Amid all the euphoria in Glasgow during COPO26, I tried to listen to a few alternative voices. Why? Partly because they exist, and partly because of a number of misgivings I have about the social and economic costs of the net zero policy. I've selected a few here, although they range over a number of issues and not just net zero policy.
Net zero is a disastrous solution to anonexistent problem
Climate change is no catastrophe
The developing world has much bigger problems than climate change
Boris Johnson is no green superhero
The great climate change fallacy
How the BBC is crushing the climate debate
It's reasonably well known that DfE civil servants are worried about the possibility that schools would be "captured" by what some would see as extreme left/green activist organisations if the government gave too much encouragement to teachers and their students to get actively involved in climate issues and action. I wonder, therefore, how happy the DfE would be for the issues raised in these articles to be raised and discussed with students.
A pre-Christmas NAEE weekly round up reported a perspective on this by Laura Hughes who's a specialist education lawyer at Browne Jacobson. Laura made this point about schools’ responsibilities:
“… the Government have taken the opportunity within the draft strategy to confirm that teaching about climate change is not a political issue and so schools do not need to present misinformation or unsubstantiated claims for balance. Accordingly schools do not need to give views of climate change deniers. However, where discussions about climate change transition into and touch upon issues such as social and economic reform, this should be handled in line with schools normal duties on political impartiality. Schools are also directed not to encourage pupils to join campaigning groups, or take part in protests. Crucially, schools are not instructed to actively discourage pupils from taking this path.”
I wonder ...
Respond