Hammering K-12 school children nonstop about the dangers of climate change in every class, even math, art and gym, is child abuse.
Barely one-third of fourth graders can read or do math at grade level, according to the latest national scores, but climate activists are demanding kids hear about global warming in every class. New Jersey mandates it, and now Connecticut is following suit as the school year opens. In New York City, Mayor Eric Adams is requiring every public school participate in Climate Action Day.
The climate push is nakedly political, spearheaded in New Jersey by the governor’s wife, first lady Tammy Murphy, a founding member of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project. Lessons link urban heat islands to tree placement inequities, redlining and racism.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST ADMITS EDITING PAPER TO FIT ‘PREAPPROVED NARRATIVES’
New York City holds out activist Greta Thunberg as a climate hero and role model, telling kids to “get involved in the global student climate action movement” and “get to know community leaders and register to vote.” Everything short of pre-enrolling kindergarteners in the Democratic Party. Parents should be outraged.
Climate change is the left’s religion. The messaging is as heavy-handed as catechism in a religious school.
It’s also scary. Children are being told that global warming is killing their favorite animals. At Slackwood Elementary School in New Jersey, first-graders are taught that transportation, heating and raising livestock are “making Earth feel unwell.”
The reality is that these children are too young to comprehend the trade-offs of moving to zero carbon immediately. A first-grader doesn’t know Mommy can’t afford an electric vehicle — average price $53,000.
Children should be taught about the wonders of nature, learning to identify mammals, reptiles, fish and birds, oceans, plants and deserts. They are too young to address the ethical and economic implications of eliminating fossil fuels.
First-graders don’t understand the impact on their family’s budget when the Con Ed bill doubles to pay for the shift to wind and solar, which New Yorkers are warned will happen here.
The U.S. has already reduced emissions of the six most common pollutants by 78% since 1970, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. But try explaining that to a first grader who doesn’t know percentages and has no frame of reference for comparing the U.S. record with, say, the soaring pollution rates in China and India.
These issues are appropriate for high school students, and they should be presented as controversies — with all viewpoints included.
Climate education advocates say they’re just teaching “facts” everyone agrees on. Don’t buy it.
The scientific community is divided about the urgency of eliminating fossil fuels. A poll by Fairleigh Dickinson University of 400 geologists, climatologists, meteorologists and other scientists found that 41% do not believe global warming will cause “significant harm” during our lifetimes.
A majority of scientists also disagree with the claim kids hear from teachers that we’re facing a significant increase in severe weather like hurricanes and tornadoes.
Eliminating fossil fuels on the radical left’s green timetable will clobber ordinary people: costing jobs, raising living costs and weakening America’s position in the world. Yet climate change educators oppose any discussion of the cost of getting to zero.
California, New York and Oregon are currently considering mimicking New Jersey’s “every class is a climate class” curriculum. But some states are resisting.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION
Texas state education authorities are urging districts to present the pros and cons of fossil fuels and avoid textbooks that present only one side. That’s smart, considering how many moms and dads there earn a living in carbon-related industries.
In Ohio, Republican state lawmakers want to require publicly funded colleges to present all viewpoints on climate change, “encourag(ing) students to reach their own conclusions,” and not to “inculcate any social, political, or religious point of view.”
