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.”

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…

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?

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)