29 am PDT | None writes:

    re: “This change in basic science curriculum is surely as doomed to failure as the challenge to teaching evolution. ”

    Real science requires validation against reality and not merely theories. AGW skeptics are the real scientists. It is the climate change true believers that wish to abandon science.

    Teaching AGW as a ‘settled science” is about as rational as teaching homeopathy (which is complete junk science not taken seriously by real scientists despite having “journals” and “researchers” publishing flawed studies), but then you probably aren’t scientifically literate enough to grasp the problems and are merely relying on the politically correct view of the topic you’ve picked up from the media. 

    Reply Or REGISTER HERE if you are new.

  2. February 27, 2012 at 11:05 am PDT | James Mayeau writes:

    It’s like the Bigfoot hunters getting validated by Animal Planet. They seem sure of themselves in an auditorium explaining to a throng of like minded people how shooting off fireworks in the middle of the woods at night “draws in the ‘squatch”.  
    But then you see the episode where they light the fireworks in the Tennessee woods, oblivious to their surroundings and the neighboring residents. You should have seen the shocked looks on their faces, when some farmer waken from a sound sleep by a bunch of idiots shooting off Roman candles, shot his own gun a couple times off in the dark distance.

    They got sober quick. 

    Reply Or REGISTER HERE if you are new.

  3. February 27, 2012 at 13:32 pm PDT | Charlie Martin writes:

    That someone, by the way, would be Peter Gleick, late of the Pacific Institute.  “Late of” because he went on leave after admitting to the crime,.

    Reply Or REGISTER HERE if you are new.

  4. February 27, 2012 at 17:17 pm PDT | Info writes:

    Teaching children to protect our natural resources and to re-use rather than being wasteful is teaching social responsibility.  Teaching kids that climate change is man made and that we are destroying the earth is teaching environmentalism as a religion.  Man made climate change is easily proven false. Any good science relies on controls within experiments. The control for this is the other planets. Simply look at the images of Mars and Jupiter.  The martian polar caps were melting at about the same rate as ours.  Remember the red spot on Jupiter? Now it has several.  The reason? – Good ol’ climate change.  Its solar activity – not man made.

    Reply Or REGISTER HERE if you are new.

Leave a Reply

  1. Please leave an intelligent comment. You are welcomed to link to your company or website, but entirely self promotional posts will be marked as spam.
There are 3 ways to comment on 3P

2. Facebook Users

Login to your Facebook account

3. Members

Register for an account or login.

Subscribe to Comments