I count myself blessed that I don't have to teach about climate change. It's hard enough to take a coherent view yourself than to have to help others take their own stand on it. And where to begin? Normally, I'd not turn immediately to a skeptic for a teaching text, but here's Lord Lawson in a recent Spectator column:
"The burning of fossil fuels has had three consequences.
- First, it has provided — and for the foreseeable future will continue to provide — the cheapest and most reliable source of energy, which in turn has raised living standards immeasurably, enabling a substantial reduction in poverty, with its attendant evils of malnutrition, preventable disease and premature death. Its abandonment would be hugely harmful to the world’s poor.
- Second, by releasing additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it has had a well-attested and measurable effect in stimulating plant growth, greening the planet and improving its biosphere to the benefit of human and animal life in general.
- Third, the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide can also, other things being equal (which they may not be), be expected to make the planet a slightly warmer place.
This last would in turn bring some benefits (notably to human health) and some disadvantages. But to suggest that these disadvantages (to which we can in any case adapt, as mankind has successfully adapted to widely different temperatures around the world) outweigh the massive benefits from the use of fossil fuels, is — to repeat — madness. Sensibly, both China and India reject the idea of a legally binding cap on their emissions, making a ‘voluntary’ agreement at Paris meaningless."
Climate and politics, you see; and therein lies the difficulty.
However, it strikes me that starting from this text and asking students who are capable of doing so to test out and critique these ideas, might be rather interesting. All very ESD 2.
Respond