Essay by Eric Worrall
According to the World Economic Forum, if we teach young people the world is about to end and the adults are doing nothing, they will feel less climate anxiety.
Should schools teach climate change studies? These countries think so
Aug 24, 2022
- A study from a British university reveals that more than half of young people experience climate anxiety on a daily basis.
- The UN is calling for climate education to become compulsory in schools from 2025 to better equip children to cope with global warming in the future.
- Only a handful of countries currently mandate climate studies in their education systems, despite many being signatories to this objective in the Paris Agreement.
The effects of climate change continue to be seen and felt around the world. Intense summer heatwaves, severe flooding and damaging storms are becoming ever more common. The fear is that future generations will have to pick up the pieces if concerted global action isn’t taken before it’s too late.
Many believe that putting climate change-related subjects on school curriculums will help young people cope better with the reality of global warming, both practically and psychologically.
Last year, a global study revealed that climate anxiety affects the daily life of nearly half of young people. The research, carried out by the University of Bath, was based on surveys of 10,000 young people across 10 countries – 75% of respondents said they believe “the future is frightening”.
American think-tank Brookings argues that more awareness of the environment in schools will evolve into changes in consumer behaviour, with reduced energy consumption and waste. It says this would have a bigger impact on trying to reach net zero by 2050 than from investing in renewable energy like wind turbines and solar power.
The linked “global study” has a slightly different emphasis;
Government inaction on climate change linked to psychological distress in young people – new study
Largest scientific study of its kind finds climate anxiety affects the daily life and functioning of nearly half of children and young people surveyed globally.
Published on Tuesday 14 September 2021
Last updated on Wednesday 5 January 2022
Nearly half of global youth surveyed (45%) say climate anxiety and distress is affecting their daily lives and functioning – according to results from the largest scientific study into climate anxiety in children and young people, according to new research.
The inaugural study, based on surveys with 10,000 children and young people (16-25) across 10 countries, found 75% of young respondents believe ‘the future is frightening’ – jumping to 81% of youth surveyed in Portugal and 92% in the Philippines. It found, for the first time, that climate distress and anxiety is significantly related to perceived government inaction and associated feelings of betrayal. 58% of children and young people surveyed said governments were “betraying me and/or future generations,” while 64% said their governments are not doing enough to avoid a climate catastrophe.
The study found widespread psychological distress among children and young people globally and warns ‘such high levels of distress, functional impact and feelings of betrayal will negatively affect the mental health of children and young people.’ Experts warn that because continued government inaction on climate change is psychologically damaging, it potentially amounts to a violation of international human rights law.
…Read more: https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcements/government-inaction-on-climate-change-linked-to-psychological-distress-in-young-people-new-study/
Of course, not all the kids subjected to this kind of brainwashing respond by becoming climate warriors. Some of them can’t cope with the climate doomsday messaging, and make self destructive personal choices.
The following is 2019 testimony from Dr. Alex Wodak, a renowned Australian drug rehabilitation specialist;
First, the threshold step is redefining drugs as primarily a health and social issue rather than primarily a law enforcement issue. Second, drug treatment has to be expanded and improved until it reaches the same level as other health services. Third, all penalties for personal drug use and possession have to be scrapped.
Fourth, as much of the drug market as possible has to be regulated while recognising that part of the drug market is already regulated, such a methadone treatment, needle and syringe programs, medically supervised injecting centres. It will, of course, never be possible to regulate the entire drug market. We have regulated parts of the drug market before. Edible opium was taxed and regulated in Australia until 1906 and in the United States Coca-Cola contained cocaine until 1903.
Fifth, efforts to reduce the demand for powerful psychoactive drugs in Australia have had limited benefit and require a new focus. Unless and until young Australians feel optimistic about their future, demand for drugs will remain strong. Young people, understandably, want more certainty about their future prospects, including climate, education, jobs and housing affordability. Change will be slow and incremental, like all social policy reform.
As Herb Stein, as adviser to President Nixon said:
Things that cannot go on forever don’t.
Drug prohibition cannot go on forever and will be replaced by libertarian paternalism. Thank you.
…Source: https://www.iceinquiry.nsw.gov.au//assets/scii/transcripts/Decriminalisation-round-table/Decriminalisation-Roundtable-Transcript.pdf (note the link is currently broken, wayback link here, P3980)
Teaching more climate anxiety might convince many of the victims to embrace “changes in consumer behaviour” in later life, but quite apart from the unconscionable immorality of trying to program kids rather than educate them, there appears to be a lot of collateral damage, those unfortunate young people who don’t make it through the brainwashing intact, whose minds are broken by their climate “education”.
The greens pushing this brainwashing for kids don’t seem to care about the harm they are causing. The green focus appears to be forcing “changes in consumer behaviour”, regardless of the cost and suffering.