Is the National Government afraid that giving school students an environmental education is going to produce a generation of eco-activists who won’t vote National?
Why else would Nick Smith make the comment at a recent climate forum in Dunedin that the reason for axeing 27 Education for Sustainability positions around the country was because “we don’t want to be associated with anything political”. Doh?
Education for sustainability provides the academic rigour and research to the enviroschools programme. Across Dunedin there are 37 schools that are part of this programme. In my electorate, at least 14 schools at last count (which probably needs updating). I’ve seen first hand the benefits being an enviroschool brings to particularly a low decile school. Can you tell me why, in this time of recession, where people are losing their jobs and having to cut back to make ends meet, that a programme that teaches kids from low socio-economic backgrounds how to grow their own veges, minimise waste, be more energy efficient, how to landscape and the principles of eco-building is a waste of money?
And is it such a bad thing to encourage our young people to question, to become politically active, to have opinions and speak up? Or is Nick Smith and the rest of the National Party afraid they’ll end up not voting National.
I am so angry about this issue. Dumb dumb dumb. Watch this amazing clip, produced in Dunedin recently about the schools and the students who benefit from the enviroschools programme. I will do everything I can to draw attention to this issue. Please show your support and tell the government not to axe Education for sustainability funding.
I personally hate anything that has the word sustainability in it.
Not because I am anti environment but because the word is so undefined and can mean what ever any body wants it to mean.
Its an over used buzzword and distracts from the real problems.
I was once told by by a councillor when making an annual plan funding application to use the word ” sustainability ” and that would help my chances.
The Government’s commitment to climate change really needs to be put under the blowtorch. Forget about the sceptics and self interested deniers- there is no doubt a broad consensus (which will only grow) that we are running out of time to do something about this. Last years US election showed that.
Ask the public “Are you really prepared to trust this Government to safeguard our children’s future”.
If on the other hand you are prepared to risk your children’s future on the belief that climate change does not exist you can vote for them. Remember their is a huge penalty to be paid if you and they are wrong.
When I read the headlne I thought you were commenting on Goff’s suggestion to pay the dole to working partners of the newly unemployed.
Puzzling, you want to teach them cirricular mandated enviromentalism, and want them to question and become active. Wouldn’t that require a fairness doctrine whereby the time given to socialists’ position on enviro issues where met with equal time given to capitalists’ position?
Is the National Government afraid that giving school students an environmental education is going to produce a generation of eco-activists who won’t vote National?
Ah, now I understand why Labour never showed any interest in Financial Literacy standards in schools…
Yes, they are. People armed with facts would be able to question Nationals business at all costs platform.
It is to people who want power for the sake of power. If people actually know anything then they would question authority and what that authority tells them and NACT definitely don’t want that.
Because then people would become self-sufficient and not dependent upon the capitalists. They’d probably even become more communally aware.
Actually look at NACT policies about state dependency and you’ll realise that the alternative that they preach is dependency upon capitalists.
Well that settles it then – labour/green/nat socialism obviously is purely facts based ideology, and that should be the only thing that should be taught in school. Geez, it easy to understand why people home school, at least they can choose whether or not collectivist politics is part of the daily class. No wonder the red/blue axis won’t let go of their factory schools….creepy
The word “sustainability” gives the Right the heebie-jeebies because it implies the inclusion of the environment in the consideration of policy. With its under-lying Pre-Christian Old Testament moral framework, the Right believes the environment was given to Man by God for his use as Man sees fit and, further, concern for the environment is some extrapolation of last century’s Godless hippies and their dope-smoking LSD-addled resistance to “progress”. One of the first things the ShittyRat Junta on the Auckland City Council did was see that the word was removed from as many documents and policies as possible. It would seem National Inc is doing the same thing now and making use of the current economic Depression as just the excuse it needs to put aside concern for the future of the Earth so that it doesn’t interfere with their “aspirations going forward.”
We all remember the list of National Inc’s words that were acceptable lexicon for public servants where, for example, in Health the words,and thus the concepts, “social change, inequalities and advocacy” were removed.
The systematic imposition of this Newspeak is also a manifestation of the inner nastiness that pervades the Right as it seeks to sere out every vestige of the last Labour government. Not because there’s anything wrong with some of the material but, rather, because it brings to mind how impotent they were for the nine years Aunty Helen lead the country.
It never xeases to amaze me how you people misuse the words ‘capitalist’, ‘capitalism’, and skeptic. The only party in New Zealand that advocates Capitalism is the Libertarianz party, nobody else does. A skeptic is no somebody who takes any particular side of a debate, they are the person who is rational about which side they take; that is to say they will not accept or deny something without proof one way or the other.
As to global warming there is absolutely no statistically relevant evidence at all that it is anthropogenic (it is undoubtedly real that there is global warming but then we are coming off the back of ‘the mini ice age’), there simply has not been enough study to say one way or the other. Therefore any rational person must take the position that we do not know and demand more work to be done to see what the truth is.
Even if we were to find out that it was anthropogenic then even the strategies formulated by Labour and the Greens are pure lunacy. To combat CO2 emissions is just uneconomic, one can receive cheaper and vastly superior outcomes by targeting the many other vastly worse chemicals etc. It has been shown that if the worst estimates of the damage CO2 causes are true then for every $1 of benefit (which is calculated in a very ‘hippy’ fashion) would cost $20. This was done by Bjorn Lomborg who used the figures from the intergovernmental panel on global climate change’s most damaging estimates of CO2 and using benefit analysis from some environmental agency/group ’s worst case scenario (sorry I am not sure from which but have a feeling it was greenpeace)
Sorry Stuart I forget, what was the Libertarianz’s party vote at the 2008 election again?
Stuart
‘To combat CO2 emmissions is just uneconomic’. Which economist said that?
Try telling that to the Kiribatis and the Tokeleuans whose wells are salting up as their atolls sink, or the the Aussie wheat farmer whose rainfall is dropping each decade or the farmers on the Brahamputra who are getting flooded because of the unseasonal snow melt or the Darfarians whose grazing land is being swallowed up by the Sahara etc. etc.
If it affects us its inconvenient if affects everybody else, well bad luck, lets just sit and watch CO2 climb past 390 ppm and beyond
Of course we could wait for incontrevertable scientific evidence by then I suspect CO2 will be 450 ppm and hlf the planet starving.
Your kids will be really thanking us.
Nick Smith, if this message ever gets to you, I highly suggest you watch a season or two of Captain Planet. The flying blue man with a spiky green mullet will explain your job outline for you.
Hooligan says:
‘Puzzling, you want to teach them cirricular mandated enviromentalism, and want them to question and become active’.
and then s/he comes back with:
‘Well that settles it then – labour/green/nat socialism obviously is purely facts based ideology, and that should be the only thing that should be taught in school’.
No, you twit – we want them to work together to grow gardens, and learn how to plant things and make them grow, and collect up green waste and recycle it – we want them to learn to enjoy creating food to share and make themselves sammies that are ‘the best sandwhich I’ve ever eaten’ – we want them to get out of the box from time to time and get into some science, maths, social skills and home economics and nutrition – we want kids who are aware of their environment, who know about looking after something that’s alive and growing.
If we wanted ‘facts based ideology’ – we’d plonk National Standards on them and then wish them the best of luck!
Twit? Thanks Che – feel the earth man.
I get very nervous & down right defensive when the so-called enlightened want to force-feed my children their values. I’ll teach them values thanks, I’d much prefer you kept your religion to yourself. Have you seen inherit the wind? It’s about the forced indoctrination of our children by the evil religion/state axis.
Have no fear Hooligan, growing a garden and teaching children about the science of the environment has precious little to do with religion, forced indoctrination or even communism – it’s simply what it is: well rounded healthy activity, hands on experience out in the wilds of the playground and even some home economics and financial literacy thrown in. Honest, your children won’t come home raging against the evils of capitalism because they’re learning about horticulture, & I’d be very grateful if you did look after your own kid’s values thanks – or is it that, in your considered opinion – they’re not learning unless they’re sweating over times tables, or test scores that make their BOT proud?
Have a cup of tea and a lie down, you’ve got yourself all wound up.
Jarbury; from your comments, if one were to assume that you are indicative of those that did not vote Libertarianz, one would be forced to say exactly the same as the number of intelligent people in the country.
If you want to start being civil then I will too but until you do I owe you no such consideration.
Topcat; I suggest you read my post as then you will see the qualifications for that statement and in doing so see why your criticism is a complete and utter ‘fail’. Even in the conditional that global warming in anthropogenic and CO2 has the worst negative effect (while the other pollutants are considered to have the least negative impact) it is simply cheaper and more effective to ignore it and focus on a raft of other ‘global warming’ gases (these are cheap and extremely easy to eliminate and would result in a MUCH BIGGER positive environmental impact than if you totally eliminated man’s CO2 emissions). So even if we find global warming is anthropogenic we find that your insistence we focus on CO2 to any degree prior to the elimination of these other pollutants constitutes a misunderstanding of my post and of the ‘problem’. Finally the cost benefit analysis takes into account loss of land at the worst estimate (highest loss of land per period) but does not account for sentimentality (and nor should it).
Also I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the inherent fallacies in your argument that prevent me from taking it seriously, which include but are not limited to, ‘arumentum ad misericordium’ and the ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacies. Each of which on their own renders any argument you make from their basis irrational and therefore without substance.
Dearest Che, ‘Wound up’? Oh yes, passionately averse to the idea that you & your mates get to decide what my children do and don’t learn. You on the other hand can teach your children anything that you want, growing veggies, harvesting urine, praying to the sun god, jumping up & down while clapping hands; hell even teach them Keynesian/Marxian economics if you really want to…knock yourself out. Just leave the rest of alone, (or at least try persuasion instead of force) is that too much to ask?
Which existing parts of the curriculum have schools had to drop to make way for the enviroschools measures?
In the time of the Labour government schools have had more and more of these PC measures foisted upon them as requirements which take away more and more of core basics as well as generating mountains of paperwork.
Why does Labour want the State to teach so many things that are parents’ responsibilities (after all, children spend less than a quarter of their time at school)
“Draco T Bastard says:
July 20, 2009 at 12:52 pm”
Ah OK Draco. You’re telling us that the role of schools is to teach left wing propaganda, is it? You’re up there with John Minto opposing things like the Primary Enterprise Programme, are you?
Well Swampy that is the only way that people can be brought up believing that government control works; brainwash them into thinking it is ok and the even the best thing to do and then sit back and enjoy the lunacy.
Not very constructive contributions Stuart, Swampy and Hooligan. Environmental education is practical, it’s part of our curriculum you’ll see on the Minstry of Education’s website that a series of achievement standards for Education for Sustainability at levels 2 and 3 are aligned with The New Zealand Curriculum.
They may be used within dedicated year-long sustainability courses or be incorporated into such senior subjects as biology, geography, economics, and horticulture as well as within learning areas such as technology and the arts.
The funding cuts made by the National Government will ultimately impact on this down the track and also the ability of enviroschools to deliver the sort of information and programmes for primary schools (and secondary schools) that result in long term behaviours that benefit the environment and the community. Is that a bad thing?
The most worrying part of it all though was Nick Smith’s throw away line as mentioned in this post. For me that shows an amazing and somewhat horrifying insight into how this government thinks. And will ultimately act.
So many of you (Swampy, Stuart and Hooligan and your ilk) carried on about the nanny state this and nanny state that under Labour. Well under National we have an authoritarian, punishing father figure emerging who will tell us how to behave, not to think for ourselves and won’t provide much encouragement and support. And if we get it wrong, well watch out…
@Blip, sorry didn’t understand a word of your post
@Mark M, if you’re hung up on the word sustainability and can’t get past it to consider the real issues then you’ve got a problem mate. How about coming up with a new word? Seriously!
@Phil, it’s called maths and Labour took it (and takes it) very seriously
Well thank you Clare, may I point out as I did previously that there is not even a scrap of evidence whatsoever to show that the environmental ‘crisis’ that we find ourselves in is anthropogenic and as such means that teaching based upon this is teaching pure speculation. For all we know we may play no part in global warming (don’t quote scientific consensus because we all know that isn’t true in regards to humanity as a cause of global warming, only that there is global warming). So what is there to teach children? “We may possibly cause some large scale environmental damage, but nobody really knows, and so here is what people need to do in order to prevent this’ if we are causing the damage but then again at this stage it is just as likely that its a waste of time and effort.” A rational being would be forced to take no such action. So just to clarify seeing as we have no hard evidence one way or the other then the answer to your question is yes; teaching children a curriculum based upon what is expressed by yourself and others here is a very very bad thing.
Also even if we assume there is an anthropogenic element to it, all of our best estimates place CO2 as being a minor consideration; as something to worry about only in the eventuality that all of the far worse (and vastly easier to solve) problems have be fixed and we still find ourselves ‘in the hole’. That being said (again I might add) I stand by my earlier statement as I have quashed any possible argument you could make for the kind of ‘environmental education’ alluded to in this thread.
Oh and one final point, there is no difference between the left and the right other than in what way they want to control the populace. You accuse Key of being Authoritarian, I agree but I must also point out he is such to a far lesser extent than Clark.
Also please find the post I refer to in the above copied below (one that was ignored by the people here obviously because they could not argue against it)
“Topcat; I suggest you read my post as then you will see the qualifications for that statement and in doing so see why your criticism is a complete and utter ‘fail’. Even in the conditional that global warming in anthropogenic and CO2 has the worst negative effect (while the other pollutants are considered to have the least negative impact) it is simply cheaper and more effective to ignore it and focus on a raft of other ‘global warming’ gases (these are cheap and extremely easy to eliminate and would result in a MUCH BIGGER positive environmental impact than if you totally eliminated man’s CO2 emissions). So even if we find global warming is anthropogenic we find that your insistence we focus on CO2 to any degree prior to the elimination of these other pollutants constitutes a misunderstanding of my post and of the ‘problem’. Finally the cost benefit analysis takes into account loss of land at the worst estimate (highest loss of land per period) but does not account for sentimentality (and nor should it).
Also I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the inherent fallacies in your argument that prevent me from taking it seriously, which include but are not limited to, ‘arumentum ad misericordium’ and the ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacies. Each of which on their own renders any argument you make from their basis irrational and therefore without substance.”
[...] away in the Budget were government cuts to the Enviroschools Programme. Clare Curran has already posted on this issue, but I’ve been struck how much the cuts are resonating on the North Shore, [...]
[...] for Sustainability positions have been axed by Anne Tolley and her government. I posted on this issue a few weeks ago and anger is steadily growing around the country.