Saturday, 3 June 2017

How to teach kids about climate change where most parents are skeptics

quote [ An Idaho teacher makes the abstract tangible and is inspiring budding environmentalists ]

A tiny core-sample of hope extracted from the gloom.
Full WaPo article in extended...

Reveal

How to teach kids about climate change where most parents are skeptics

By Sarah Kaplan
June 3 at 10:52 AM

COEUR d’ALENE, Idaho — Jakob Namson peered up at the towering ponderosa pine before him. He looked at his notebook, which was full of calculations scribbled in pencil. Then he looked back at the pine. If his math was right — and it nearly always is — then he would need to plant 36 trees just like this one to offset the 831 pounds of carbon dioxide that his drive to school emits each year.

Namson, 17, gazed around at his classmates, who were all examining their own pines in northern Idaho’s Farragut State Park. He considered the 76 people in this grove, the 49,000 people in his home town of Coeur d’Alene, the millions of people in America driving billions of miles a year — and approached his teacher, Jamie Esler, with a solemn look on his face.

“I think I’m beginning to understand the enormity of the problem,” the teenager said — a revelation that Esler later described as “one of the most inspirational moments of my entire career.”

The phrase “climate change” evokes deep skepticism in northern Idaho. Less than half of adults in Kootenai County believe that human activities contribute to global warming, surveys show. In February, the state legislature urged the state board of education to rewrite the science curriculum to eliminate what one lawmaker called “an over emphasis on human caused factors.”

On Thursday, President Trump’s decision to withdraw from a landmark global climate agreement touched off a new round of combustible debate. But here in Idaho, Esler has managed to nurture a growing cadre of budding environmentalists by eschewing politics and focusing on tangible changes in the natural landscape, changes that affect the crystalline water, the ancient trees, the once-abundant snow.

“Esler is kind of a genius,” said Annika Jacobson, 17. “He teaches things in a way that doesn’t mold your brain to his, so you almost don’t notice that you’re learning all these things. Until someone on the street says they don’t believe in climate change and then you’re like, ‘Wait a minute,’ and you have all these stats and graphs and factual things.”

An athletic 32-year-old in a down vest and a ponytail, Esler has been teaching science in Idaho for almost a decade, helping establish his school’s Outdoor Studies Program, a year-long interdisciplinary program for juniors. In 2014, he was named Idaho’s Teacher of the Year. He finds the state’s skepticism about human-caused climate change ironic, he says, because the effects are increasingly evident here.

Two years ago, the devastating drought that hit most of the West sparked huge wildfires. Last summer, warmer weather contributed to an algae bloom in Fernan Lake, making the local spot too toxic for swimming. Lately, even Esler’s youngest students remark on the number of winter days when the city gets rain instead of snow.

Esler prods students to investigate and reach their own conclusions about people’s impact on the environment. Instead of lecturing about the perils of warmer winters, he takes his class into the surrounding Bitterroot Mountains to measure declining snowpack. Instead of telling them to use energy-efficient LED lightbulbs, he has them test the efficiency of four varieties and then write about which they prefer and why.

On the trip to Farragut State Park, students take pencil-thin core samples from their trees. They count the rings to get the tree’s age, then do some math to determine how much carbon the tree pulls out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis.

The teenagers marveled at the delicate rings on their samples. One girl breathed in the spicy pine scent and said, “Whoa, it’s like Bath & Body Works but better.”

“We could do this in the classroom,” Esler said. “I could just give them the numbers and show them a PowerPoint. But now I have kids smelling the inside of a tree. That’s a tangible connection. . . . I hope it makes them think about what happens to that carbon when it comes out of their tail pipe.”

The Outdoor Studies Program currently enrolls 76 rowdy students conversant in subjects such as “eutrophication” and “water snow equivalency” and will earnestly say that they “want to save the world.”

After learning about the persistence of plastic in the environment, Lenna Reardon talked her boss at the local ice cream parlor into installing a recycling bin. Connor Brooks’s family now composts. Jordan Lo, the vice president of the Environmental Club, is on a crusade to get his classmates to ditch bottled water for reusable containers.

Jacobson helped organize an “environmental health week” on campus this spring. “Most kids here honestly don’t really believe in climate change because their parents don’t,” she said. Even her boyfriend was skeptical: “What’s so important about climate literacy?” he asked her.

Jacobson made a face. When she encounters this attitude, she said, “You really just have to hit them with facts.”

And what are those facts?

Her eyes lit up.

“Do you want to see a graph?”

Jacobson whipped out her cellphone and pulled up a NASA graph of global temperature records going back hundreds of thousands of years. With her pinkie, she traced the zigzagging line through the centuries, then pointed to where it shoots up sharply in the 1950s — right when humans started adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a perilously fast rate.

“Once you see it,” she said, “it’s really hard to deny.”

Most of Esler’s students say they rarely thought about climate change before taking his class. Craig Cooper, a state water researcher who leads a local climate action group, admits that outreach is a problem.

“The single biggest failure of the climate movement is that it hasn’t done a good enough job building relationships,” Cooper said. To most people, climate change is “a political argument they don’t want to get into.”

That’s true for Chuck Morris, 53. In the 13 years he’s been hunting and hiking in Idaho, the machinist has seen winters shortening and summers drying out. He believes that humans play a role in the changes. But he is put off by the way scientists “stand up there and speak to you in jargon.” And he is skeptical of politicians who propose regulations to address it.

“Basically, the opinion I drew on it is: It’s there, but I can’t find anything that shows it’s getting worse, really,” Morris said.

Since Morris’s daughter Sarah joined Esler’s class, father and daughter have been having what he calls “discussions” — and what she calls “arguments” — about the issue.

“It’s kind of scary” to challenge a parent, she said, “but he’s respecting it.”

“She suggests things, and I don’t blow it off,” agreed Morris, adding that he wants to encourage his daughter in her favorite class. “Who knows? Maybe Sarah gets looking into [an environmental problem] and she comes up with the solution.”

The ongoing debate over the state’s public school science standards has raised awareness of the issue. In February, the legislature struck five paragraphs related to climate change and urged the standards committee to rewrite them. The standards help determine what appears in public school textbooks, statewide texts and teacher training materials.

It was the third time in three years the section on climate change had been scrutinized. Lawmakers decided the standards should be “more balanced between human and natural causes,” state Rep. Ryan Kerby (R) wrote in an email to The Post.

Esler serves on Idaho’s science standards committee. Ultimately, the group offered minor changes, which will go before the board of education in August. A paragraph that said, “Human activities have altered the biosphere, sometimes damaging or destroying natural habitats and causing the extinction of other species,” now reads: “Human activities can have consequences (positive and negative) on the biosphere, sometimes altering natural habitats and causing the extinction of other species.” A line that instructed teachers to emphasize the major role that human activities play in causing the rise in global temperature was deleted.

“It’s essentially the same science worded in a way that may be received as less abrasive,” Esler said. “The bulk of our work” was figuring out “how do we take the same science and use the English language to state it without triggering defensive, dismissive reactions?”

Esler has received teacher training through the University of Washington, NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Many of the projects his students participate in rely on federal education funds. Such support could be increasingly scarce: Trump’s 2018 budget request would eliminate the NASA education office and cut funding for the NSF by more than 10 percent.

Back among the ponderosa pines at Farragut State Park, Esler and his students ate lunch and discussed the results of their experiment.

“Do you feel like there’s something you can do after this lab?” Esler asked. “Yes, yell at my parents,” one student responded. There was a wave of laughter. “Plant more trees!” shouted another. “Do we even have space on Earth to plant that many trees?” wondered a third.

Namson remained quiet, considering the enormity of the issue. “Mr. Esler basically just said he agreed with me,” Namson recalled later. But his teacher couldn’t tell him what to do about it. That was up to him.
[SFW] [environment & nature] [+5 Good]
[by sanepride@5:14pmGMT]

Comments

the circus said @ 8:12pm GMT on 3rd Jun
What's the overlap between creationism and climate change denialism? I suspect fixing one helps fix the other.
sanepride said @ 8:46pm GMT on 3rd Jun
Creationism is pretty much just a religion-based rejection of science. Climate change denial is usually more politically-motivated- an 'astroturf' movement underwritten by fossil fuel and other related corporate interests that face potential economic fallout from mitigation efforts.
That said, there is a convenient overlap, since so many of these religious folks also happen to be in the same political camp.
Also, here's an interesting look at the kind of thinking that drives climate change denial/indifference among the religious right:
Why don’t Christian conservatives worry about climate change? God.
Reveal

Why don’t Christian conservatives worry about climate change? God.
A key bloc of Trump's supporters think solving the problem is out of human hands.
By Lisa Vox June 2 at 6:00 AM
Lisa Vox is a historian and the author of "Existential Threats: American Apocalyptic Beliefs in the Technological Era."

The United States will withdraw from the Paris agreement on climate change, President Trump announced Thursday. Environmental scientists say the consequences could be catastrophic for the planet. But for some Trump supporters, there’s no reason to worry.

“As a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us,” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) told constituents last week at a town hall in Coldwater, Mich. “And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”

Among conservative evangelicals, that is not an unusual opinion. Nearly all evangelicals — 88 percent, according to the Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life — believe in miracles, suggesting a faith in a proactive God. And only 28 percent of evangelicals believe human activity is causing climate change. Confidence that God will intervene to prevent people from destroying the world is one of the strongest barriers to gaining conservative evangelical support for environmental pacts like the Paris agreement.

Climate change isn’t the first issue where such faith has presented itself. During the Cold War, premillennialist evangelicals, who believe that the Second Coming of Christ is imminent, argued that God wouldn’t allow humanity to destroy itself in a nuclear war. Tim LaHaye, co-author of the fictional “Left Behind” series, wrote in 1972 that although the world might be destroyed in a nuclear fire, it would be God who authored that conflagration, not humanity.

[Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement accomplishes nothing]

Conservative evangelicals during the Cold War often saw disarmament as a greater threat to the United States than the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Jerry Falwell adopted the slogan “Peace through Strength” in the early 1980s and declared that a nuclear freeze would be “national suicide.” Premillennialists such as televangelist James Robison preached that the Antichrist, who was destined to unite the world under his leadership, would use fear of nuclear weapons and a promise of peace to deceive the world into accepting world government.

When scientists began sounding the alarm over climate change in the 1980s, conservative evangelicals, who had been somewhat accepting of environmentalism in the 1970s, became convinced that the Antichrist would use the fear of climate change to seize power. The 1970s environmental movement had enjoyed widespread support as it focused on smaller issues like pollution and litter. In the 1980s, though, scientists revealed problems such as the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming, which required worldwide cooperation and significant economic changes to redress. Economic conservatives downplayed the science or even argued that global warming wasn’t actually happening, and premillennialists like Texe Marrs seized on such arguments to accuse environmentalists of perpetuating a hoax in the service of the Antichrist.

Still, the perception that fundamentalists and other conservative evangelicals ignore science is flawed. In recent works of Bible prophecy, writers suggest that global warming is possible and may even be happening. Evangelist John Ankerberg writes, “If our earth is warming dangerously as a result of human activity and this truth can be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt, human remedies are needed.” That’s a nod to the scientific consensus about climate change, but some believers, including Ankerberg, twist this science by tacking on arguments that humanity just doesn’t have that kind of power over the Earth. Any significant climate change will be occurring under the aegis of God himself.

[Why so many white evangelicals are deeply skeptical of climate change]

For Christians like Walberg, globalism is the most dire threat to the United States, not rising oceans and more powerful hurricanes. Just as conservative evangelicals opposed arms treaties during the Cold War, they see environmental pacts, like the Paris agreement, as paving the way for a charismatic world leader to form a global government and begin the seven-year Tribulation that precedes the Second Coming of Christ. Hal Lindsey in 2015 denounced climate change as a scam “being used to consolidate the governments of the world into a coalition that may someday facilitate the rise of the Antichrist.”

Trump’s anti-globalism was part of what made him attractive to conservative evangelicals in last year’s Republican primaries and the general election — and still now as president. Even if Trump’s personal life is an affront to Christian values, his message means that the United States will be standing against the potential forces of the Antichrist.

Commentators in the 1980s feared that Ronald Reagan, who expressed some premillennialist beliefs, would purposely start a nuclear war. That was never a real possibility, however. A more realistic concern would have been that Reagan would refuse to sign any arms agreements, but in the end, Reagan wasn’t that captive to fundamentalist Bible prophecy.

But Trump doesn’t seem to have any firm beliefs, religious or otherwise. He didn’t pull us out of the Paris accord because he truly shares the conservative evangelical beliefs of many of his supporters and advisers. Still, by calling climate change a Chinese hoax, he’s shown a willingness to use similar arguments for his own purposes.

In his town hall meeting last week, Walberg brought up the concept of stewardship, or the idea that Christians have a duty to take care of the Earth. Those of us concerned about climate change must appeal to religious conservatives on that basis.

We must accept that a number of conservative evangelicals, especially from older generations, will never support significant action on climate change, especially if it means signing a global treaty. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris agreement has proved that he lacks the flexibility and foresight of Reagan, who dared negotiate with the country he declared an “evil empire.” But we can appeal to moderate and liberal evangelicals with different or milder end-times beliefs, and nonevangelical conservatives can still be convinced to cooperate if persuaded that inaction threatens U.S. standing in the world. We have no choice but to give up on Trump now, but maybe we can hope the party of Reagan will find the moral courage to combat climate change.
Fish said @ 3:59pm GMT on 10th Jun
If you want to teach your religion of Climate Change® in schools, it only makes sense that Creationists get to teach theirs.

You really need to work on understanding the difference between political and empirical science, because your CC is all of the former and none of the latter. The science on that assertion is unassailable.
sanepride said @ 7:09pm GMT on 10th Jun
Hey incpenners you still getting paid to regurgitate this bullshit?
Fish said @ 1:01pm GMT on 11th Jun
I wish I could meet incpenners and shake his hand, because he lives in your head rent-free.

Madpride– that you?
rapscallion said @ 3:08pm GMT on 4th Jun
Hmmmm...this seems to cross the line for me. Does it suck that the parents are ignorant? Sure. Does that give the state the right to indoctrinate those children? Hell no.
sanepride said @ 3:42pm GMT on 4th Jun [Score:1 Informative]
Whoa there-
Science teacher teaches kids science- instructing them on established data-gathering techniques, then allows them to draw their own conclusions based on the data they've gathered.
Meanwhile, the state legislature is actively trying to dictate what should be taught as science.
So which of these things is really the state trying to 'indoctrinate those children'?
King Of The Hill said @ 5:52pm GMT on 8th Jun
I'm conservative but I read the article. This teacher allows students to reach their own conclusions on their environment based on what appear to be fair comparisons/exercises. The big plus for me is that he takes them out in the field and they do real hands on work with nature... Which beats the shit out of being drones in a classroom.


Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
Karma
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
HoZay
Paracetamol
lilmookieesquire
Ankylosaur