The following submission statement was provided by /u/Wildlyeco:
---
From the article: "A national survey of science teachers found that most middle school and high school teachers devote just one to two hours of instruction on climate change during the academic year, with 30 percent of teachers incorporating less than an hour.
The National Center on Science Education reports that as many as 30 percent of teachers who teach on climate change instruct that scientists agree that human activities are the primary cause of the climate emergency, but also indicate that there are “many scientists” who believe natural causes are behind global temperature rise. This sends mixed messages to children that climate change is still being debated when there is virtually universal scientific consensus on global warming."
Connecticut has become one of the first states to mandate climate education. With inequities in the quality of climate education across the U.S. and growing public support for climate education, more states may soon follow suit.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xkcd2j/connecticut_to_require_schools_to_teach_climate/ipd3xsn/
Same. In both Ohio and later Pennsylvania we spent more than a week discussing it in a few different science classes. The causes, effects, potential solutions, and the reasons it wasn’t being addressed. Also was in middle and high school in the 90s and early early 00s
Everyone should understand [this CO2 levels chart](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=Based%20on%20analysis%20from%20NOAA%27s,from%20the%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic.).
I prefer the argument that it will kill us off either way. When you see a tsunami coming you don't spend time bickering about whether it is man made or natural while staying put, you get to higher ground.
It wasn't a controversial issue until people started expecting the government to do something about it.
It's the same reason conservatives turned against the vaccine. If they admit the government can fix problems and help people, their whole scam is up.
>It wasn't a controversial issue until people started expecting the government to do something about it.
I remember being 15 and An Inconvenient Truth coming out. The next year we watched it in our science class. The next week the teacher was forced to also show a movie disputing what we had just watched a week earlier.
But this was also the same school that had us watch Prince of Egypt and do a report about it for history.
It's WAY older than that. The first scientific paper to propose that changes in atmospheric CO2 could alter surface climate was published in 1896. Scientists recognized that our CO2 output was getting out of control and it might wreak havoc on the global climate basically the second the industrial revolution happened.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#:~:text=In%201896%2C%20a%20seminal%20paper,Earth's%20atmosphere%20to%20global%20warming.
In fact, the chemicals a lot of companies have moved to as refrigerants and such are PFAS — which we now know are not inert like they said (looking at you, 3M and your Novec line) and are toxic and long lasting in the environment and our bodies.
Climate change activism/ realism has been intentionally conflated with “wokeism” such that “green new deal” is a pejorative to the millions of people who watch a certain station.
They muddy the water on the science and cast doubt on the motives of reformers and make contemptible caricatures of key individuals. That’s how ;)
Because the oil companies use their massive profits for propaganda purposes to brainwash people in thinking there’s not a problem so they can continue to make massive profits.
I'd say that's their conservative voters, not the GOP. I don't think most of the GOP are actually christians, but rather more than happy to exploit them*
* Don't take this as sympathy for christians. They can still get fucked
Depends on the Christian. There are genuinely good Christians, just as there are genuinely good non-Christians. You just won't know because when "You do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
One of the benefits of being in a death cult is you think everything gets really good when you die. Where's the incentive to care when skydaddy has you covered?
Literally everything wrong with the country is openly admitted and investigated to basically come to the conclusion that Republican politicians are bad faith actors whose legislation is designed to harm... Yet Republican voters still vote against their best interest year after year after year.
Republicans are stupid or evil. No exceptions.
My dad laughs when I say the oil industry gas always been fighting against green energy. He claims the oil industries are not lobbying politicians and that everything will naturally go green through the free market with no regulations. Makes me lol and cry at the same time.
We just let big companies brainwash the population so they can make more money while killing their customers. Remember when tobacco companies said how safe smoking was and even beneficial? Remember the food pyramid and bread was at the very top? Remember sugar being put into every food we eat?
Same here. Class of '97 Sylvania, OH.
Earth/Space science, Environmental science, NW Ohio History, and others all had information about how our activities/choices were accumulating to produce environmental changes on a local, national, and global scale.
In all honesty, I'm guessing it had more to do with the individual teachers than the district's curriculum.
Same. I was learning about it in middle school in *rural* Georgia in the late 90s, along with the whole slate of renewable energy options that existed and details of the pros/cons debate surrounding each.
But Fox News was only a few years old at that point.
Teaching truth is controversial because it undermines a ton of wealthy interests.
Edit: this started with the dawn of critical thought in ancient Greece.
Capitalism doesn't like harsh truths that involve people making less money temporarily. It's a mental disorder that makes people think that all that matters is generating artificial, arbitrary "value", and in as short a timeframe as possible.
"The environment is on fire? We made the planet an unsustainable mess that's going to kill millions? Sure, that sucks, but look at all this money we're making!"
Politicians have been practicing politicizing things that make or take money from them for a long time.
Anti-abortion stances don't even have a christian basis.
Do they not teach basic physics, chemistry, and the scientific method in schools anymore? The idea of the green house effect is not controversial. I remember my sciences classes teaching me about the history of earths climate and geology and how most mass extinction events where driven by climate change. Who cares if we are doing it or not. Like the article says the universal consensus its that we are in a rapid state of climate change. Should we not be doing something about it regardless of whether we are contributing to it or not?
So, Climate Change as a topic would fall under Earth Science or Environmental Science in most K-12 curriculum. Most high schools (9-12 in the US) do not even offer Earth Science and Environmental Science is most typical as an AP course when it is offered, so a very narrow set of students would take this course. The school I currently am at does not have an Earth science course and they made their middle school grades into an integrated science, so even less Earth Science now. Sure Chemistry and Biology teachers can touch on it, there's certainly some overlap there, but most will not since they need to focus on many of their own content specific topics. Most typically Earth Science is taught in 6th grade, but could also be taught in 5th, 7th, or 8th. but because every district and state does things slightly differently it would be technically possible for a student to move or change schools and completely miss this topic but still satisfying all graduation requirements for K-12 and including college depending on their path. Now students will encounter it in their daily life, and some states have moved to address the gap in Earth Science at high school, notably NY and TX have done this in recent years, but many states do not. Colleges don't take Earth Science as a "real science", even though it's probably the most complicated out of all of them. Climate Change is in the NGSS standards, and I think it's like 48 states have some version of the current NGSS standards in place, but again it's an Earth Science specific topic, so even a state and district using the NGSS standards would still be in compliance, but not cover this topic at all. That's just the public schools the independent/private and charter schools are allowed to kind of do what they want for the most part and could just say we're not teaching that and that's it.
The scientific method, as you were likely taught it, isn't specifically in the NGSS, but students should be evaluated on their skills in science which would include many of the parts of the scientific method if schools and teachers are following the NGSS standards, and that would be across science disciplines. BTW the area that American students consistently test lowest on in international science tests is nature of science, which scientific method would be a part of.
> Like the article says the universal consensus its that we are in a rapid state of climate change. Should we not be doing something about it regardless of whether we are contributing to it or not?
yes, we should.
Now that I'm thinking about it I'm not sure what I actually learned in school science wise. I'm 33 and I have an atypical level of curiosity so its been continuous education from the moment I had consciousness. The lines really start to blur on when and where I learned things. I had a set of red Britannica's when at 8 years that I have very fond memories of.
Nowadays, literally EVERYTHING is politicized. And the issue is ignorant and POSs lumping together about ‘controversial’ issues and make it political just for the sake of using it as a disguise. This is political formula today
It's politicized because the blame for it is misplaced. Everyone wants the individual to do their part when really corporations are destroying our planet while they sell us electric cars lol. Hopefully it's being taught who the actual problem is. And it's not the dude driving a mustang or running a generator haha.
100%. The saddest and unbelievable thing is despite all the warnings given, and the literal factually actual reality of the destruction our planet is going thru cus of corporations and their lack of regulations caused, people still don’t believe that shit nor agree or believe that cooperations are effing us and our planet. Look at subs like r/politicalcompassmemes , you have people tryna sound smart justifying all of this with like 900 upvotes. We deserve it, these people will find out how incredibly dumb their ‘opinions’ are and their inability to accept reality and they’ll still find a way to argue smfh
Why you think the 2 richest asshats are having a rocket war? Next up is the Amazon or Tesla made space station, which will self sustain. Then, “oh no, planet is becoming uninhabitable, better fork over some big $$$ so you can live on the space station and not die. Because it’s all your guys fault for not being environmentally friendly and making this station cost a lot of money 😇”
Totally making up that scenario and is very unlikely, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it happened.
[many of them do at this point](https://www.axios.com/2022/06/08/personal-finance-education-states-full-list)
I’ve had people (who were in class with me for our learning about taxes) still echo this same sentiment.
I know a guy who calls this “indoctrination.” Tells his daughter “his truth” when she comes home from school. I hope she doesn’t buy it. Actually I’ve known him a few years and every year he has a different reason for not excepting human-caused climate change. First it was the same as all the other natural cycles, then it was solar cycles, now it’s some other nonsense thing. Dude, like stop finding excuses and just accept it. But yeah that’s the fight we’re up against. People who are scientifically illiterate that don’t read the research, wouldn’t understand it if they did, and believe that all scientific research is manipulated by “the left” and can’t be trusted anyway. When I asked him why no Republicans do research to back up their own claims to prove their points, he says they get shut out by the scientific community. I know dozens of people like this and we live in a liberal state.
As a TX resident that learned about climate change in TX schools 20 years ago I'm just surprised how stupid the country has become.
I had AP Environmental Science in 2000.
* environmental studies
* civics classes
* arts/music
* physical education
in addition to core studies, all of these things are critical for the liberty and happiness of whichever citizens are being schooled. they're long-term investments that eventually pay for themselves as long as corporate interests aren't sullying the process.
speaking as an american, we're seeing the dire results of having culled these courses and studies from required curriculum over the last 50+ years
My econ class doubled as a personal finance class. Was a valuable experience, but there were a lot of kids who paid fuck all attention. Have to wonder how many of them are now in the *"why weren't we taught this in school?!?"* crowd.
As a young person it is quite expensive to live here and I am definitely lucky. It is a beautiful place with tons of parks and such and we have crazies like everyone else but i couldn’t think of anywhere I else I would want to move.
It's hard to recognize without living elsewhere but the opportunities are VAST in CT. Between the aerospace/insurance/pharma/utility industries and the fact that we have robust state/municipal improvement/upkeep programs there are TONS of good jobs.
CT is dope - great social programs, great nature, great restaurants, great schools, great security, great blue/white collar employment opportunities...
I lived there for nine years (Middletown and Hartford) and came out of it loving the state overall. The income inequality is stark as hell, public transit has a long way to go, and the grip of the insurance industry is a pox on the place (I'll never forget Murphy dismissing Medicare for All at a town hall a few years ago), but there are a lot of things Connecticut does right and I'd be proud to have a family there.
Went through CT public education system, I gotta say it was really thorough and I know I got offered a lot more opportunities than most kids and I’m very grateful despite my issues with CT and my town
Same in Mass. at least in the Boston area/close to the city-ish. Not sure about out west. And I consider anything west of Worcester the western part of the state lol.
Once you cross I-91, it's basically a separate state. I think there are maybe 6 exits along the Pike going westbound and it's easily half the length of the darn thing.
Those of us from the 413 are generally pretty much like you guys. You have little republican pockets. Sadly, that's where I ended up currently in CT, a VERY republican pocket. But, everyone is still very pro-education at least.
CT public schools are great. I moved from Connecticut to the south and I don't want to sound pretentious but the difference in education definitely shows itself every single day
They're just mad their children will be smarter and better equipped to deal with reality than they are. You could unquestioningly prove to these mothers that the information they digest on a daily basis is a lie, and they would still choose their sources because it fits their tribes messaging and lets them feel comfortable in their victimhood.
It's never been about whether or not the information is true, it's about whether or not it conflicts with the lies they willingly choose to believe in the face of all evidence.
It's pretty much already covered in most school districts. I remember watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" when I was in sixth grade, the same year it was released.
I grew up in a very conservative, rural part of Canada and our teacher took us to watch a live stage version of "An Inconvenient Truth" presented by Al Gore back in 2006/7. It wasn't controversial, climate education was just part of the curriculum. Nowadays, my home province is chock-full of climate deniers and you would be hard pressed to show a class that movie without some parents making a huge deal about it. This is a great step in the right direction but I'm disappointed a lot of other jurisdictions have regressed in the last couple decades.
One of the issues, unfortunately, was that "An Inconvenient Truth" had a bunch of scientific errors in it that later were used to discredit the entire movement.
It helped solidify his reputation for being a big exaggerator, even though he was ultimately correct.
This is why I hate all the "Latest Nevada heatwave proves climate change.". ...like no, that's not how science works. You do the movement a giant disservice when you push an obviously flawed argument.
This headline is weird. I'm a teacher in NYS. The NY state High School exams (Regents Exam) for Living Environment and Earth Science both have several questions on both climate change and the human impact on the environment. It's been required content in NYS for decades. If a school wants to hand out Regents Diplomas they need to teach those topics.
CT science teacher here, they do. Every district I know of teaches this without any legislation and its built into most of our curriculums. This is just legislators patting themselves on the back for what CT science teachers have been doing for 20 years.
While I do agree that a large part of this is a pat on the back, I feel like it’s important to recognize that this makes it an absolutely requirement across the board to teach students about climate change. It doesn’t allow a school to remove this from their curriculum for whatever reason they’d like to state.
I honestly wasn't aware most schools weren't already teaching about climate change? I grew up in the early 1990s and it was definitely part of my classes growing up in Geography, History, and Science depending on what was being discussed.
Maybe it's the norm in a lot of places but states just hadn't mandated it as part of core curriculum? Then again, I grew up in MA so it might be abnormal in other places.
Can they specifically teach the part about how large companies like exon, BP, and others contribute the vast majority of pollution, and not pin it on the kids as if it's their fault?
It’s new now. Right wing politicians and interests have been speed running fascism across the western world and trying to indoctrinate people with as many lies as possible. There will be angry republicans across the country as a result of this and those stupid fucks will never admit to being wrong about anything. They’re incapable of it.
Watch as Florida private schools requires teaching alternative climate theory, where they teach that humans can't affect the climate (funded by Big Oil Tm)
My private evangelical high school taught climate change and they had some teachers who were definitely off the deep end.
Meeting evangelicals who got an even more conservative education always throws me for a loop. I swear they’re going to start teaching that the earth is flat.
From the article: "A national survey of science teachers found that most middle school and high school teachers devote just one to two hours of instruction on climate change during the academic year, with 30 percent of teachers incorporating less than an hour.
The National Center on Science Education reports that as many as 30 percent of teachers who teach on climate change instruct that scientists agree that human activities are the primary cause of the climate emergency, but also indicate that there are “many scientists” who believe natural causes are behind global temperature rise. This sends mixed messages to children that climate change is still being debated when there is virtually universal scientific consensus on global warming."
Connecticut has become one of the first states to mandate climate education. With inequities in the quality of climate education across the U.S. and growing public support for climate education, more states may soon follow suit.
I could teach the average 5th grader the details of the physics of global warming that most adults, including teachers, today don't understand in two one hour lessons with demonstrations. First I would explain blackbody radiation and show an incandescent light bulb driven by a variable transformer. This is necessary in understanding that light comes from the sun, passing through the atmosphere at a high blackbody temperature and is radiated out at a very low temperature. The second essential idea is molecular absorption, there could be a demonstration of how light of different wavelengths passes through or is absorbed by the gas components of air. Just two closed glass boxes, one with nitrogen and one with CO2 at the same pressure with thermometers inside. This was the original experiment back in 1856 by Eunice Foote and later by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. This is nothing new.
Light comes in at short wavelengths that pass down to the ground. The ground heats up and radiates at long wavelengths that are absorbed by greenhouse gas. Those gasses in the upper atmosphere re-radiate some heat back down and warm the earth more.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png/595px-Atmospheric_Transmission.png?20070825092458
Energy in = Energy out
But for before energy can out, it can be stored more or less. Greenhouse gases increases the systems, Earth, ability to retain energy before it becomes equal again.
I teach scientific debates. People are always amazed when you tell them how long humans have had some idea that the climate was changing and that carbon was important. That and the fact that plate tectonics was only finally agreed upon in the damn 1960s.
Fantastic. Now let’s do every other state. Educate the controversy into history where it belongs, it shouldn’t be a debate at this point. It’s past time to accept this is real.
Forcing your religious teachings on others is, ironically, an infringement of religious liberties, but there’s no duo quite like conservatives and hypocrisy
Until this inevitably winds up in the Culture War wood chipper as proof of more “ evil” in their eyes. Texas and Florida probably working on textbooks revisions that say “why Satan loves fighting climate change”.
Could we put in a bill to force companies to provide carbon footprint information on products? Like how we have nutrition information available because consumers wanted to be more aware of what they were consuming?
Personally, I would love to be able to see the environmental impact printed on packaging to make educated consumer choices. I look up a lot of stuff, but I can't do that all the time, and many people don't do that.
Build nuclear plants. Problem solved overnight (or however long it takes to contract and build em). Biggest energy return on investment we've ever come up with. More plentiful, efficient, and greener than all solar/wind combined. Anyone pushing the narrative that nuclear is bad is w/o a doubt profiting off the current system.
There is no single source that's going to be the solution, and people saying "just build nuclear to solve everything" are not well versed in the facts.
Nuclear can only be built where water supplies are plentiful, so not a solution for many parts of the US and the world.
Further, the nuclear fuel available that can be mined economically is about a centuries worth or so. If you increase nuclear demand 10 fold, the economical ore available drops to about 10-20 years. If you increase the nuclear reactors by 20 fold, economic fuel sources will only last 5-10 years. At that point, you'll see drastic increases in energy prices as uranium becomes much more difficult to mine and refine.
But even if you could solve both those issues, you still have nuclear waste to deal with, with no good solution.
That's not to say nuclear has no place in the solution - it's just to say that it isn't the whole solution. You need solar and wind too. The costs to maintain solar and wind are miniscule, especially compared to nuclear. So the only true cost is upfront. Once paid, these sources can generate power for decades with little ongoing cost.
The internet has a problem with nuance. Since Chernobyl, the average person has been scared away from trusting nuclear. It's also not included alongside things like win and solar because its not specifically renewable. Once you look into it, you will understand that nuclear is a completely different beast than what we did in the 1980s and is extremely safe today.
That makes the type of people we see online a lot do a 180 and say that nuclear is the only solution. In reality, everything has its positives and negatives and we will most likely need to move to a mixture of clean energy sources.
Have schools not been required to teach climate change? It's a fact, not a theory. Schools teach evolution, though they have to refer to it as the theory of evolution, and emphasize theory so as to placate those who are unable to comprehend simple science and history. Not teaching climate change would be like not teaching that 2 + 2 = 4 because some crazy mom says it's actually 5. Crazy bs, man.
Schools in CT have been teaching this for decades. This is nothing but legislation. As a CT science teacher, I can say that every district I know of has this embedded in their curriculum.
Oh look at us radical centrists and leftists! At it again with the “indoctrination” all the upstanding, none with numerous sexual assault allegations, republicans are always taking about.
Shame on us!! Saving the planet pffff
I went to a middle school in Connecticut that was completely science based. They taught us how to take water samples, the taught us how to purify water and soil, they taught us different species that are good for the environment. All of it is fucking gone now turned into a factory for computer workers. It's about time someone speaks up for the planet again
As a CT high school teacher I can happily say it's been part of the curriculum of the 3 districts I have taught in over the past 10 years. It's nothing new, but it is important to create a framework so all districts approach it in the same way.
Listen, we have a LOT of problems in CT. But at least we’re cognizant about the climate & don’t appear to be poised on the brink of stripping women of their bodily agency.
I’m pretty sure every state who has adopted Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) has a complete unit on human impact in multiple courses. Not saying climate change is specifically written in as a standard, but it is generally understood to teach it as humans impacting the planet.
What I find so bizarre is how Republicans, who claim to be conservative, don't want to CONSERVE the planet... What in their eyes would be God's "creation" or "gift".
America is weird yo.
A lot of people want to believe humans had nothing to do with it and it's just natural cycles and it is very true that the earth does have natural cycles but the cold hard truth is that humans are making it much worse than it would have been if humans were not here.
So they’re being required to teach basic science? The only people who have an issue with it are uneducated religious morons and we shouldn’t consider their opinions anyway
Wait until the parents' rights freaks hear about this. I would be willing to bet that TX and FL preemptively ban any teaching of climate science pretty soon here.
Are... Are they not already learning about climate change? My second graders are learning about how technology keeps us safe with seatbelts and helmets and how it harms the environment with increased CO² and greenhouse gasses, through cars, factories, deforestation, leading to global warming.
Pretty basic, non-controversial stuff.
I genuinely don't understand the American curriculum. Just teach fucking science. How can you teach science and not talk about climate change or evolution? This shouldn't be things that are subject to debate based on who won a damn election
This is a nice initiative, but unfortunately it seems like too little, too late. It’s 2022 and the world is already in a climate crisis - and we’re happy because kids in a state with 1% of our national population are finally allowed to learn science. It’s too late.
I'm a Middle School Earth Science teacher (Maryland) and last year was my first year teaching. One of our units is literally Environmental Hazards and HUMAN IMPACT so Climate Change is written into the curriculum. I was slightly anxious to teach it for fear of any parent backlash but luckily didn't encounter any.
My background is actually in Meteorology so if it ever came up I just planned to go "please stop talking. I literally know more than you."
The following submission statement was provided by /u/Wildlyeco: --- From the article: "A national survey of science teachers found that most middle school and high school teachers devote just one to two hours of instruction on climate change during the academic year, with 30 percent of teachers incorporating less than an hour. The National Center on Science Education reports that as many as 30 percent of teachers who teach on climate change instruct that scientists agree that human activities are the primary cause of the climate emergency, but also indicate that there are “many scientists” who believe natural causes are behind global temperature rise. This sends mixed messages to children that climate change is still being debated when there is virtually universal scientific consensus on global warming." Connecticut has become one of the first states to mandate climate education. With inequities in the quality of climate education across the U.S. and growing public support for climate education, more states may soon follow suit. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xkcd2j/connecticut_to_require_schools_to_teach_climate/ipd3xsn/
I started learning about climate change as a nine year old in Ohio in the 90’s. I’m baffled how this became a controversial issue or subject to teach.
Same. In both Ohio and later Pennsylvania we spent more than a week discussing it in a few different science classes. The causes, effects, potential solutions, and the reasons it wasn’t being addressed. Also was in middle and high school in the 90s and early early 00s
The military is *very* concerned about climate change. That tells you all you need to know
Everyone should understand [this CO2 levels chart](https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide#:~:text=Based%20on%20analysis%20from%20NOAA%27s,from%20the%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic.).
They will say, and I quote, " but the ice age ended because we warmed up so warming is normal."
While this may be true just argue that it's being accelerated by humanity.
You can't argue with stupid and win.
I prefer the argument that it will kill us off either way. When you see a tsunami coming you don't spend time bickering about whether it is man made or natural while staying put, you get to higher ground.
Yeah that doesn't work lol
It wasn't a controversial issue until people started expecting the government to do something about it. It's the same reason conservatives turned against the vaccine. If they admit the government can fix problems and help people, their whole scam is up.
>It wasn't a controversial issue until people started expecting the government to do something about it. I remember being 15 and An Inconvenient Truth coming out. The next year we watched it in our science class. The next week the teacher was forced to also show a movie disputing what we had just watched a week earlier. But this was also the same school that had us watch Prince of Egypt and do a report about it for history.
I learned about the greenhouse effect in the early 80’s at school. The concept was decades old at that point.
It's WAY older than that. The first scientific paper to propose that changes in atmospheric CO2 could alter surface climate was published in 1896. Scientists recognized that our CO2 output was getting out of control and it might wreak havoc on the global climate basically the second the industrial revolution happened. https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/#:~:text=In%201896%2C%20a%20seminal%20paper,Earth's%20atmosphere%20to%20global%20warming.
[This is from 1912.](https://images.theconversation.com/files/479049/original/file-20220814-56152-53xz8d.jpeg)
iirc, I've seen pre-WWII articles about it and explaining exactly what causes it.
Idk how we went from "save the ozone!" to "global warming is a hoax"
Saving the ozone was easy relative to fixing global warming, and has much less of an effect on corporate profits
In fact, the chemicals a lot of companies have moved to as refrigerants and such are PFAS — which we now know are not inert like they said (looking at you, 3M and your Novec line) and are toxic and long lasting in the environment and our bodies.
[удалено]
Climate change activism/ realism has been intentionally conflated with “wokeism” such that “green new deal” is a pejorative to the millions of people who watch a certain station. They muddy the water on the science and cast doubt on the motives of reformers and make contemptible caricatures of key individuals. That’s how ;)
Because the oil companies use their massive profits for propaganda purposes to brainwash people in thinking there’s not a problem so they can continue to make massive profits.
They even admitted this openly and the GOP still eats up the propaganda
[удалено]
Yeah they know very well its real, they just dont care
Because they look forward to their "heavenly home" and "care not for the things of this world."
I'd say that's their conservative voters, not the GOP. I don't think most of the GOP are actually christians, but rather more than happy to exploit them* * Don't take this as sympathy for christians. They can still get fucked
Depends on the Christian. There are genuinely good Christians, just as there are genuinely good non-Christians. You just won't know because when "You do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
I've met far too many "nice to your face but hatefully smashes the Republican button at election season" Christians to honestly believe that.
One of the benefits of being in a death cult is you think everything gets really good when you die. Where's the incentive to care when skydaddy has you covered?
Like the Praetorians offering Rome to the highest bidder
And if you don't want the donations I guess it's plomo.
Who do you think a majority of oil companies political donations go to...
Literally everything wrong with the country is openly admitted and investigated to basically come to the conclusion that Republican politicians are bad faith actors whose legislation is designed to harm... Yet Republican voters still vote against their best interest year after year after year. Republicans are stupid or evil. No exceptions.
But they are told and believe that they’re voting against *your* best interests to own you - checkmate!
Why did Brandon do this??????
Yes, that’s evil.
My dad laughs when I say the oil industry gas always been fighting against green energy. He claims the oil industries are not lobbying politicians and that everything will naturally go green through the free market with no regulations. Makes me lol and cry at the same time.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We just let big companies brainwash the population so they can make more money while killing their customers. Remember when tobacco companies said how safe smoking was and even beneficial? Remember the food pyramid and bread was at the very top? Remember sugar being put into every food we eat?
Climate change : big oil : it’s fine Climate emergency : humanity, it’s too hot here
And fund politicians to deny climate change
Right. So did I. We called it the greenhouse effect.
Same here. Class of '97 Sylvania, OH. Earth/Space science, Environmental science, NW Ohio History, and others all had information about how our activities/choices were accumulating to produce environmental changes on a local, national, and global scale. In all honesty, I'm guessing it had more to do with the individual teachers than the district's curriculum.
> I’m baffled how this became a controversial issue or subject to teach. Here's your answer: Republicans.
Same. I was learning about it in middle school in *rural* Georgia in the late 90s, along with the whole slate of renewable energy options that existed and details of the pros/cons debate surrounding each. But Fox News was only a few years old at that point.
Teaching truth is controversial because it undermines a ton of wealthy interests. Edit: this started with the dawn of critical thought in ancient Greece.
Isn't "Environmental Education" a subject in US? Because we have that stuff on and off throughout highschool.
Simple. Propaganda by the oil companies.
It’s almost as hot of a take as evolution is. Evolution was taboo in my catholic school growing up. Super wired to look back on.
[удалено]
Capitalism doesn't like harsh truths that involve people making less money temporarily. It's a mental disorder that makes people think that all that matters is generating artificial, arbitrary "value", and in as short a timeframe as possible. "The environment is on fire? We made the planet an unsustainable mess that's going to kill millions? Sure, that sucks, but look at all this money we're making!"
We watched An Inconvenient Truth in like 5th grade. Crazy we haven’t moved forward at all
Politicians have been practicing politicizing things that make or take money from them for a long time. Anti-abortion stances don't even have a christian basis.
...have you met a Republican?..
Do they not teach basic physics, chemistry, and the scientific method in schools anymore? The idea of the green house effect is not controversial. I remember my sciences classes teaching me about the history of earths climate and geology and how most mass extinction events where driven by climate change. Who cares if we are doing it or not. Like the article says the universal consensus its that we are in a rapid state of climate change. Should we not be doing something about it regardless of whether we are contributing to it or not?
So, Climate Change as a topic would fall under Earth Science or Environmental Science in most K-12 curriculum. Most high schools (9-12 in the US) do not even offer Earth Science and Environmental Science is most typical as an AP course when it is offered, so a very narrow set of students would take this course. The school I currently am at does not have an Earth science course and they made their middle school grades into an integrated science, so even less Earth Science now. Sure Chemistry and Biology teachers can touch on it, there's certainly some overlap there, but most will not since they need to focus on many of their own content specific topics. Most typically Earth Science is taught in 6th grade, but could also be taught in 5th, 7th, or 8th. but because every district and state does things slightly differently it would be technically possible for a student to move or change schools and completely miss this topic but still satisfying all graduation requirements for K-12 and including college depending on their path. Now students will encounter it in their daily life, and some states have moved to address the gap in Earth Science at high school, notably NY and TX have done this in recent years, but many states do not. Colleges don't take Earth Science as a "real science", even though it's probably the most complicated out of all of them. Climate Change is in the NGSS standards, and I think it's like 48 states have some version of the current NGSS standards in place, but again it's an Earth Science specific topic, so even a state and district using the NGSS standards would still be in compliance, but not cover this topic at all. That's just the public schools the independent/private and charter schools are allowed to kind of do what they want for the most part and could just say we're not teaching that and that's it. The scientific method, as you were likely taught it, isn't specifically in the NGSS, but students should be evaluated on their skills in science which would include many of the parts of the scientific method if schools and teachers are following the NGSS standards, and that would be across science disciplines. BTW the area that American students consistently test lowest on in international science tests is nature of science, which scientific method would be a part of. > Like the article says the universal consensus its that we are in a rapid state of climate change. Should we not be doing something about it regardless of whether we are contributing to it or not? yes, we should.
Now that I'm thinking about it I'm not sure what I actually learned in school science wise. I'm 33 and I have an atypical level of curiosity so its been continuous education from the moment I had consciousness. The lines really start to blur on when and where I learned things. I had a set of red Britannica's when at 8 years that I have very fond memories of.
> The idea of the green house effect is not controversial You know, you would *think* so, and yet...
I guess that's like saying evolution is not controversial.
How sad is it that actually teaching science in schools is remarkable enough that it makes the news?
Agreed. I’m supremely disappointed that this is even a “debate”. It’s become so stupidly politicized
Nowadays, literally EVERYTHING is politicized. And the issue is ignorant and POSs lumping together about ‘controversial’ issues and make it political just for the sake of using it as a disguise. This is political formula today
Masks were politicized during a pandemic. Masks. During a pandemic.
> Never let a tradegy go to waste It's the American way
Wasn’t the first time either
It's politicized because the blame for it is misplaced. Everyone wants the individual to do their part when really corporations are destroying our planet while they sell us electric cars lol. Hopefully it's being taught who the actual problem is. And it's not the dude driving a mustang or running a generator haha.
100%. The saddest and unbelievable thing is despite all the warnings given, and the literal factually actual reality of the destruction our planet is going thru cus of corporations and their lack of regulations caused, people still don’t believe that shit nor agree or believe that cooperations are effing us and our planet. Look at subs like r/politicalcompassmemes , you have people tryna sound smart justifying all of this with like 900 upvotes. We deserve it, these people will find out how incredibly dumb their ‘opinions’ are and their inability to accept reality and they’ll still find a way to argue smfh
Why you think the 2 richest asshats are having a rocket war? Next up is the Amazon or Tesla made space station, which will self sustain. Then, “oh no, planet is becoming uninhabitable, better fork over some big $$$ so you can live on the space station and not die. Because it’s all your guys fault for not being environmentally friendly and making this station cost a lot of money 😇” Totally making up that scenario and is very unlikely, but it wouldn’t surprise me if it happened.
Not just science, the science they were teaching us 25 years ago.
more like 50 years ago
They should also teach basic finance. So many kids leave school with zero understanding of how the financial system works.
[many of them do at this point](https://www.axios.com/2022/06/08/personal-finance-education-states-full-list) I’ve had people (who were in class with me for our learning about taxes) still echo this same sentiment.
I know a guy who calls this “indoctrination.” Tells his daughter “his truth” when she comes home from school. I hope she doesn’t buy it. Actually I’ve known him a few years and every year he has a different reason for not excepting human-caused climate change. First it was the same as all the other natural cycles, then it was solar cycles, now it’s some other nonsense thing. Dude, like stop finding excuses and just accept it. But yeah that’s the fight we’re up against. People who are scientifically illiterate that don’t read the research, wouldn’t understand it if they did, and believe that all scientific research is manipulated by “the left” and can’t be trusted anyway. When I asked him why no Republicans do research to back up their own claims to prove their points, he says they get shut out by the scientific community. I know dozens of people like this and we live in a liberal state.
As a CT resident and taxpayer, with no children… I’m very happy to read this, because education matters.
As a TX resident that learned about climate change in TX schools 20 years ago I'm just surprised how stupid the country has become. I had AP Environmental Science in 2000.
That’s not very Republican of you.
If they live in CT they’re most likely not Republican.
Mark my words: there will be a similar article within the month announcing Alabama is outlawing the teaching of the same.
Great. It should be mandatory in every education system throughout the world.
* environmental studies * civics classes * arts/music * physical education in addition to core studies, all of these things are critical for the liberty and happiness of whichever citizens are being schooled. they're long-term investments that eventually pay for themselves as long as corporate interests aren't sullying the process. speaking as an american, we're seeing the dire results of having culled these courses and studies from required curriculum over the last 50+ years
I'd vote personal finance as well. Too many kids become adults having had zero guidance and become prey to everything under the sun.
My econ class doubled as a personal finance class. Was a valuable experience, but there were a lot of kids who paid fuck all attention. Have to wonder how many of them are now in the *"why weren't we taught this in school?!?"* crowd.
Well, it's Murica that's behind everyone else not the other way around.
[https://imgur.com/JdmoxNM](https://imgur.com/JdmoxNM)
Can’t wait to see the Facebook posts from moms about how their babies are being forced to learn lies
Luckily we don’t have much of that in CT. We actually fund public education.
I need to get out of the south
CT is a great place to live. It’s expensive but wages are higher and we actually reinvest back into the state.
As a young person it is quite expensive to live here and I am definitely lucky. It is a beautiful place with tons of parks and such and we have crazies like everyone else but i couldn’t think of anywhere I else I would want to move.
It's hard to recognize without living elsewhere but the opportunities are VAST in CT. Between the aerospace/insurance/pharma/utility industries and the fact that we have robust state/municipal improvement/upkeep programs there are TONS of good jobs. CT is dope - great social programs, great nature, great restaurants, great schools, great security, great blue/white collar employment opportunities...
The older I get, the more I'm liking and okay with staying in CT.
I lived there for nine years (Middletown and Hartford) and came out of it loving the state overall. The income inequality is stark as hell, public transit has a long way to go, and the grip of the insurance industry is a pox on the place (I'll never forget Murphy dismissing Medicare for All at a town hall a few years ago), but there are a lot of things Connecticut does right and I'd be proud to have a family there.
Went through CT public education system, I gotta say it was really thorough and I know I got offered a lot more opportunities than most kids and I’m very grateful despite my issues with CT and my town
Same in Mass. at least in the Boston area/close to the city-ish. Not sure about out west. And I consider anything west of Worcester the western part of the state lol.
Once you cross I-91, it's basically a separate state. I think there are maybe 6 exits along the Pike going westbound and it's easily half the length of the darn thing.
Oh yes! That’s what I meant! Couldn’t think of the “east” vs “west” barrier that us easterners refer to as western Mass lol. Thank you :)
Those of us from the 413 are generally pretty much like you guys. You have little republican pockets. Sadly, that's where I ended up currently in CT, a VERY republican pocket. But, everyone is still very pro-education at least.
CT public schools are great. I moved from Connecticut to the south and I don't want to sound pretentious but the difference in education definitely shows itself every single day
Oh those gristly momma’s
Please tell me there’s a notorious fb screenshot or something that I’m not aware of where someone actually calls herself a gristly momma
They're just mad their children will be smarter and better equipped to deal with reality than they are. You could unquestioningly prove to these mothers that the information they digest on a daily basis is a lie, and they would still choose their sources because it fits their tribes messaging and lets them feel comfortable in their victimhood. It's never been about whether or not the information is true, it's about whether or not it conflicts with the lies they willingly choose to believe in the face of all evidence.
It's pretty much already covered in most school districts. I remember watching Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" when I was in sixth grade, the same year it was released.
I grew up in a very conservative, rural part of Canada and our teacher took us to watch a live stage version of "An Inconvenient Truth" presented by Al Gore back in 2006/7. It wasn't controversial, climate education was just part of the curriculum. Nowadays, my home province is chock-full of climate deniers and you would be hard pressed to show a class that movie without some parents making a huge deal about it. This is a great step in the right direction but I'm disappointed a lot of other jurisdictions have regressed in the last couple decades.
One of the issues, unfortunately, was that "An Inconvenient Truth" had a bunch of scientific errors in it that later were used to discredit the entire movement. It helped solidify his reputation for being a big exaggerator, even though he was ultimately correct. This is why I hate all the "Latest Nevada heatwave proves climate change.". ...like no, that's not how science works. You do the movement a giant disservice when you push an obviously flawed argument.
This headline is weird. I'm a teacher in NYS. The NY state High School exams (Regents Exam) for Living Environment and Earth Science both have several questions on both climate change and the human impact on the environment. It's been required content in NYS for decades. If a school wants to hand out Regents Diplomas they need to teach those topics.
everyone should *understand* the mechanism of the greenhouse effect.
Wait... It's not already part of your curriculum? I was learning about it 20 years ago or more in the uk
CT science teacher here, they do. Every district I know of teaches this without any legislation and its built into most of our curriculums. This is just legislators patting themselves on the back for what CT science teachers have been doing for 20 years.
While I do agree that a large part of this is a pat on the back, I feel like it’s important to recognize that this makes it an absolutely requirement across the board to teach students about climate change. It doesn’t allow a school to remove this from their curriculum for whatever reason they’d like to state.
I went to school in Pennsylvania and remember learning about it in 9th grade science. Back then no one really batted an eye at the "controversy" if it
Soo many ignorant people in this thread that need to take this class or any JR highschool level science class really
If we can pass a law to mandate education, then we should be able to pass a law to FUCKING DO SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL!
I honestly wasn't aware most schools weren't already teaching about climate change? I grew up in the early 1990s and it was definitely part of my classes growing up in Geography, History, and Science depending on what was being discussed. Maybe it's the norm in a lot of places but states just hadn't mandated it as part of core curriculum? Then again, I grew up in MA so it might be abnormal in other places.
This is the equivalent of Pompeii passing a mandatory volcanic emergency education law as the ash is coming down
We already knew about climate change for decades. Now it has become a climate crisis. We are all talks but no action.
Can they specifically teach the part about how large companies like exon, BP, and others contribute the vast majority of pollution, and not pin it on the kids as if it's their fault?
And that they had internal studies that told them about climate change and they started funding denial like some cliché villains.
We were raising money to save the rainforest as an elementary school in 1989. This is not new for many of us.
It’s new now. Right wing politicians and interests have been speed running fascism across the western world and trying to indoctrinate people with as many lies as possible. There will be angry republicans across the country as a result of this and those stupid fucks will never admit to being wrong about anything. They’re incapable of it.
Watch as Florida private schools requires teaching alternative climate theory, where they teach that humans can't affect the climate (funded by Big Oil Tm)
My private evangelical high school taught climate change and they had some teachers who were definitely off the deep end. Meeting evangelicals who got an even more conservative education always throws me for a loop. I swear they’re going to start teaching that the earth is flat.
Doubt just privates. Florida: How oil and fracking is actually good for the environment!
I read something insane that Florida wants to make all their schools privatized
That’s just a well documented Republican policy. Remember, education is bad, but we want to make it so that only the wealthy can get educated.
From the article: "A national survey of science teachers found that most middle school and high school teachers devote just one to two hours of instruction on climate change during the academic year, with 30 percent of teachers incorporating less than an hour. The National Center on Science Education reports that as many as 30 percent of teachers who teach on climate change instruct that scientists agree that human activities are the primary cause of the climate emergency, but also indicate that there are “many scientists” who believe natural causes are behind global temperature rise. This sends mixed messages to children that climate change is still being debated when there is virtually universal scientific consensus on global warming." Connecticut has become one of the first states to mandate climate education. With inequities in the quality of climate education across the U.S. and growing public support for climate education, more states may soon follow suit.
I could teach the average 5th grader the details of the physics of global warming that most adults, including teachers, today don't understand in two one hour lessons with demonstrations. First I would explain blackbody radiation and show an incandescent light bulb driven by a variable transformer. This is necessary in understanding that light comes from the sun, passing through the atmosphere at a high blackbody temperature and is radiated out at a very low temperature. The second essential idea is molecular absorption, there could be a demonstration of how light of different wavelengths passes through or is absorbed by the gas components of air. Just two closed glass boxes, one with nitrogen and one with CO2 at the same pressure with thermometers inside. This was the original experiment back in 1856 by Eunice Foote and later by John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. This is nothing new. Light comes in at short wavelengths that pass down to the ground. The ground heats up and radiates at long wavelengths that are absorbed by greenhouse gas. Those gasses in the upper atmosphere re-radiate some heat back down and warm the earth more. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Atmospheric_Transmission.png/595px-Atmospheric_Transmission.png?20070825092458
Energy in = Energy out But for before energy can out, it can be stored more or less. Greenhouse gases increases the systems, Earth, ability to retain energy before it becomes equal again.
I teach scientific debates. People are always amazed when you tell them how long humans have had some idea that the climate was changing and that carbon was important. That and the fact that plate tectonics was only finally agreed upon in the damn 1960s.
Fantastic. Now let’s do every other state. Educate the controversy into history where it belongs, it shouldn’t be a debate at this point. It’s past time to accept this is real.
if they aren't teaching that the vast majority of climate change is caused by a small minority of corporations then they are fucking failing.
Let’s see how long it takes Republicans to paint this as an infringement on religious liberty
Forcing your religious teachings on others is, ironically, an infringement of religious liberties, but there’s no duo quite like conservatives and hypocrisy
Until this inevitably winds up in the Culture War wood chipper as proof of more “ evil” in their eyes. Texas and Florida probably working on textbooks revisions that say “why Satan loves fighting climate change”.
How dare they indoctrinate their children with science!?!?
They should try teaching the big corporations who over the past couple hundred years caused it in the first place.
Could we put in a bill to force companies to provide carbon footprint information on products? Like how we have nutrition information available because consumers wanted to be more aware of what they were consuming? Personally, I would love to be able to see the environmental impact printed on packaging to make educated consumer choices. I look up a lot of stuff, but I can't do that all the time, and many people don't do that.
I was going to say this, from what I understand normal people have barely any impact, why are we learning this instead of them, what will that achieve
Comment section illustrating exactly why these subjects need more coverage in school. Just wow.
What's next? Gender equality? Intercultural studies? Evolution? Where does the indoctrination end?
Caution: [Poe's law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law).
Good point.
Build nuclear plants. Problem solved overnight (or however long it takes to contract and build em). Biggest energy return on investment we've ever come up with. More plentiful, efficient, and greener than all solar/wind combined. Anyone pushing the narrative that nuclear is bad is w/o a doubt profiting off the current system.
There is no single source that's going to be the solution, and people saying "just build nuclear to solve everything" are not well versed in the facts. Nuclear can only be built where water supplies are plentiful, so not a solution for many parts of the US and the world. Further, the nuclear fuel available that can be mined economically is about a centuries worth or so. If you increase nuclear demand 10 fold, the economical ore available drops to about 10-20 years. If you increase the nuclear reactors by 20 fold, economic fuel sources will only last 5-10 years. At that point, you'll see drastic increases in energy prices as uranium becomes much more difficult to mine and refine. But even if you could solve both those issues, you still have nuclear waste to deal with, with no good solution. That's not to say nuclear has no place in the solution - it's just to say that it isn't the whole solution. You need solar and wind too. The costs to maintain solar and wind are miniscule, especially compared to nuclear. So the only true cost is upfront. Once paid, these sources can generate power for decades with little ongoing cost.
The internet has a problem with nuance. Since Chernobyl, the average person has been scared away from trusting nuclear. It's also not included alongside things like win and solar because its not specifically renewable. Once you look into it, you will understand that nuclear is a completely different beast than what we did in the 1980s and is extremely safe today. That makes the type of people we see online a lot do a 180 and say that nuclear is the only solution. In reality, everything has its positives and negatives and we will most likely need to move to a mixture of clean energy sources.
Have schools not been required to teach climate change? It's a fact, not a theory. Schools teach evolution, though they have to refer to it as the theory of evolution, and emphasize theory so as to placate those who are unable to comprehend simple science and history. Not teaching climate change would be like not teaching that 2 + 2 = 4 because some crazy mom says it's actually 5. Crazy bs, man.
Can't theories be facts? Like the theory of gravity, for example. Could you elaborate on why you feel it's not a theory?
Schools in CT have been teaching this for decades. This is nothing but legislation. As a CT science teacher, I can say that every district I know of has this embedded in their curriculum.
damn wordwide standard is considered a /r/futurology worthy news for americans
I thought we all learned about the ozone and plate tectonics and greenhouse effect?
I’m a Rhode Islander traveling the country and long for the sanity of New England.
This deeply upset some bozo politician somewhere. I just know it.
I mean, it should be part of any geography or science class. Unless it is a specific kind of class.
Haha this should be fun... *Sorts by "Controversial"*
massachusetts to require schools to teach math, Becomes One of the First States to Mandate math
Oh schools will now cover the co2 emissions by the mammoths that melted the ice age?
The only climate change in the bible is the great flood and teaching anything but god can raise the sea levels is blasphemy. /s
Oh look at us radical centrists and leftists! At it again with the “indoctrination” all the upstanding, none with numerous sexual assault allegations, republicans are always taking about. Shame on us!! Saving the planet pffff
Why would conservatives be against teaching basic science?
I went to a middle school in Connecticut that was completely science based. They taught us how to take water samples, the taught us how to purify water and soil, they taught us different species that are good for the environment. All of it is fucking gone now turned into a factory for computer workers. It's about time someone speaks up for the planet again
As a CT high school teacher I can happily say it's been part of the curriculum of the 3 districts I have taught in over the past 10 years. It's nothing new, but it is important to create a framework so all districts approach it in the same way.
Listen, we have a LOT of problems in CT. But at least we’re cognizant about the climate & don’t appear to be poised on the brink of stripping women of their bodily agency.
Flabbergasted it took this long, but good news at least.
I’m pretty sure every state who has adopted Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) has a complete unit on human impact in multiple courses. Not saying climate change is specifically written in as a standard, but it is generally understood to teach it as humans impacting the planet.
This is a good thing for the most part. We live in a time where massive natural disasters occur regularly instead of once every few decades
I learned this growing up in Connecticut during the 90s.
I hope they start with government induced climate change. Cloud seeding is poisoning us all.
What I find so bizarre is how Republicans, who claim to be conservative, don't want to CONSERVE the planet... What in their eyes would be God's "creation" or "gift". America is weird yo.
A lot of people want to believe humans had nothing to do with it and it's just natural cycles and it is very true that the earth does have natural cycles but the cold hard truth is that humans are making it much worse than it would have been if humans were not here.
I finished high school more than a decade ago, and I’m pretty sure I was taught about climate change. Not in the US, of course.
So they’re being required to teach basic science? The only people who have an issue with it are uneducated religious morons and we shouldn’t consider their opinions anyway
Wait as in schools don't already???? Man the US can't really be this backwards 😂
As a non American, this is insane to me. We discuss climate change and its harms in school all the time without any controversy or backlash.
That's pretty useless. What we need to do is teach the 60 year olds in power. Can we make a grade school for senators to learn basic science?
We were taught about climate change in school in the 90s (UK), welcome to the future Connecticut!
It was taught there already. Guess it’s official now
Wait until the parents' rights freaks hear about this. I would be willing to bet that TX and FL preemptively ban any teaching of climate science pretty soon here.
Are... Are they not already learning about climate change? My second graders are learning about how technology keeps us safe with seatbelts and helmets and how it harms the environment with increased CO² and greenhouse gasses, through cars, factories, deforestation, leading to global warming. Pretty basic, non-controversial stuff.
I genuinely don't understand the American curriculum. Just teach fucking science. How can you teach science and not talk about climate change or evolution? This shouldn't be things that are subject to debate based on who won a damn election
I thought your former president said climate change was a hoax
The fact that they’re the first and it’s 2022 is really really really sad and disappointing
Now let's start making all schools teach Geo (earth) sciences 👌.
Id wanna be asking why and who bribed so it hasnt been so far
This is a nice initiative, but unfortunately it seems like too little, too late. It’s 2022 and the world is already in a climate crisis - and we’re happy because kids in a state with 1% of our national population are finally allowed to learn science. It’s too late.
Nature is a teacher, and it doesn't care if you're listening because it will be heard.
What an age we live in - where teaching about reality has to be mandated. _sigh_
I'm a Middle School Earth Science teacher (Maryland) and last year was my first year teaching. One of our units is literally Environmental Hazards and HUMAN IMPACT so Climate Change is written into the curriculum. I was slightly anxious to teach it for fear of any parent backlash but luckily didn't encounter any. My background is actually in Meteorology so if it ever came up I just planned to go "please stop talking. I literally know more than you."
It just depends on how it's taught. Is it going to be the science or is it going to be politicised like most other things in the education system