Friday, March 29, 2024

ALTERNATIVE VIEW: Climate module simplistic and personal

Avatar photo
Politicians and generals like to exploit the Christmas season. 
Reading Time: 3 minutes

For example, in 1776 George Washington crossed the Delaware River on Christmas night surprising and defeating the British-led forces.

More recently Argentina claimed the Falklands and the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

In New Zealand over the Christmas break we had a review of the Emissions Trading Scheme announced and we found out about a climate change module for primary schools.

Like the Soviet attack on Afghanistan politicians like to get the unpalatable out from under the carpet when the country is full of Christmas cheer. It usually works.

I’ve ploughed through the primary school module Climate change – prepare today, live well tomorrow.

I wasn’t impressed.

For a start, I was proudly told the module was trialled at South New Brighton School. That school is on a thin finger of land between the ocean and the estuary, not far from the sewerage ponds. They will be acutely aware of climate change.

Why the public and interest groups weren’t told of the pilot and asked for input is beyond reason and smacks of both arrogance and hidden agendas.

My main concern is the emotive approach, the ability of the module to create anxiety and the apparent wish to instill students with a missionary zeal over climate change and possible mitigation options.

Federated Farmers climate change spokesman Andrew Hoggard has taken exception to the parts concerning meat and dairy and I agree with him.

It is at best simplistic and at worse working to a personal agenda.

The part on less meat and dairy is extensive and persuasive, especially to young, impressionable minds but perhaps that’s the aim of the programme.

Telling youngsters to eat less meat and dairy products begs the simple question, compared with what?

If a person on the breadline has just one meat meal a week should they stop that?

Should a youngster take a stand and refuse school milk with the damaging health effect that action would have.

Why should youngsters, many of whom we are told are obese, stop meat and dairy and instead fill up on buns, cake and coke.

As I’ve said, the resource is simplistic.

Additional actions these young minds are bombarded with are to fly and drive less.

How practical is that? It gets to the ridiculous stage by suggesting these school children pay to offset their carbon footprint when flying.

One could respectfully ask what that will achieve other than to inflate the airlines’ profit or having them supposedly mitigating their carbon footprint by planting good farmland in trees.

They are also told to reduce their electricity use, which, again, I have a problem with. Electricity in New Zealand is clean and green. Would our educators sooner have their pupils burning coal to keep warm?

The youngsters are also told to buy local and second hand, which I don’t have an overall problem with other than to suggest, once again, it’s simplistic.

Will the Fendalton mother go to the op shop to buy her son’s Christ’s College uniform second hand? 

Will she do the same for her daughter to grace the hallowed halls of St Margaret’s?

Further, I’m unaware of any major local clothes manufacturer and locally made clothes will inevitably be considerably more expensive than those made in Asia. That says the schools programme is also elitist.

Pupils are told to plant trees and get involved with forest restoration, which won’t achieve much except making Shane Jones happy.

Greta Thunberg is quoted, lauded even. My issue is she says there’s a problem but offers no solutions. That isn’t helpful.

My further issue is the resource is wrong in fact.

According to eminent agricultural scientist Dr Jacqueline Rowarth and nutrition scientist Dr Graeme Coles a person getting minimum amino acid requirements from plant-based foods excretes more climate damaging material, primarily nitrous oxide, than a person eating meat and dairy.

The additional carbon footprint is equal to two return flights a year between NZ and London. It is massive.

The issue is that plant-delivered protein is of considerably lower nutritional value than animal-based protein, a fact the resource ignores.

There are other issues as well, such as the massive wastage with plants. Why the education programme sweeps that under the carpet is beyond belief.

Briar Lipman of the NZ Initiative is surprised the resource can so liberally mix science and political activism and Act MP David Seymour describes it as state-organised bullying.

They both have valid points.

So, my view is the resource is simply state-sponsored propaganda. It was released surreptitiously during the Christmas rush with the hope people wouldn’t notice. It is emotive and lacking in fact. It has no place in our education system.

So please sign the Feds’ petition today.

In the meantime, I can’t wait for next Christmas to see what chicanery the Government will shower upon us.

Total
0
Shares
People are also reading