You are on page 1of 128

Climate Literacy Aff

1AC
1AC – Warming
There is scientific consensus that warming is real, anthropogenic, and deadly.
Stern ‘15 (Stern studied the Mathematical Tripos and was awarded a is Bachelor of Arts degree in mathematics at Peterhouse,
Cambridge, and his DPhilEcon in economics at Nuffield College, Oxford with thesis on the rate of economic development and the
theory of optimum planning in 1971 supervised by James Mirrlees, “Why Are We Waiting?: The Logic, Urgency, and Promise of
Tackling Climate Change”, MIT Press, Apr 17, 2015, pg 9-10)

The increase in concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere to date has corresponded to an average
warming across the Earth's surface (combined land and ocean temperature) of around 0.8°C since the late nineteenth
century (see figure 1.1 from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the usual period of reference and one that
will be used in this book. Similar results are reported by NASA in the US and the Met Office Hadley Centre in
the UK. The 2011 Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study further confirmed the patterns of temperature increase.6 If the
world continues to emit GHGs along a "business as usual" path, concentrations of GHGs could rise
to the region of 750 ppm CO2 by around the end of the century. At these levels of GHG concentrations, some
climate models suggest a median temperature increase over the next one or two centuries of about 4°C or
more, with substantial probabilities of well above 4°C.7 The physical and human geography of the planet would
likely be transformed with temperature increases of 4°C or more: deserts, coast-lines, rivers, rainfall
patterns—the reasons we live where we do—would be redrawn. One way of trying to grasp what might happen with
global increases in temperature is to look at past periods of changes in CO2 concentrations or temperature. In the period
following the industrial revolution beginning approximately 200 years ago, the intensifying use of fossil fuels
has rapidly increased CO2 concentrations in the atmo-sphere. Before this, CO2 concentrations
were driven according to naturally occurring processes on timescales of many thousands or
even millions of years. The planet has not seen CO2 levels as high as the current 400 ppm for at
least 800,000 years' and likely not for around 3 million years. Global mean temperatures regularly
exceeding 4°C above preindustrial have likely not been seen for at least 10 million years, perhaps
much more." The last time CO2 levels exceeded 750 ppm, with surface temperatures well beyond 4°C above
preindustrial figures, was likely about 35 million years ago during the Eocene epoch, when the planet was
entirely ice-free. Today that would drive a sea level rise of 70 meters. Modern Homo sapiens is
probably no more than 250,000 years old and has not experienced anything like this. Our own civilizations,
living in villages and towns, appeared after the last ice age during the Holocene period. The early
Holocene, between around 12,000 and 7,000 years ago, saw rapid changes in ice sheets, sea levels, and temperature." Following this
transition, over the last seven or eight millennia, temperatures have been remarkably stable, fluctuating in a range of plus or minus
1.5°C around an average.' These Holocene temperatures allowed our societies to develop: grasses were
cultivated to become cereals, thus requiring sedentary populations to tend and protect crops until harvest, and allowing both
surplus and storage. This provided time and opportunity to develop villages and towns and much of the
skills of civilization, culture, and ways of life as we know them. We are already on the upper
edge of that range of Holocene temperature fluctuation, in large measure as a result of changes brought about by humans. A
temperature increase of 3-4°C would be well outside that range. It seems possible that we have not seen sustained
temperatures around 3°C above preindustrial for around 3 million years. We appear to be
embarked on a massive experiment of which the consequences are hard to predict and the
effects may be irreversible.

Unfortunately, this climate consensus is not present in the American education


system – varying standards, poorly trained teachers, and disinformation
campaigns from outside influencers. .
Goldenberg ‘16 (Suzanne, Suzanne Goldenberg is the US environment correspondent of the
Guardian and is based in Washington DC. She has won several awards for her work in the Middle
East, and in 2003 covered the US invasion of Iraq from Baghdad, “Two-thirds of US students are
taught climate change badly, study finds”, The Guardian, 2/11/16,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/11/two-thirds-of-us-students-are-
taught-climate-change-badly-study-finds)/AK47

Nearly two-thirds of schoolchildren in the US are taught lessons on climate change that do not
rise to the level of a sound science education, according to new research on Thursday. The finding provide new
evidence on the source of the confusion and denial surrounding global warming in American public life. In the first national survey of
classroom science teachers, researchers found there was short shrift given to the teaching of climate change
in public middle and high schools in all 50 states. The survey of 1,500 teachers, published on Thursday, found
most pupils spend only an hour or two in the course of an academic year learning about climate
change in middle and high school – and much of what they are taught is confusing or simply wrong. Only
38% of American schoolchildren were taught lessons that adhere to the scientific consensus that climate
change is largely the result of the burning of fossil fuels, the researchers from Pennsylvania State University and
the National Centre for Science Education found. Some 30% of teachers spent less than an hour on climate
change during the last academic year, the researchers found. In higher grades, much of that time was spent going over old
material without introducing more advanced material. Some 7% attributed recent warming to natural causes –
which is simply wrong – while 4% of teachers avoided talking about the cause of climate change. Another
22% said their lessons mentioned the scientific consensus – but also that there was significant disagreement
among scientists, which is also incorrect. The findings suggest that younger generations – those most likely to experience the
havoc and stress of climate change in their lifetimes – are not getting the education to best serve their needs. Eric
Plutzer, a political scientist at Penn State, and a co-author of the study, said: “We don’t think that is good preparation for citizens to
be effective in advocating for policies that are going to be critical to their own generation and their children and grandchildren.” The
lack of teaching and the mixed messages about climate change leave schoolchildren more
susceptible to disinformation about climate change spread by political or corporate interests once they enter adulthood,
the researchers said. The energy industry has spent millions funding climate denial and supporting Republicans
in Congress who deny global warming is occurring. Indeed, the researchers found that many of the teachers themselves were
confused about the causes of climate change. Only
30% of middle school teachers and 45% of high school
teachers said that human activity was the main driver of climate change, the researchers found. Their
findings are in line with other studies which have found systemic failings in the teaching of climate change. A Stanford University
study of science textbooks used in California public schools last year found misleading material. Unlike other, more informal surveys,
the researchers did not give much weight to the idea that the teachers faced political and parental pressure to avoid teaching the
science. But politics remained a factor in how teachers decided to teach the material, Plutzer said. “Politics intrude
in the
same form it takes in the public debate, with teachers whether consciously or not aligning in much the same way as
political groups do outside the classroom.” However, the researchers said it would be unfair to heap the blame on teachers.
Climate science was not yet part of the testable curriculum for many schools – which means there were fewer
guidelines available to teachers. That also meant that teachers were inclined to spend more time teaching other material that
students would encounter on standardized tests. Some of the teachers were also caught out by the rapid advances in climate
science. Fewer
than half of teachers reported receiving any training in climate science at university, said
Josh Rosenau, policy director for the National Center for Science in Education and a co-author. “The
scientific community
has not made sure that teachers are kept up to date with those advances,” he said, adding that there
should be continuing education programs on climate change for teachers.

State and federal governments are compounding the problem by promoting


“academic freedom bills” and climate skepticism.
Worth ‘17 (Katie, graduate of Columbia Journalism School and a Tow Journalism fellow for
FRONTLINE, “A New Wave of Bills Takes Aim at Science in the Classroom”, 5/8/2017,
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/a-new-wave-of-bills-takes-aim-at-science-in-the-
classroom/) RC
In Idaho, lawmakers removed references to climate change from the state’s science standards.
In Alabama and Indiana, they passed resolutions urging support for educators who teach
“diverse” views on climate change, evolution and human cloning. And in Florida, the legislature on Friday
adopted one bill that would give educators and students more freedom to express religious
beliefs in school, and a second that would give residents new power to oppose classroom materials
they dislike — including science textbooks. Across the country, proposals that would influence how topics like
climate change and evolution are taught in public schools have gained traction. Eleven such measures have been introduced in nine
Republican-dominated states since January. Of those 11, three have been adopted. The Florida bills await the signature of
Republican Gov. Rick Scott. Four bills in other states died shortly after introduction, while two others narrowly failed.
Proponents say the measures take aim at what they see as an inflexible secular culture in public
schools — one that prevents educators from teaching a full range of views. “Whether it be evolution or
the argument about global warming, we don’t want teachers to be afraid to converse about such things,” said Republican Indiana
state Sen. Jeff Raatz, who successfully pushed through a resolution to protect teachers who do so. After an election in which
Republicans expanded their domination in statehouses and in Washington, these initiatives have found increasingly
receptive audiences — a development that has left science education advocates feeling uneasy.
“They vary a lot, but what they have in common is, if passed, they would all tend to undermine the integrity of
science education,” said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Center for Science Education,
a nonprofit that tracks and advocates against such legislation. “That’s why we’re against them, science teachers
are against them, school boards are against them.” The group has been tracking state bills for more than two
decades, and based on their data from the past 14 years, 2017’s proposals are not only more numerous than
usual, they’ve gotten further than ever before. The bills take an array of approaches. Some are new.
Florida, for example, is the first state to pass something like its classroom materials bill. But the most common are
“academic freedom” acts, which since 2004 have been introduced more than 50 times in 20 states. The bills aim to
increase debate over topics like climate change and evolution, and would shield educators from
reprimand for teaching dissenting views. From January through March, they were introduced in six states. Opponents
argue the measures inject controversy where most scientists see none. Studies have shown that
scientists are in near unanimous agreement that humans have contributed to global climate
change. Similar consensus exists on evolution. But there is no universal standard for how to teach these
topics, and surveys indicate that teachers sometimes give students mixed messages about them.

Left unaddressed, climate illiteracy will solidify future generations attitudes and
behaviors towards global warming, making the worst impacts inevitable.
Stevenson et al ‘14 – Stevenson and Peterson work at the Department of Forestry &
Environmental Resources at North Carolina State University; Bondell works at the Department
of Statistics at NCSU, Moore works at the Department of Forestry & Environmental Resources,
and Carrier works at the Department of Elementary Education. (Kathryn T. Stevenson, M. Nils
Peterson, Howard D. Bondell, Susan E. Moore, Sarah J. Carrier, "Overcoming skepticism with
education: interacting influences of worldview and climate change knowledge on perceived
climate change risk among adolescents," Springer, 8.15.14, pg. 8-10,
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kathryn_Stevenson4/publication/264898924_Overcomin
g_skepticism_with_education_Interacting_influences_of_worldview_and_climate_change_kno
wledge_on_perceived_climate_change_risk_among_adolescents/links/53f54eb60cf2888a7491b
d28.pdf) //JCL
The potential for climate literacy efforts to overcome skepticism among adolescents may reflect an
age-related window for influence. For adults, worldviews are well entrenched (Schultz and Zelezny 1999)
and exert considerable influence over climate change risk perception (Smith and Leiserowitz 2012).
During the teenage years, however, worldviews are still forming (Vollerberg et al. 2001), and this
plasticity may explain why climate change knowledge overcomes skepticism among individualist
adolescents as well as why hierarchy does not seem to factor into perceptions of climate change. Further, the individualism
communitarianism scale is heavily tied to American politics, suggesting that though adolescents may be already
adopting political ideologies, these ideologies do not dictate perceptions of climate change as
strongly as among adults (Hamilton 2011). Overall, students in our study displayed low levels of
climate change knowledge, similar to those reported in a national survey of teens (Leiserowitz et al. 2011). Almost 20 % of
teens in our study and 46 % of teens in the national survey (Leiserowitz et al. 2011) either thought global warming was not
happening or did not know if it was happening. Together, these
results highlight an opportunity to build concern
for climate change by addressing low levels of climate literacy among adolescents. Climate
literacy efforts designed for adolescents may represent a critical strategy to overcoming
climate change related challenges, given stable or declining concern among adults that is driven
in part by entrenched worldviews (Smith and Leiserowitz 2012). Another explanation for the impact of
climate change knowledge on risk perception among individualist-leaning adolescents may have more to do with
the type of knowledge than the age of the learner. Previous research suggesting that scientific
understanding polarizes worldview driven risk perceptions measured scientific literacy and
numeracy instead of knowledge specific to climate change (Kahan et al. 2012). Without education
specific to climate change, adults may be unable to “connect the dots” provided through general science
education. There Fig. 2 Effect of increased climate change knowledge on acceptance of anthropogenic global warming among
students with differing worldviews. Both regression lines predicting acceptance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) (n=378)
were generated from the regression equation implied by Fig. 1 where climate change knowledge, worldview, and demographic
variables predict acceptance of AGW. Predicted values and 95 % confidence intervals (represented by error bars) of acceptance of
AGW have been converted to percentages of maximum scale score (max=13). Communitarians and individualists are represented by
individualism communitarianism scale scores in the 10th and 90th percentiles, respectively. Similarly, low knowledge is represented
by a 10th percentile score and high knowledge as a 90th percentile score. Error bars represent a 95 % confidence interval is some
evidence that climate change knowledge increases climate change risk perception among adults (Tobler et al. 2012), and future
research should explore whether this effect is especially pronounced among hierarchical individualists, as we found with
individualist adolescents. Further, it is possible that adolescents are learning information about climate change from more reliable
sources than adults. Adolescents spend
a considerable amount of time in schools, perhaps increasing
the likelihood that their climate knowledge is based on information reviewed by experts rather
than from politically charged news and web sources that seem to be contributing heavily to
skepticism among adults (Hamilton 2011; UCS 2007). This possibility underlines the importance of
quality professional development for teachers as well as assurance that teachers have access to
climate literacy materials based on sound science. Future research should address whether findings in this study
represent an agerelated tipping point for the potential influence of climate change education or point to the importance of reliable
climate-specific education campaigns. Although existing and expanded climate literacy efforts will likely be effective at raising
climate change concern among adolescents, worldviews still deserve consideration in climate change education. Though increased
climate change knowledge may bring students with different worldviews to similar levels of acceptance of AGW (Fig. 2), individualist
students with low levels of climate change knowledge enter the conversation more skeptical. The guiding document for climate
education, Climate Literacy: The Essential Principals of Climate Science, acknowledges climate change as a “significant part of public
discourse” (US GCRP 2009) but it does not address how to encourage climate change communication among different worldviews.
Similarly, less
than 40 % of earth science teachers surveyed nationally reported addressing the
controversy over climate change in the classroom (Johnson 2012). In addition, ethnicity and gender should be
considered as climate literacy efforts are developed. Our findings extend previous research in adult populations that suggest
nonWhites perceive climate change as a higher risk than whites (Smith and Leiserowitz 2012). Some have explained this difference
by noting that some non-White populations are disproportionately exposed to the negative effects of climate change as minority
populations are more likely to live in inner cities affected by air pollution and heat-island effects (Younger et al. 2008) or in areas
more prone to sea-level rise and storm surges (Kleinosky et al. 2006), risks which are projected to be exacerbated by climate change
(Michener et al. 1997; Younger et al. 2008). As individuals who personally experience adverse effects of a specific threat are more
likely to perceive that threat as high risk (Slovic and Weber 2002), similar factors may partially explain why non-White adolescents in
our study appear more likely to accept AGW. However, as these effects have not been previously documented among adolescents
more research is needed. The higher levels of climate change risk perceptions we identified among girls reflects findings in
numerous studies where women perceive climate change and a host of other environmental threats as higher risk than men
(Finucane et al. 2000; McCright 2010; Smith and Leiserowitz 2012; Zia and Todd 2010). McCright (2010) suggested gender
differences may stem from differing socialization experiences between men and women, which can lead to differing levels of
environmental concern or trust in science. Finucane et al. (2000) suggest that as women and minorities often hold positions of less
power than White males, cultural socializations make both these groups more likely to assign higher levels of risk in a host of
contexts. It is possible that our results extend these findings associated with gender and ethnicity socialization to adolescents.
Future research could address the degree to which parents, peers, and other socialization mechanisms influence gender and
ethnicity differences in perceptions of climate change, particularly among adolescents. If
educators want to engage all
students in discussing climate change, they will need to employ strategies to reach students who
are less likely to accept A[nthropogenic]G[global]W[arming]. Among adults, reframing discussions of climate
change mitigation efforts as economic improvement measures boosted the likelihood that climate change deniers would support
those efforts (Bain et al. 2012). Similar framing efforts should be fruitful for adolescents given that climate change knowledge and
worldviews interact to reduce divisions in acceptance of AGW and perception of risk associated with climate change.
Researchers participating in a conference on K-14 climate change education suggested treating controversy as a
teachable moment, using inquiry based pedagogy, inviting outside speakers, and discussing
solutions to specific climate change problems as strategies for including all students in climate
change discussions regardless of their level of belief or risk perception (Buhr 2011). Another recent study
suggested reframing the climate discussion away from factuality and toward analyzing mitigation strategies (Feldpausch-Parker et al.
2013). Although these strategies may not impact risk perception directly, they may offer ways to overcome barriers to engagement
in climate change solutions associated with worldviews. Overcoming challenges
associated with climate change
will require a public that is informed and concerned about the issue, and our results suggest
that efforts should focus on adolescents. Despite an overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that
global warming is happening and caused by humans (Cook and Evans 2000), skepticism among adults is stable or on the rise (Smith
and Leiserowitz 2012), and this skepticism is driven in part by hierarchical individualist worldviews (Kahan 2012). Climate
literacy efforts can overcome, worldview-driven skepticism among adolescents, making them a
receptive audience for building climate change concern. Future research should explore whether climate
change perceptions formed in childhood persist as worldviews become more stable. As the scales we used in this study displayed
high levels of reliability, they may be helpful in these efforts. Also, more insight is needed into the congruency and relative influence
of climate literacy, scientific literacy and numeracy as well as the source of climate change information on climate change risk
perception among all age groups. Finally, we
should identify strategies to engage students regardless of
their level of acceptance of AGW or risk perception, paying special attention to the specific
perspectives of adolescent populations. Building concern about climate change is critical to
spurring individual and collective action. Although perceptions of climate change are complex
and likely influenced by several factors, building climate literacy is an essential tool for ensuring
future generations are fully engaged in adapting to and mitigating the effects of climate
change.

We’ll identify three impacts:


1. Systemic disruption – climate change destroys infrastructure and agricultural
which results in widespread famine and chaos.
Johnston ‘17 (Ian Johnston is an Environment Correspondent for the Independent, “World
Food Supplies at Risk as Climate Change Threatens International Trade, Warn Experts,” The
Independent, June 27, 2017, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/world-food-supplies-
climate-change-international-trade-global-warming-chatham-house-chokepoints-
a7808221.html) -DS
The world’s food supplies are in danger as climate change and the increasing reliance on global trade
threaten to create shortages and sudden, dramatic increases in prices, according to a new report by the
leading think tank Chatham House. The report’s authors warned of a “growing risk … to human security” with
the potential for “systemic disruption” and so-called Black Swan events – major unexpected changes. They
called for an international “emergency response mechanism” to be created to help deal with crises as they arise and an increase in
emergency food stocks. Urgent action should also be taken to improve “weak and ageing” infrastructure in major
crop-producing regions such as Russia, Ukraine and the US, the report added. Global warming is
expected to produce more violent storms and increased flooding in some areas, which could damage
roads, railways and ports. And, as the temperature and rainfall change, this could also affect crop yields.
The report, called Chokepoints and Vulnerabilities in Global Food Trade, said international trade had enabled certain
areas to specialise in certain types of food production, which had maximised productivity and
reduced prices, but warned this food system was now “coming under increasing strain”. “While
market forces have largely adjusted adequately until now, the capacity of international trade to
correct for supply disruptions in a climate-changed world is less certain,” the report said. “Climate
change will suppress growth in crop yields and make harvests more variable. “It will threaten the
reliability and integrity of the infrastructure on which international trade depends. “In addition to
more regular and more severe weather-induced damage to roads, railways, ports and inland
waterways, climate change will have a multiplying effect on security and political hazards affecting the
infrastructural backbone of international trade.” Experts highlighted 14 chokepoints around the world
– such as the Panama and Suez canals, the US rail network and its inland waterways, Brazil’s roads and the Turkish Straits – that are
vitally important to the continued flow of food. Just three regions, the US, Brazil and the Black Sea area,
account for 53 per cent of global exports of wheat, rice, maize and soybean. The first three crops
make up 60 per cent of the food we eat, while soybean is 65 per cent of animals’ protein feed. The
report said the chokepoints were the “potential epicentres of systemic disruption”. “A serious
interruption at one or more of these chokepoints could conceivably lead to supply shortfalls and price
spikes, with systemic consequences that could reach beyond food markets,” it said. “In an increasingly
unpredictable world, ensuring the resilience of populations and critical infrastructure to compound and cascading supply chain
disruptions, and to ‘black swan’ events, will become increasingly vital yet ever more challenging. “Without significant investment in
new approaches … foodtrade chokepoints will pose a material and growing risk to systemic stability
and to human security, chiefly in the world’s most food-insecure and politically volatile regions.”
The report found 10 per cent of global trade in cereals, soybeans and fertilisers passed through a
maritime chokepoint for which there was “no viable alternative”. “Over the past 15 years, all but one of the 14
critical chokepoints has been subject to closure or to restrictions on traffic,” it added. The rapid melting of ice the Arctic is opening
up new shipping routes between the northern Atlantic and Pacific but the authors said this was “unlikely to relieve pressure on
existing shipping routes before the second half of the century”. One of the authors, Laura Wellesley, said the oil industry had been
“mapping this sort of risk for years but it has been woefully overlooked in discussions of food security”. “Past events, including
floods in Brazil and the Southern US, and the export bans on wheat from the Black Sea countries
that contributed in part to the Arab Spring, give us a flavour of the sort of disruptions that can occur when
chokepoints are closed,” she said. She said governments had a tendency to make decisions in their
own “short-term, national interests in mind”. But these could “exacerbate the global problem, and
undermine systemic resilience”. “We need a new, collaborative approach to mapping and mitigating the growing threat
we all face,” Ms Wellesley said. Robin Willoughby, Oxfam head of food and climate policy and campaigns, said climate change
was "the single greatest threat to our chances of winning the fight against hunger". And he added:
"The global food system is woefully unprepared to cope with its savage impacts. “Small-scale
farmers and poor urban consumers are on the front lines of increased weather and food price
volatility. “They need major new support to adapt to the changing climate – from improved irrigation schemes, crop insurance
and agricultural research and development to stronger social protection. “As the Paris Agreement failed to provide
these new resources, responsible leaders in rich and poor countries alike should start to plug the gap immediately.”

2. War – Poverty traps and disparate impacts make nuclear war most
likely under climate change
Cribb 14—Canberra science writer [Julian Cribb, “Human extinction: it is possible?” Sydney
Morning Herald, Published: April 2, 2014, p. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/human-
extinction-it-is-possible-20140402-zqpln.html]
However our own behaviour is liable to be a far more immediate determinant of human survival or
extinction. Above two degrees – which we have already locked in – the world’s food harvest is going to become increasingly unreliable, as the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned this week. That means mid-century famines in places like India,
China, the Middle East and Africa. But what scientists cannot predict is how humans living in the tropics and subtropics will respond
to this form of stress. So let us turn to the strategic and military think tanks, who like to explore such scenarios, instead.
The Age of Consequences study by the US Centre for Strategic and International Studies says that under
a 2.6 degree rise
“nations around the world will be overwhelmed by the scale of change and pernicious
challenges, such as pandemic disease. The internal cohesion of nations will be under great stress…as
a result of a dramatic rise in migration and changes in agricultural patterns and water availability. The
flooding of coastal communities around the world… has the potential to challenge regional and even national
identities. Armed conflict between nations over resources… is likely and nuclear war is possible. The social
consequences range from increased religious fervour to outright chaos.” Of five degrees – which the world is on course for by
2100 if present carbon emissions continue – it simply says the consequences are "inconceivable".
Eighteen nations currently have nuclear weapons technology or access to it, raising the stakes on
nuclear conflict to the highest level since the end of the Cold War. At the same time, with more than 4
billion people living in the world’s most vulnerable regions, scope for refugee tsunamis and
pandemic disease is also large. It is on the basis of scenarios such as these that scientists like Peter
Schellnhuber – science advisor to German President Angela Merkel – and Canadian author Gwynne Dyer have
warned of the potential loss of most of the human population in the conflicts, famines and
pandemics spinning out of climate impacts. Whether that adds up to extinction or not rather
depends on how many of the world’s 20,000 nukes are let off in the process. These issues all involve
assumptions about human, national and religious behaviour and are thus beyond the remit of scientific bodies like the IPCC, which
can only hint at what they truly think will happen. So you are not getting the full picture from them.

3. Ocean acidification – CO2 emissions cause ocean acidification—unstoppable


diseases and ocean deadzones.
Jackson ‘8 (Jeremy B. C. Jackson, Professor of Oceanography ,Director of the Center for Marine Biodiversity and Conservation,
Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, Ph.D. in geology, Yale University, 2008 “Ecological
extinction and evolution in the brave new ocean”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vo. 105, Supplement 1,
8/12/08)
The overall status of the four major categories of ocean ecosystems and the principal drivers of their degradation are summarized in
Table 3. Coastal ecosystems are endangered to critically endangered on a global scale. The lesser
endangerment of pelagic ecosystems reflects their remoteness from all factors except fishing and climate change, although there are
no real baselines for comparison to critically evaluate changes in plankton communities. This
grim assessment begs the
question, What are the projected long-term consequences for the ecological condition of the
ocean if we continue with business as usual? Predicting the future is, at best, a highly uncertain enterprise.
Nevertheless, I believe we have a sufficient basic understanding of the ecological processes involved to make meaningful qualitative
predictions about what will happen in the oceans if humans fail to restrain their style of exploitation and consumption. Failure to
stop overfishing will push increasing numbers of species to the brink of extinction—perhaps irreversibly as for Newfoundland cod—
except for small, opportunistic species. Unrestrained runoff of nutrients and toxins, coupled with rising
temperatures, will increase the size and abundance of dead zones and toxic blooms that may
merge all along the continents. Even farmed seafood will be increasingly toxic and unfit for
human consumption unless grown in isolation from the ocean. Outbreaks of disease will increase. Failure
to cap and reduce emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases will increase ocean
temperatures and intensify acidification. Warmer and lighter surface waters will inhibit vertical mixing of the ocean,
eventually leading to hypoxia or anoxia below the thermocline as in the Black Sea. Biogeochemical cycles will be
perturbed in uncertain ways as they have been in the past (94). Mass extinction of multicellular
life will result in profound loss of animal and plant biodiversity, and microbes will reign
supreme.

Now is the key time to reverse, adapt, and prevent extinction.


Torres ‘16 (Phil, affiliate scholar at the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies founder
of the X-Risks Institute “We’re Speeding Toward a Climate Change Catastrophe...and That Makes
2016 the Most Important Election Year in a Generation”, 4/101/6
http://www.alternet.org/environment/were-speeding-toward-climate-change-catastropheand-
makes-2016-most-important-election)
But nuclear terrorism probably isn’t the most significant risk that the 45th president of the United States will have to
confront. Rather, this title goes to the ongoing, slow-motion catastrophe of anthropogenic climate
change — a phenomenon that threatens not just the future prosperity of the U.S., but the survival of the
entire global village. The fact is that climate change will result in a range of catastrophic
consequences, including extreme heat waves, the spread of infectious disease, megadroughts, coastal
flooding, desertification, food supply disruptions, widespread biodiveristy loss (e.g., the sixth mass
extinction), mass migrations, social unrest and political instability — to name just a few. And multiple high-
ranking U.S. officials have affirmed a causal connection between climate change and terrorism. For example, John Brennan, the
current Director of the CIA, recently stated that “the impact of climate change” is one of the “deeper
causes of this rising instability” in countries like Syria, Iraq, Ukraine, Yemen and Libya. Similarly,
Chuck Hagel, the former secretary of defense, describes climate change as a “threat multiplier” that “has the
potential to exacerbate many of the challenges we are dealing with today — from infectious disease to terrorism.” And the
Department of Defense notes in a 2015 report that “Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions,
environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries.”
Consider some recent data that underline the fact that climate change is a “clear and present danger.” As of this writing, the hottest
month on record was last February. It completely “obliterated” the previous “all-time global temperature record” set by — take a
guess — January 2016. And January 2016 beat the previous records set by October, November and December 2015. Similarly, the
hottest 16 years on record have all occurred since 2000, with only a single exception (1998). The current record-holder is 2015,
followed by 2014, 2010 and 2013, but it appears that 2016 could be even hotter than 2015. This being said, climate change isn’t just
a “present” danger with implications for human well-being this century. As
a 2016 paper published in Nature points
out, the fossil fuels that we’re burning right now could affect future generations for up to
10,000 years. We are, in other words, “imposing adverse changes on more humans than have ever
existed.” To quote the study, co-authored by more than 20 scientists from around the world, at length: “The
next few decades offer a brief window of opportunity to minimize large-scale and potentially
catastrophic climate change that will extend longer than the entire history of human
civilization thus far. Policy decisions made during this window are likely to result in changes to
Earth’s climate system measured in millennia rather than human lifespans, with associated
socioeconomic and ecological impacts that will exacerbate the risks and damages to society and
ecosystems that are projected for the twenty-first century and propagate into the future for many
thousands of years.”
1AC – Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should increase climate change
programs for elementary and secondary schools in the United States, including:
setting national education goals based on the Next Generation Science
Standards for understanding and mitigating climate change; and increasing
grants for curriculum development and teacher training programs for climate
education.
1AC – Solvency
A national climate education program is key to effective teaching and learning.
National Research Council ’10 (National Research Council. 2010. Informing an Effective
Response to Climate Change. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
https://www.nap.edu/catalog/12784/informing-an-effective-response-to-climate-change)-byl

Current and future students, the broader public, and policy makers need to understand the causes,
consequences, and potential solutions to climate change; develop scientific thinking and
problem-solving skills; and improve their ability to make informed decisions. To achieve these
goals, the United States needs to make considerably more progress in national, state, and local
climate education standards, climate curriculum development, teacher professional
development, and production of supportive print and web materials. Hands-on or experiential approaches are particularly
effective ways to promote learning among students. The United States also needs a national strategy and
supporting network to coordinate climate change education and communication activities for policy makers and the
general public, including the identification of essential informational needs; development of relevant, timely, and effective
information products and services; construction and integration of information dissemination and sharing networks; and continuous
evaluation and feedback systems to establish which approaches work best in what circumstances. The panel judges the following 5
elements as important guidelines for all climate education and communication programs to help people think deliberately,
responsibly, and respectfully about climate change and the many related decisions they will face. All such programs should
be based on the best available, peer-reviewed science. Accurate science, based on the latest data and analysis,
must lie at the core of any education activity. Educational content should be derived from respected scientific sources such as the
IPCC and reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program such as the Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States
(USGCRP, 2009). Education activities should be careful to avoid exaggerations or misrepresentation of the science. Climate change
education, like environmental education generally, is much more than just natural science. In addition to the physical climate
system, climate change education must also include other critical dimensions of the issue, including the human drivers of
greenhouse gas emissions; energy efficiency and conservation; renewable energy, carbon capture and storage, and other options for
limiting climate change; issues of social vulnerability to climate change; options for adaptation; and the economic, political,
psychological, social, cultural, and moral dimensions of the issue. It should also help students understand risk management and
learn how to use this framework in climate-related decision making. Use examples, images, language, and units of measure that are
accessible and relevant to the American public and decision makers. Scientists must translate their information and findings into the
language and units of everyday life. For example, use degrees Fahrenheit instead of Celsius, talk about the possible range of results
rather than uncertainty, and use examples that relate to food, health, water, and familiar ecosystems. Provide linkages between
global and local activities. Climate change affects people from the local to the global scale, and at different places in different ways
at different times. All localities in the United States produce greenhouse gas emissions and all will experience impacts in one form or
another; therefore, all need to be part of climate solutions. As students learn about climate change, they should understand both
the local and the global contexts, that climate change involves the entire Earth, with interactions among the atmosphere, oceans,
land, and life as well as human systems, including agriculture, industry, transportation, consumer markets, and social values. Include
a focus on longer-term time scales, but connect to the present. Decisions
made today will have very important
and long-term consequences for the climate of the future. Decisions that make sense from the perspective of
the short term may not make sense from the perspective of a longer time frame. For young people, this often involves a
fundamental shift from thinking merely days and months into the future to thinking about years, decades, and beyond. Yet climate
change will affect them, as they become adults, in profound and far-reaching ways, and thus can provide powerful connections to
their own life scales and time frames. Maintain respectful discourse. Climate change decisions involve a wide range of perspectives,
including not just the complexities of natural and social science but also divergent social, political, environmental, religious, and
ethical values and views of the proper role of individuals, the private sector, and government in responding to climate change. Thus,
climate educators and communicators at all levels of society should set a tone of respect for diverse perspectives and an open and
honest consideration of the implications of various responses to climate change. When discussion moves from core scientific
concepts to more complex issues of societal values, students should learn how to engage in responsible and respectful discourse and
debate as well as critical thinking and analysis skills. At
the federal level, support for climate education is
scattered across several federal agencies and programs, notably NOAA, NASA, and NSF. While there are
nascent efforts among these agencies to collaborate around climate education, this
collaboration needs a more formal structure and a clear mandate to contribute to an
overarching set of national goals for climate science education, with clear objectives and measures of
success. Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Science , cited above, provides an early
example of the benefits of such federal coordination. A national education and communication
network would help support, integrate, and synergize diverse efforts by sharing best practices
and educational resources; building collaborative partnerships; and leveraging existing
education, communication, and training networks across the country. The challenge to science and
education has been seen and met before. The National Defense Education Act of 1958, in response to Sputnik, fundamentally
strengthened our nation’s science, mathematics, engineering, and technology education. Thirty years later, the Global Change
Research Program, including NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth, created a fundamental step-change in graduate education and research
in America’s universities and colleges. It established an ambitious target: to increase our understanding of the environment and
improve our ability to predict changes on a global scale. This broad initiative needs to be both focused and revitalized: if
the
nation desires to develop a national strategy and resources to support climate change education
and communication, a national climate education act could serve as a powerful response to
the educational challenges of climate change. It would have the advantage of a single focal
point of congressional action and would provide an integrated federal strategy and funding.

Climate literacy standards and federal support for training programs and
resources ensures effective education and renewed efforts to solve warming.
Pereira ‘16 [Sydney Pereira, journalist at think progress covering climate issues, 6-20-2016,
"New Bill Could Help Teach Young People About Climate Change," ThinkProgress,
https://thinkprogress.org/new-bill-could-help-teach-young-people-about-climate-change-
d5c7a58c4be5)-krm

Ina push to improve climate education across the country, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced a bill to
create the Climate Change Education Program on Friday. The program would help educate the public on
climate change solutions, the dangers caused by climate change, and small changes people can make in their daily lives to help
combat the environmental problem. “The
focus of the content would be the basics of climate change, how
it works, the impacts it has, as well as the solutions to climate change — which include clean energy,”
Giselle Barry, the spokesperson for Markey’s office, told ThinkProgress. The program would include “formal learning” in classroom
curricula as well as “informal learning” opportunities. The informal learning would include public service announcements or
campaigns and outreach to post-secondary schools, community centers, and community groups, according to Barry. Further, the
program would include information on climate change’s impact on human health and safety, as well as on new technologies,
programs, and incentives related to energy conservation, renewable energy, and greenhouse gas reduction. The National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would establish the program. Using the latest science in a national
education program could help overcome the problem of inaccurate science being taught in U.S.
classrooms. One survey earlier this year found that 30 percent of teachers teach their students that climate change is “likely due
to natural causes,” while another 31 percent teaches climate change as unsettled science. The same survey found that many
teachers were unaware of the undeniable consensus on climate change. The bill states that providing
information on
climate change can remove the “fear and the sense of helplessness, and encourage individuals
and communities to take action.” Indeed, Barry noted that there are two levels of climate action: the policy level and
the personal level. The personal level “involves your actions on an everyday basis that amplify the understanding of climate change
so that what you do in your home, what you do in your car, what you do in your office has as much of an impact as the lawmaker
level,” she said. “It’s a practical application of the science itself.” Getting the Climate Change Education Act passed has been an
ongoing process. Last summer, Markey introduced the bill in the Senate after failing to get the program passed through an
amendment to another bill. In 2015, Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) introduced a similar bill. But these bills haven’t ended up succeeding in
Congress, so Markey and seven other Senate Democrats reintroduced the Act again Friday, which was the one year anniversary of
Pope Francis’s historic encyclical on climate change. Currently, the
Next Generation Science Standards are an
example of climate education standards that organizations like Climate Parents believe can help
the nation’s teachers provide students with an accurate climate change education. So far, 16 states
have adopted the standards. Markey’s act on climate education could help fill the gap in states where
the Next Generation standards aren’t applied. “When roughly one third of kids are learning false
or misleading information about an issue so important to their futures, it’s time for Congress to
step up and ensure that kids receive a quality climate science education that includes solution
pathways,” Lisa Hoyos, the co-founder of Climate Parents, told ThinkProgress. National climate education programs should
“speak to the diversity and range of the residents of our country,” said Hoyos, who also does climate education work within Latino
communities. “The more accessible in terms of language and cultural fluency, the better.” Another aspect of the bill requires NOAA
to create a grant program to support programs that engage large numbers of people in understanding climate change. The
grant
program would encourage programs that promote teacher training, professional development, STEM
education, and improved access to higher education in “green collar industries.” Grants for research on climate mitigation and
adaptation in local communities would also be included. Funding
through the grants would be offered to
“integrate key principles of climate change education into existing K-12 State academic
content standards, student academic achievement standards, or State curriculum
frameworks.” This language implies that funding would largely depend on whether each state
opts-in to including climate change in science curricula. For Hoyos, the worry is whether or not an education
program like this will be implemented in standard science curricula across all 50 states. Students are receiving the “short end of the
stick” when they don’t receive climate change education, Hoyos said. “We don’t want to see our kids be afraid. We
want them to see themselves as agents for the specific changes we need to implement to keep our kids safe. We need them to be
aware voters and innovators,” she said. “That all starts with an education that is accurate and
comprehensive.”

Education makes warming reversible – attitudinal and structural changes.


McCaffrey ’15 (Mark McCaffrey, serves as Programs and Policy Director at the National Center
for Science Education in Oakland, California, “The Energy-Climate Literacy Imperative: Why
Energy Education Must Close the Loop on Changing Climate” Journal of Sustainability Education,
January 17, 2015, http://www.susted.com/wordpress/content/the-energy-climate-literacy-
imperative-why-energy-education-must-close-the-loop-on-changing-climate_2015_01/) -os

Promoting an “energy conscious and educated society” is not sufficient if it doesn’t explicitly
include climate change science and solutions as a central theme of the pedagogy. A false balance
between renewables and non-renewables is problematic in the extreme, particularly if it is aided and abetted by vested interests intent on maintaining
business as usual. Fortunately, there are excellent resources available for educators to weave climate and energy learning together in ways that are
synergistic and complementary. The Next Generation Science Standards include energy and matter as crosscutting themes, and the basics of climate
and the environment—and how we can minimize negative human impacts—are established in elementary grades and then further expanded upon in
middle and high school. The Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN- http://cleanet.org), through funding from the National Science
Foundation and NOAA, has developed a digital library pointing to over 500 high quality online learning activities, videos, and visualizations that help
educators and learners connect the dots between climate and energy issues. Climate
and energy can and should be taught
throughout the grade levels, first building a foundation of inquiry and problem-solving skills
based on observations and analysis, then expanding the scope and depth beyond the local and
immediate into the more national and global, longer-term scales. The water cycle, the carbon
cycle, and the basic mechanism of the greenhouse effect (which is missing from the Next Generation Science
Standards) all should be integral to science education, yet today all too often they are taught in disjointed, technical terms that have little or no
relevance to learners. Most importantly, these vital topics must be woven throughout the curriculum—not only
in science classes, but also in mathematics, social studies, civics, arts, and humanities. A tall order? Yes,
but this is already starting to occur on a small scale. There are examples of ad hoc efforts of a single individual or small
group of motivated educators who feel the urgency and calling to do everything they can to
prepare young people for the daunting challenges we—and future generations—face. The Alliance for
Climate Education’s high school assemblies, which have been shown to successfully increase students’ knowledge of how climate and energy are linked,
have inspired thousands of students to get involved with developing their own problem-solving projects. A number of schools and even entire school
districts in Virginia, Colorado, California and elsewhere are being transformed into inspiring, engaging living laboratories by adding solar energy,
tracking and conserving energy throughout the school, and infusing climate and sustainability throughout the curriculum. The Girl Scouts even have a
Climate Connections badge that emphasizes the connections between climate change and human activities, encouraging actions to reduce negative
impacts. If carbon emissions continue to increase at their current rates, we are well on our way to not just a warmer but full-blown, hotter world. Today
scientists who study the Earth’s energy budget estimate we have increased direct radiative forcing of around three watts per meter squared since 1750
(Butler 2014), primarily due to increased heat-trapping gas concentrations from burning fossil fuels. We are on track now to further amplify the heating
of the Earth system by over eight watts per meter squared by 2100. The implications of this increased concentration of energy and heat, which will
profoundly alter ecosystems and society, is indicated in the “red hot” images of the “business as usual” scenarios found in reports such as the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2013) and the National Climate Assessment (Melillo 2014). To flatten our trajectory
and stabilize at around the same level of warming we have now will require massive
transformation of our energy infrastructure and attitudes, and such profound change can only
occur through education and informed action. A lukewarm or red-hot world? This is a matter of not just sustainability but
survivability. If we are going to prepare ourselves and future generations for the known and
unknown changes heading our way, coupled energy-climate education is imperative.

Students are key – education spills over to entire communities. The plan
ensures effective mitigation and adaption efforts.
Anderson ‘10 (Allison, professor on Critical Challenges and Opportunities in Education in
Emergencies through to Recovery at Columbia University’s School of International and Public
Affairs, "Combating Climate Change through Quality Education," Brookings, 9-16-2010, pg.6,
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/09_climate_education.pdf)-AK47

Active participation of the community as agents of change. Knowledge gained by learners can
further extend climate change mitigation and adaptation measures outside of the school or
non-formal learning program and into the wider community. Research from Bangladesh, El Salvador, India,
Indonesia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nepal, the Philippines and Zambia has shown that school communities can help
provide critical public awareness, outreach and non-formal education on mitigation and
adaptation, particularly disaster prevention and risk reduction, through creative activities such as music and
drama.25 In this way, learners provide leadership through not only raising awareness about what they have
learned, but also in sharing information about how to address vulnerabilities and adapt to climate
change impacts. Children in particular can play a leading role in combating climate change. The
2.2 billion young people under the age of 18 worldwide will be the ones called to cope with the impacts and make the decisions on
climate change in the not so distant future. Children
are powerful agents of change and research has shown
that providing them with empowering and relevant education on disasters and climate change
in a nurturing school environment can reduce their own and the community’s vulnerability to
risk and contribute to sustainable development.26 For instance, when Cyclone Sidr hit Bangladesh in 2007 Lamia
Akter, a 7-year old student from one of ActionAid’s project sites, helped save the lives of her
family and others by passing on a cyclone warning alert she had received at school to villagers in
her community. Lamia went from door to door, telling people to store their valuables and go to the cyclone shelter. Lamia
had learned what actions to take before, during and after a disaster and she told others in her
community. Lamia’s quick action meant that she was able to get her family and Children are powerful agents of
change and research has shown that providing them with empowering and relevant education
on disasters and climate change in a nurturing school environment can reduce their own and the
community’s vulnerability to risk and contribute to sustainable development. 13 neighbors to the
cyclone shelter in time. The cyclone destroyed many homes, but Lamia and her family survived and are now rebuilding their lives.27
Research demonstrates children hold a pivotal position in climate change issues in many
communities due to their growing access to information from school, media, technology and
training workshops. They are often more conscious of the implications of wider scale processes than adults and can be
empowered to communicate and interact with other members of the community about reducing climate and disaster risks.28
1AC – Optional Framing Contention
Moral obligation to prevent climate change – denialism makes you ethically
complicit for worldwide environmental suffering.
Brown 12 (Donald Brown is Associate Professor of Environmental Ethics, Science and Law at
Penn State University. This piece was originally published at the Penn State Climate Ethics blog,
“Ethical Analysis of the Climate Change Disinformation Campaign,
“https://thinkprogress.org/ethical-analysis-of-the-climate-change-disinformation-campaign-
d925a237984e,” Jan 10, 2012)

Climate change must be understood to be at its core an ethical problem because: (a) it is a
problem caused by some people in one part of the world who are threatening people who are
often far away in time and space and poor, (b) the harms to these victims are potentially
catastrophic, and (c) the victims can’t protect themselves by petitioning their governments. The
victims must hope that those causing the problem will see that their ethical duties to those whom they may be harming requires
them to lower their greenhouse gas emissions. Because climate
change is an ethical problem, those causing
the problem may not use self-interest alone as justification for policy responses; they must fulfill
responsibilities, obligations and duties to others. Because climate change is a moral problem,
those who are putting others at risk through no fault of their own have a special duty to be
precautious about scientific uncertainty. If anything, the need for care in considering harms
from powerful technology recognized by Jonas is even more salient in the case of a problem like
climate change because it is a problem that is caused by some that are putting others at great
risk that have not consented to be threatened. This series should not be construed to discourage scientific
skepticism. Skepticism is both the oxygen and catalyst of science. Climate science continues to need skeptical approaches to current
understandings of how human activities may affect the climate to help scientists understand what we don’t know about human
impacts on the climate system. However, a review of the
tactics used by the scientific disinformation campaign
will reveal that these tactics can’t be construed as the application of reasonable scientific
skepticism, but, as we shall see, often constitute malicious, morally reprehensible
disinformation. Yet these tactics provide important lessons about norms that should guide
reasonable skepticism. This series should also not be interpreted to discourage free speech. Some people that have
echoed the misinformation on climate science produced by others are simply repeating what
others have said. Yet free speech is morally reprehensible if it deceives people about vitally
important matters. For instance, it would be morally reprehensible to tell a child laying on a railroad track that no train was
coming if the person telling the child did not have strong evidence for the claim that no train was actually coming. For this reason, a
case can be made that despite free speech, all public claims about climate change should be made carefully. Although all people are
free to state their views on the dangers of climate change, if they are claiming that they are experts to convince a wider public about
what climate science entails, they have a special duty to be very careful about their claims. Now it is undoubtedly true that a few
that have argued in support of climate change policies have exaggerated what the consensus science is saying about likely impacts of
human activities that release greenhouse gases. A notable example of this was a movie, “The Day After Tomorrow,” that depicted
extremely rapid climate change at rates far faster than would be supported any reasonable scientific speculation. Yet, the
disinformation campaign discussed in this series is not simply attacking hyperbole on the part of
those that support climate change policies, they are attacking the consensus view which has
been based, as we shall see, upon peer-reviewed science, not on the worst hyperbole of climate
change policy proponents. That is, this series examines the tactics of the disinformation campaign in relation to the view of
mainstream science that has largely been established through the process of peer-review. However, we are not claiming that peer-
reviewed science is the final word on any scientific issue, only that peer-review is the scientific process that has been established to
prevent unsupportable scientific claims. Those who believe that the peer-reviewed literature on any scientific subject is
untrustworthy must themselves subject their claims to peer-review particularly in the case of a problem like climate change, a
matter about which the stakes are extraordinarily high and great care about uncertainty claims is ethically warranted. Although one
can find hyperbolic claims about climate change from those who support climate change policies, however, the consensus view does
assume that human-induced climate change could be very catastrophic for some people and places if not most of the world. This is
not hyperbole, it is where the mainstream science points as potential consequences of business-as-usual. Yet,
to say that
catastrophic consequences are possible is not to claim they are absolutely certain. All
reasonable climate scientists will admit that there may be negative feedbacks in the climate
system that we don’t understand. Yet the mainstream scientists claim that these negative
feedbacks are increasingly unlikely. These worries are not hyperbolic, however, just because
they are not proven. In fact, as we shall see, ethics actually requires people to act responsibly
once it becomes evident that their actions could cause great harm. As a matter of ethics,
responsibility does not start only when it is proven that behavior will cause great harm. For
instance, laws of reckless endangerment that have been enacted around the world make dangerous behavior criminal. Defendants
in reckless endangerment cases may not defend themselves on the grounds that the prosecution did not prove that their behavior
would cause harm, the prosecution need only prove that the behavior could cause serious harm. That is potential harm is
relevant to ethical considerations.

We have a moral and ethical obligation to prepare and educate the next
generation about climate change
Dyster 13 (Adam, National Organiser for SERA UK, Labour's Environment Campaign; BA in
History First class honors, "Comment: education is the key to addressing climate change,"
Climate Home - climate change news, 9-7-2013,
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/07/09/comment-education-is-the-key-to-
addressing-climate-change/) //JCL
In recent months, climate change education has hit the headlines. It’s been introduced in the US curriculum, and
threatened to be removed from the parts of the UK’s. It’s an issue that has sparked much debate, and in the UK’s case, outcry from
thousands, particularly from young people and schools (to recent success). So why has education sparked such interest and been
is vitally important for several, key reasons. It can deliver the
considered so vital an issue? Education
scientific facts about the biggest issue facing young people, something that is being felt by millions worldwide.
It equips youth with the skills to help combat climate change, and be part of a green recovering,
and positive future. It also encourages young people to be involved as global citizens, and
involves and engages them in an issue that’s impacts will be felt most keenly by those now going
through the education system. We have a responsibility to educate, not only bound by
international convention, but by moral and ethical duties. Schools must educate young people
about the world around them, so that they are informed with facts and key issues. Education should
keep up to date with science and academic thought. Just as the facts and science of stem cell research or alcohol abuse are taught,
because of their relevance and strong scientific foundations, so should climate change and sustainability – indeed, even more so,
given the magnitude and impact of environmental issues. Facts not fiction Such education must be about facts and
science, not treated as the political football as it so often is. Such politicisation mires the issue, and means that the urgency and
relevancy of climate change education is often lost amidst political point scoring. This should, as with other relevant science-
based issues, be an area of consensus, not party political manoeuvring. Beyond establishing the facts of the
issue, education can have be a great force for good, preparing young people to face, and indeed
improve, the world after education has long been completed. How can we expect creative
solutions and innovation to combat climate and sustainability issues if we don’t educate the
next generation about them? The UK campaign against the removal of climate change from the Geography curriculum is
itself proof of the power of education. Esha Marwaha, at 15-years-old, was able to write so eloquently on the dangers of removing
climate change that her petition gained over 30,000 signatures in a matter of weeks. Yet without education, would we get another
Esha, or another generation of activists, or even another generation who care about climate change. Without education, those who
want or who’re able to combat climate change will surely be in the minority. New jobs This
is especially relevant with
the need for innovation and sustainable development. Currently the green economy is nascent,
its burgeoning growth providing employment and a viable alternative to resource hungry
industries and economic models. But positive growth needs new generations who both
understand the need for alternative development and have the passion and desire to act.
Education has a key role in showing young people that not only do they have wider responsibilities, but also that they are entitled to
involvement in decisions. Climate
change and sustainability are issues that cut across generations, and
the decisions that are made today will have impact[s] not upon the generation that makes them, but
generations to come. Education can help give young people the tools to take part in these decisions, allowing them to enter
into the debate. UN agreements Finally, there is a legal obligation for many countries to educate about climate change. Under
Article 6 of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, signatories are obliged to: ‘Promote and facilitate …the
development and implementation of educational and public awareness programmes on climate change and its effects’. This article is
clear and direct, and must not be ignored. However in many respects this legal obligation is a lesser consideration when compared
to the moral obligation each generation has to educate the next about climate change. Education
is the most powerful
tool and can engage young people in the debate, prepare them for working with the green
economy, and give the definitive science and facts about the biggest issue facing young people.
To quote H.G. Wells: “Human history becomes more and more a race between education and
catastrophe.”

Institutions are essential to the climate fight – working within the system is
prevents revolutionary chaos and individualism that makes warming worse.
Parenti, professor of sustainable development, School for International Training, Graduate
Institute, ‘13
(Christian, “A Radical Approach to the Climate Crisis,” Summer,
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/a-radical-approach-to-the-climate-crisis)
Several strands of green thinking maintain that capitalism is incapable of a sustainable
relationship with non-human nature because, as an economic system, capitalism has a growth imperative while the earth is finite.
One finds versions of this argument in the literature of eco-socialism, deep ecology, eco-anarchism, and
even among many mainstream greens who, though typically declining to actually name the
economic system, are fixated on the dangers of “growth.” All this may be true. Capitalism, a system in which privately
owned firms must continuously out-produce and out-sell their competitors, may be incapable of accommodating itself to the limits of the natural
world. However, that is not the same question as whether capitalism can solve the more
immediate climate crisis. Because of its magnitude, the climate crisis can appear as the sum total of all environmental

halting
problems—deforestation, over-fishing, freshwater depletion, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, chemical contamination. But

greenhouse gas emissions is a much more specific problem , the most pressing
subset of the larger apocalyptic panorama. And the very bad news is, time has run out. As I write this, news arrives of an
ice-free arctic summer by 2050. Scientists once assumed that would not happen for hundreds of years. Dealing
with climate change
by first achieving radical social transformation —be it a socialist or anarchist or deep-
ecological /neo-primitive revolution, or a nostalgia-based localista conversion back to a
mythical small-town capitalism— would be a very long and drawn-out , maybe even
multigenerational, struggle . It would be marked by years of mass education and organizing of a scale and intensity not seen
in most core capitalist states since the 1960s or even the 1930s. Nor is there any guarantee that the new system would
not also degrade the soil, lay waste to the forests, despoil bodies of water, and find itself still
addicted to coal and oil . Look at the history of “actually existing socialism” before its
collapse in 1991. To put it mildly, the economy was not at peace with nature . Or consider the
vexing complexities facing the left social democracies of Latin America. Bolivia, and Ecuador,
states run by socialists who are beholden to very powerful, autonomous grassroots movements,
are still very dependent on petroleum revenue. A more radical approach to the crisis of
climate change begins not with a long-term vision of an alternate society but with an honest
engagement with the very compressed timeframe that current climate science
implies. In the age of climate change, these are the real parameters of politics . Hard Facts
The scientific consensus, expressed in peer-reviewed and professionally vetted and published scientific literature, runs as follows: For the last 650,000
years atmospheric levels of CO2—the primary heat-trapping gas—have hovered at around 280 parts per million (ppm). At no point in the preindustrial
era did CO2 concentrations go above 300 ppm. By 1959, they had reached 316 ppm and are now over 400 ppm. And the rate of emissions is
accelerating. Since 2000, the world has pumped almost 100 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere—about a quarter of all CO2 emissions since
1750. At current rates, CO2 levels will double by mid-century. Climate scientists believe that any increase in average global temperatures beyond 2
degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels will lead to dangerous climate change, causing large-scale desertification, crop failure, inundation of coastal
cities, mass migration to higher and cooler ground, widespread extinctions of flora and fauna, proliferating disease, and possible social collapse.
Furthermore, scientists now understand that the earth’s climate system has not evolved in a smooth linear fashion. Paleoclimatology has uncovered
evidence of sudden shifts in the earth’s climate regimes. Ice ages have stopped and started not in a matter of centuries, but decades. Sea levels (which
are actually uneven across the globe) have risen and fallen more rapidly than was once believed. Throughout the climate system, there exist dangerous
positive-feedback loops and tipping points. A positive-feedback loop is a dynamic in which effects compound, accelerate, or amplify the original cause.
Tipping points in the climate system reflect the fact that causes can build up while effects lag. Then, when the effects kick in, they do so all at once,
causing the relatively sudden shift from one climate regime to another. Thus, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says rich countries
like the United States must cut emissions 25 percent to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020—only seven years away—and thereafter make
precipitous cuts to 90 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This would require global targets of 10 percent reductions in emissions per annum, starting
now. Those sorts of emissions reductions have only occurred during economic depressions. Russia’s near total economic collapse in the early 1990s saw
a 37 percent decrease in CO2 emissions from 1990 to 1995, under conditions that nobody wants to experience. The
political implications
of all this are mind-bending. As daunting as it may sound, it means that it is this society and these
institutions that must cut emissions . That means, in the short-term, realistic climate politics
are reformist politics , even if they are conceived of as part of a longer-term anti-
capitalist project of totally economic re-organization. Dreaming the Rational Of course,
successful reformism often involves radical means and revolutionary demands. What other sort of political pressure would
force the transnational ruling classes to see the scientific truth of the situation? But let us assume for a second that political
elites faced enough pressure to force them to act. What would be the rational first steps to stave off
climate chaos? The watchwords of the climate discussion are mitigation and adaptation—that is, we must mitigate the causes of climate change while
adapting to its effects. Mitigation means drastically cutting our production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, such as methane and
chlorofluorocarbons, that prevent the sun’s heat from radiating back out to space. Mitigation means moving toward clean energy sources, such as
wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal kinetic power. It means closing coal-fired power plants, weaning our economy off fossil fuels, building a smart
electrical grid, and making massive investments in carbon-capture and -sequestration technologies. (That last bit of techno-intervention would have to
be used not as a justification to keep burning coal, as is its current function, but to strip out atmospheric CO2 rapidly and get back to 350 ppm and away
from the dangerous tipping points.) Adaptation, on the other hand, means preparing to live with the effects of climatic changes, some of which are
already underway and some of which are inevitable. Adaptation is both a technical and a political challenge. Technical adaptation means transforming
our relationship to non-human nature as nature transforms. Examples include building seawalls around vulnerable coastal cities, giving land back to
mangroves and everglades so they can act to break tidal surges during giant storms, opening wildlife migration corridors so species can move away
from the equator as the climate warms, and developing sustainable forms of agriculture that can function on an industrial scale even as weather
patterns gyrate wildly. Political adaptation, on the other hand, means transforming social relations: devising new ways to contain, avoid, and deescalate
the violence that climate change is fueling and will continue to fuel. That will require progressive economic redistribution and more sustainable forms
of development. It will also require a new diplomacy of peace building. Unfortunately, another type of political adaptation is already under way—that
of the armed lifeboat. This adaptation responds to climate change by arming, excluding, forgetting, repressing, policing, and killing. The question then
becomes how to conceive of adaptation and mitigation as a project of radical reform—reforms that achieve qualitative change in the balance of power
between the classes. The core problem in the international effort to cut emissions is fundamentally the
intransigence of the United States: it failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and has played an
obstructionist role at subsequent negotiations. Domestically, progress has been just as frustratingly slow.
We have no carbon tax, nor any program of robust investment in clean technology. Even the minimal
production tax credit for clean energy generated by solar, wind, and hydro power has not been locked in as a long-term commitment. This

creates uncertainty about prices, and, as a result, private investment in clean tech is stalling .
China, on the other hand, though now the world’s second-largest economy and largest greenhouse gas polluter, is moving ahead with a fast-growing
clean-tech industry—that is to say, with mitigation. The Chinese wind sector has grown steadily since 2001. “According to new statistics from the China
Electricity Council,” reported American Progress senior fellow Joseph Romm, “China’s wind power production actually increased more than coal power
production for the first time ever in 2012.” This growth is the result, in part, of robust government support: China has invested $200.8 billion in
stimulus funding for clean tech. Estimates of U.S. stimulus funding for clean technology range from $50 to $80 billion. The European Union is also
moving forward to create a €1 trillion regional supergrid. Germany and Portugal in particular are moving aggressively to expand their already quite
large clean-tech sectors. Action in the core industrial economies is essential because only they have the infrastructure that can propel the clean-tech
revolution and transform the world economy. A De Facto Carbon Tax Environmental economists tend to agree that the single most important thing the
United States could do to accelerate the shift to clean energy would be to impose a carbon tax. Despite
our political sclerosis and
fossil fuel fundamentalism, the means to do that already exist. First and foremost, there is
the E nvironmental P rotection A gency, which could achieve significant and immediate emissions
reductions using nothing more than existing laws and current technologies . According to
Kassie Siegel at the Center for Biological Diversity, “ The Clean Air Act can achieve everything we need :
a 40 percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels by 2020.” Rather boring in
tone and dense with legalistic detail, the ongoing fight over EPA rulemaking is probably the
most important environmental battle in a generation . Since 2007, thanks to the pressure and
EPA has had enormous— but under-utilized — power . That was the year when the
lawsuits of green activists, the
Supreme Court ruled, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, that the agency should determine whether greenhouse gases threaten
human health. In December 2010, the EPA published a science-based “endangerment finding,” which found that CO2 and five other greenhouse gases
are, in fact, dangerous to human life because they cause global warming. Once the EPA issues an endangerment finding, it is legally bound to
promulgate regulations to address the problem. The first of these post–Massachusetts v. EPA “tailoring rules” were for “mobile sources.” Between
2011 and 2012, regulations for cars and for trucks went into effect. Then
the EPA set strict limits for new power plants in
2012. But other major sources of greenhouse gas pollution— like existing electric power
plants (which pump out roughly 40 percent of the nation’s total GHG emissions), oil refineries, cement plants, steel mills, and shipping—
have yet to be properly regulated pursuant to Massachusetts v. EPA. If the EPA were to use the
Clean Air Act— and do so “with extreme prejudice” —it could impose a de facto carbon
tax. Industries would still be free to burn dirty fossil fuels, but they would have to use very
expensive, and in some cases nonexistent, new technology to meet emission standards. Or they would have to pay very
steep and mounting fines for their emissions. Such penalties could reach thousands of dollars per day, per
violation. Thus, a de facto carbon tax. Then cheap fossil fuel energy would become expensive, driving
investment toward carbon-neutral forms of clean energy like wind and solar. For extra measure we could
end fossil fuel subsidies. Before long, it would be more profitable to invest in clean energy sources than
dangerous and filthy ones. Big Green Buy and U.S. “Shadow Socialism” According to clean-tech experts, innovation is now less important
than rapid, large-scale implementation. In other words, developing a clean-energy economy is not about new gadgets but about new policies. Most of
the energy technologies we need already exist. You know what they are: wind farms, concentrated solar power plants, geothermal and tidal power, all
feeding an efficient smart grid that, in turn, powers electric vehicles and radically more energy-efficient buildings. But leading clean technologies
remain slightly more expensive than the old dirty-tech alternatives. This “price gap” is holding back the mass application of clean technology. The
simple fact is that capitalist economies will not switch to clean energy until it is cheaper than fossil fuel. The fastest way to close the price gap is to build
large clean-tech markets that allow for economies of scale. But what
is the fastest way to build those markets? More
research grants? More tax credits? More clumsy pilot programs? No. The fastest, simplest way to
do it is to reorient government procurement away from fossil fuel energy and toward
clean energy and technology—to use the government’s vast spending power to create a market for green energy. Elsewhere, I have
called this the Big Green Buy. Consider this: federal, state, and local government constitute more than 38 percent of our GDP. In more concrete terms,
Uncle Sam owns or leases more than 430,000 buildings (mostly large office buildings) and 650,000 vehicles. (Add state and local government activity,
and all those numbers grow by about a third again.) The federal government is the world’s largest consumer of energy and vehicles, and the nation’s
largest greenhouse gas emitter. Government
procurement is one of the hidden tools of American
capitalism’s “shadow socialism.” By shadow socialism I refer to the massively important
but often overlooked role of government planning, investment, subsidy, procurement, and
ownership in the economic development of American capitalism. A detailed account of that history is offered in Michael Lind’s
book Land of Promise. From railroads, to telecommunications, and aviation and all the attendant sub-industries of these sectors, government has
provided the capital and conditions for fledging industries to grow large. For example, government didn’t just fund the invention of the microprocessor;
it was also the first major consumer of the device. Throughout the 1950s, more than half of IBM’s revenue came from government contracts. Along
with money, these contracts provided a guaranteed market and stability for IBM and its suppliers, and thus attracted private investment—all of which
helped create the modern computer industry. Now consider the scale of the problem: our asphalt transportation arteries are
clogged with 250 million gasoline-powered vehicles sucking down an annual $200 to $300 billion worth of fuel from more than 121,000 filling stations.
Add to that the cost of heating and cooling buildings, jet travel, shipping, powering industry, and the energy-gobbling servers and mainframes that are
the Internet, and the U.S. energy economy reaches a spectacular annual tab of 1.2 trillion dollars. A
redirection of government
purchasing would create massive markets for clean power, electric vehicles, and efficient buildings, as well as
for more sustainably produced furniture, paper, cleaning supplies, uniforms, food, and services.
If government bought green, it would drive down marketplace prices sufficiently that the momentum toward green tech would become self-reinforcing
and spread to the private sector. Executive Order 13514, which Obama signed in 2009, directed all federal agencies to increase energy efficiency;
measure, report, and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities; conserve and protect water resources through
efficiency, reuse, and storm water management; eliminate waste, recycle, and prevent pollution; leverage agency acquisitions to foster markets for
sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products, and services; design, construct, maintain, and operate high performance
sustainable buildings in sustainable locations. The executive order also stipulates that federal agencies immediately start purchasing 95 percent
through green-certified programs and achieve a 28 percent greenhouse gas reduction by 2020. But it has not been robustly implemented.
Government has tremendous latitude to leverage green procurement because it
requires no new taxes, programs, or spending, nor is it hostage to the holy grail of sixty votes in
the Senate. It is simply a matter of changing how the government buys its energy, vehicles, and
services. Yes, in many cases clean tech costs more up front, but in most cases, savings arrive soon afterward. And government—because of its
size—is a market mover that can leverage money-saving deals if it wishes to. Protest and the “Relative Autonomy” of the State Why would the
capitalist state move to euthanize the fossil fuel industry, that most powerful fraction of the
capitalist class? Or put another way, how can the state regain some of its “relative autonomy” from
capital? History indicates that massive, crisis-producing protest is one of the most common reasons a
modern state will act against the interests of specific entrenched elites and for the “general interest” of society.
When the crisis of protest is bad enough, entrenched elites are forced to take a loss as the state
imposes ameliorative action for the greater good of society. Clearly, we need to build a well-organized, broadly supported, yet tactically
and strategically radical movement to demand proper climate policy. For such a movement to be effective it must use myriad tactics, from lawsuits and
lobbying to direct action such as tree-sits, road blockades, and occupations aimed at the infrastructure of the fossil fuel industry. Only by disrupting the
working of the political and economic system as a whole can we forge a consensus that ending the fossil fuel sector is essential. (The work of Francis
Fox Piven and Richard Cloward is, in my opinion, still among the best in tracing the dynamic of this process of rebellion and reform.) At question, then,
is not just the state’s capacity to evolve, but the capacity of the American people to organize and mobilize on a massive scale. Far be it from me to say
exactly how such movements could or should be built, other than the way they always have been: by trial and error and with good leadership.
Movement building is a mass and organic process. The Rebellion of Nature Along with protest, a more organic source of crisis is already underway and
may also help scare political elites into confronting big carbon. Climate change is a “rebellion of nature,” by which I mean the disruption caused by
history of environmental regulation in the West is, in many ways, the story
ecological breakdown. The

of protest and advocacy combining with the rebellion of nature at the local
(urban) scale. Together, they have forced rudimentary regulation in the name of health and
sanitation. By the 1830s, America’s industrial cities had become perfect incubators of epidemic
disease, particularly cholera and yellow fever. Like climate change today, these diseases hit the poor hardest, but they
also sickened and killed the wealthy. Class privilege offered some protection, but it was not a
guarantee of safety. And so it was that middle-class “goo-goos” and “mugwumps” began a
series of reforms that contained and eventually defeated the urban epidemics. First,
garbage-eating hogs were banned from city streets, then public sanitation programs of refuse
collection began, sewers were built , safe public water provided, and housing codes were
developed and enforced. Eventually, the epidemics of cholera stopped. Soon other infectious
diseases, such as pulmonary tuberculosis, typhus, and typhoid, were largely eliminated . At
the scale of the urban, capitalist society solved an environmental crisis through
planning and public investment. Climate change is a problem of an entirely different
order of magnitude, but these past solutions to smaller environmental crises offer lessons.
Ultimately, solving the climate crisis—like the nineteenth-century victory over urban squalor and epidemic contagions— will
require a re-legitimation of the state’s role in the economy. The modern story of local air
pollution offers another example of the “rebellion of nature.” As Jim McNeil outlines in Something New Under The Sun, smog inundations in industrial
cities of the United States and Europe used to kill many people. In 1879–1880 smog killed 3,000 Londoners, and in Glasgow a 1909 inversion—where
cold air filled with smoke from burning coal was trapped near the ground—killed 1,063. As late as 1952, a pattern of cold and still air killed 4,000 people
in London, according to McNeil, and even more according to others. By 1956, the Britons had passed a clean air act that drove coal out of the major
cities. In the United States there was a similar process. In 1953, smog in New York killed between 170 and 260 people, and as late as 1966 a smog
inversion killed 169 New Yorkers. All of this helped generate pressure for the Clean Air Act of 1970. Today, a similar process is underway in China. Local
air quality is so bad that it is forcing changes to Chinese energy policy. A major World Bank study has estimated that “the combined health and non-
health cost of outdoor air and water pollution for China’s economy comes to around $US 100 billion a year (or about 5.8% of the country’s GDP).”
People across China are protesting pollution. Foreign executives are turning down positions in Beijing because of the toxic atmospheric stew that
western visitors have taken to calling “airpocalypse.” The film director Chen Kaige, who won the Palme d’Or for his 1993 film Farewell My Concubine,
told the world he couldn’t think or make films because of the Chinese capital’s appallingly bad air. These local pressures are a large part of what is
driving Chinese investment in renewable energy. Last year China added more energy capacity from wind than from the coal sector. Capitalism vs.
Nature? Some of the first thinkers to note a conflict between capitalism and non-human nature were Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. They came to their
ecology through examining the local problem of relations between town and country—expressed simultaneously as urban pollution and rural soil
depletion. In exploring this question they relied on the pioneering work of soil chemist Justus von Liebig. And from this small-scale problem, they
developed the idea of capitalism creating a rift in the metabolism of natural processes. Here is how Marx explained the dilemma: Capitalist production
collects the population together in great centers, and causes the urban population to achieve an ever-growing preponderance. This has two results. On
the one hand it concentrates the historical motive force of society; on the other hand, it disturbs the metabolic interaction between man and the earth,
i.e., it prevents the return to the soil of its constituent elements consumed by man in the form of food and clothing; hence it hinders the operation of
the eternal natural condition for the lasting fertility of the soil….All progress in capitalist agriculture is a progress in the art, not only of robbing the
worker, but of robbing the soil. And as with “soil robbing,” so too concentrations of atmospheric CO2: the natural systems are out of sync; their
elements are being rearranged and redistributed, ending up as garbage and pollution. It may well be true that capitalism is incapable of
accommodating itself to the limits of the natural world. But that is not the same question as whether or not capitalism can solve the climate crisis.
Climate mitigation and adaptation are merely an effort to buy time to address the other larger
set of problems that is the whole ecological crisis. This is both a pessimistic and an optimistic
view. Although capitalism has not overcome the fundamental conflict between its infinite growth potential and the finite parameters of the planet’s
pollution sinks, it has, in the past, addressed specific environmental crises. Anyone who thinks the
existing economic system must be totally transformed before we can deal with the impending
climate crisis is delusional or in willful denial of the very clear findings of climate science. If
the climate system unravels, all bets are off. The many progressive visions born of the
Enlightenment will be swallowed and forgotten by the rising seas or smashed to
pieces by the wrathful storms of climate chaos.
Inherency
Inherency - General
The Squo doesn’t solve climate literacy – DeVos and Trump rhetoric,
disinformation, and out-dated or ineffective education programs.
Reid and Branch 1/18 (Ann Reid is the executive director and Glenn Branch is the deputy
director of the National Center for Science Education, “Will education secretary pick Betsy
DeVos dilute science instruction in schools?” Stat News, January 18th, 2017,
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/18/betsy-devos-education-evolution-climate-change/) -DS
What will the incoming administration mean for science education in the United States? In particular, what impact might Betsy
DeVos, the pick for secretary of the Department of Education, have on what is taught in our nation’s science classrooms? A few
loud voices dismissing science can be enough to intimidate teachers into diluting their
treatment of evolution and climate change, permanently short-changing a generation of science
learners. DeVos is likely to take a quieter approach. She hasn’t taken strong positions on either evolution or
climate change, and likely won’t focus on them as curriculum issues. But if her views on school
choice are implemented, even more students may be miseducated. DeVos favors letting parents use
publicly funded vouchers to send their children to private and religious schools where, in contrast to public schools, creationism can
be taught without violating the constitutional guarantee of the separation of church and state. During Senate hearings Tuesday on
DeVos’s nomination, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) asked point-blank if a DeVos-led Department of Education would side
with students or with purveyors of junk science. She evaded answering — but conspicuously
used the “critical
thinking” catchphrase beloved by creationists and climate change deniers alike. Others in the
Trump administration have been more outspoken challengers of climate change and evolution.
During the campaign for president, Donald Trump repeatedly called climate change a hoax. His recent
claim that “no one really knows” is a scant improvement. While evolution was not as much in the headlines during
the campaign, Vice President-elect Mike Pence once saw fit to denounce evolution on the floor of the House of Representatives. The
federal Department of Education has little power over what teachers are required to cover. Science education standards are set at
the state level. Evolution is generally integrated into current standards and textbooks, and climate change — a relative newcomer to
American science education — is increasingly included in them. But just including evolution and climate change in standards isn’t
enough. Teachers must feel confident when presenting the material in their classrooms. Unfortunately,
they often don’t. Only 54 percent of American science teachers teach climate change forthrightly,
while only 28 percent do the same for evolution. The rest? Some deny the science outright and present climate
change denial or creationism. Others compromise by skipping the topic, omitting key elements, or
downplaying the solidity of the evidence. Among the most powerful reasons for their reticence is
teachers’ perceptions of the attitudes toward these socially contentious topics in the
communities where they teach. Nationally, only about two-thirds of Americans accept that human
activities are responsible for recent climate change, and a similar percentage accept that human beings have
evolved over time. The consensus among scientists on those two topics, though, is nearly universal.
There is, in truth, no scientific debate: Evolution and climate change are both supported by mountains of
fully vetted evidence amassed over decades by multiple scientific disciplines. Although most
science teachers accept the established science, many of them live and work in places where they fear that
the majority of their community does not. It takes courage to tackle forthrightly topics that may
provoke community disapproval or even hostility. Put yourself in a teacher’s shoes. You’ve just begun a
lesson on, say, how atmospheric carbon dioxide contributes to Earth’s temperature. This is
straightforward physics — not a matter of opinion or debate. Then one of your students raises a
hand to protest, “But the president says that no one really knows whether climate change is
real!” What would you do? “Make lemonade from lemons” is my advice to science teachers in such situations. Invite
students to think like scientists by asking questions such as “How could we figure out whether our climate is changing?” or “What
kind of evidence should we gather?” Students would quickly learn that just about any kind of evidence they might name has already
been collected and they can examine the data for themselves — at the websites of NASA and NOAA, at least for the time being. Not
only are students who do this kind of exploration more likely to be convinced about the reality of climate change, they will also come
away with an invaluable lesson in how science works and how they can put scientific thinking to work in their own lives. Most
parents, whether they live in blue or red states, want their children to get a good science education. They know it can open up a
world of better jobs and a more secure future. That’s why we and our colleagues at the National Center for Science Education work
hard to let teachers know that the scientific community, and the majority of people in their communities, will have their backs when
they teach the science without compromise. Science teachers will find their jobs more challenging if our
political leaders dismiss scientific findings and question the motives of scientists and research
agencies. Sadly, then, we predict that NCSE will be busy during the new administration. During the Trump years, it will
be up to all of us to let science teachers know that we recognize, support, and applaud them for
the crucial and difficult role they play in equipping the next generation to understand the power
of scientific thinking.

Climate change denialism is ubiquitous in American classrooms – education


reform is uniquely key to stop the indoctrination of the next generation
NCSE ‘11 (NCSE, "Climate Change Denial Is Affecting Education," National Center for Science
Education, nd, https://ncse.com/library-resource/climate-change-denial-is-affecting-education)
//JCL
Climate change denial is already threatening the integrity of science education in formal and informal
education settings. In the public schools, such threats are primarily due to laws adopted or considered at the level
of state government, policies adopted or considered at the level of the local school district, and
actions adopted or considered at the level of the individual classroom, where teachers may either
deny climate change themselves or encounter pressure from climate change deniers in the
community. The following is a selection of recent (from 2007 to 2011) incidents, intended to be illustrative rather than
comprehensive; NCSE is now routinely monitoring cases of climate change denial affecting education. At the state level In 2010,
South Dakota’s legislature adopted House Concurrent Resolution 1009, in which all three of the pillars of
climate change denial were on display. The resolution described climate change as “a scientific theory
rather than a proven fact” and cited purported evidence against global warming suggested that
the scientific consensus on climate change was due to “political and philosophical viewpoints
which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming
phenomena” called for “balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South
Dakota” As a resolution, HCR 1009 was non-binding, merely expressing the legislature’s view and not requiring teachers in South
Dakota to teach differently. But it surely sent a message to those teachers. Additionally, climate change is now often included along
with evolution in lists of “controversial” topics in state legislation. For example, the
so-called Louisiana Science
Education Act, enacted in 2008, called on education administrators to help to promote “thinking skills,
logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited
to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” These four topics were described as
controversial in the original draft of the legislation. Dozens of such “academic freedom” bills have been introduced in state
legislatures over the past decade, although successfully only in Louisiana. Since 2008, antievolutionists in Louisiana have reportedly
invoked the law to support proposals to teach creationism in at least two parishes — Livingston and Tangipahoa — and to attack the
treatment of evolution in biology textbooks proposed for adoption by the state. As the topic of climate change
becomes increasingly prevalent in science classrooms, it is likely that climate change deniers in
Louisiana will similarly invoke the law to support proposals to teach climate change denial or to
downplay the treatment of climate change in science textbooks. A further locus of climate change denial is
state science standards. Since the 1990s, state science standards have been increasingly important in
public education in the United States. Standards provide guidelines for local school districts to
follow in developing their science curricula; they determine the content of statewide science
examinations; and they are consulted by textbook publishers in developing their science textbooks. They can also provide a
bulwark for teachers and administrators facing complaints about the content of the curriculum. But climate change deniers
often attempt to undermine the treatment of climate change when standards are updated. In
Texas in 2009, for example, a highly politicized state board of education revised a benchmark for Earth and
Space Science from “analyze the changes in Earth's atmosphere through time” to “analyze the changes in Earth's atmosphere that
could have occurred through time” and added
a benchmark for Environmental Systems requiring students
to “[a]nalyze and evaluate different views on the existence of global warming,” as NCSE's Steven
Newton reported (PDF) in The Earth Scientist (2009). The chair of the board at the time was quoted as explaining, “Conservatives like
me think the evidence [for human contributions to global warming] is a bunch of hooey.” At the district level In 2010, a group of
local parents in Mesa County, Colorado, petitioned the school district to stop teaching about climate change at all. Here, too, all
three pillars of climate change denial were at work. The leader of the petition drive, according to the Denver Post (May 26, 2010):
told the school board that climate change “is not a proven scientific theory. There is not evidence to support it” told the newspaper
that she was impelled to start the petition when “parents approached her to complain that their children couldn’t freely express
their conservative values in class” argued that “if the subject is going to be taught, the ‘other side’ should be presented so that
students aren’t subjected to a frightening untruth” In the end, the school board declined to act on the petition, and thanks to the
concerted action of concerned parents, teachers, and scientists, climate change is still part of the local science curriculum. In 2011,
the Los Alamitos, California, Unified School District adopted a policy requiring teachers addressing any controversial issue to use
material that offers “a balance of viewpoints and encourages students to examine each side of the issue.” The policy was adopted at
the behest of a district trustee who was concerned in particular about a new Advanced Placement class in environmental science,
which addressed climate change. Interviewed by the Orange County Register (May 14, 2011), he managed to repeat all three pillars
of climate change denial: There are two clearly divergent opinions on global warming … There are those who believe that global
warming is a fact, created by man’s impact on the environment and the consequences will be devastating. There are others on the
conservative side who believe it’s much ado about nothing. It’s overhyped and politically motivated, and the science is not solid, and
there’s room for more studies. … On this particular issue, I’m not pushing my view. I just want the kids to be presented with balance.
The adoption of the policy provoked a controversy in the district, and even attracted international attention. Subsequently, thanks
to the action of concerned parents and teachers, the policy was revised (with input from NCSE). Instead of requiring teachers to
present “each side of the issue,” regardless of its scientific merit, the new policy instructs that teachers to “[r]epresent facts and
concepts of controversial issues from multiple perspectives to ensure that students develop critical thinking and problem-solving
skills.” The teachers in the district regarded the revised policy as no longer requiring them to compromise the integrity of climate
education. At the classroom level In 2007, in Federal Way, Washington, a local parent objected to a classroom screening of An
Inconvenient Truth, the 2006 documentary about former United States Vice President Al Gore’s campaign to educate citizens about
climate change. The parent explained his concern to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (January 10, 2007): “The Bible says that in the end
times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn’t in the DVD.” The Federal Way School Board then adopted a policy that
required any teacher who screened the film to present an opposing view. The policy was quickly abandoned, however. As the Seattle
Times (January 24, 2007) reported, “Dozens of people showed up at Tuesday’s meeting, many of them concerned about the board’s
view of the film as controversial and therefore subject to a district policy that requires teachers to present other points of view. In
remarks reminiscent of earlier national debates on evolution, residents told the board that, as far as they were concerned, there was
no other valid, scientific perspective they could present to students on global warming — apart from the view, presented in the film,
that global warming is caused by humans.” In 2011, after a teacher in California’s San Francisco Bay area showed a video about
climate change to her middle school science class, a parent complained, protesting that showing the video was “brainwashing [the
students] into believing anthropogenic global warming is a fact, not a theory.” To rectify the problem, the parent demanded that the
school host a debate in front of all students in the grade, in which a climate change denier would present a case against the scientific
consensus. The district administration agreed to the demand. Asked by the teachers in the school for help, NCSE explained that such
a debate would be pedagogically inappropriate, misleading students about the nature of science: science is settled not in a debate
on a stage, but in the scientific literature. (Significantly, creationists, like climate change deniers, are often eager to propose debates:
several articles in Reports of the National Center for Science Education 24:6 discuss the counterproductive nature of such debates,
although without a focus on the K-12 classroom.) In the end, the district heeded these concerns and canceled the debate. These
incidents at the classroom level are doubtless just the tip of the iceberg: with
over 15,000 local school districts
across the United States, it is difficult to know exactly how prevalent attacks on climate
change education are. Two recent informal surveys conducted in 2011 offer a degree of insight. In a poll of science
educators conducted by the National Science Teachers Association, although 60% of respondents reported that
they were not concerned about how climate change is taught in their school, 82% reported
having faced skepticism about climate change and climate change education from students, 54%
reported having faced such skepticism from parents, and 26% reported having faced such
skepticism from administrators. In a poll of science educators conducted by the National Earth Science Teachers
Association, although only 5% of respondents reported that they were required to teach “both sides” of climate change, 36%
reported that they “have been influenced in some way” to do so, and 25 to 30% reported that students, parents, administrators, or
community members have disputed that climate change is happening or is the result of human activity. A rigorous national survey of
the prevalence and nature of climate change skepticism in the classroom — such as that conducted with regard to evolution by
Michael B. Berkman, Julianna Sandell Pacheco, and Eric Plutzer, published in PLoS Biology in 2008 — apparently remains to be
performed. In informal education In 2007, there were allegations that officials at the Smithsonian’s Natural Museum of Natural
History downplayed climate change in its 2006 exhibit “Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely” in order to avoid criticism from climate
change deniers in Congress and the George W. Bush administration. According to the Washington Post (November 16, 2007),
internal documents and correspondence revealed that the museum’s director “ordered last-minute changes in the exhibit’s script to
add ‘scientific uncertainty’ about climate change.” Although the director of the museum told the Post that “there was no political
pressure,” he also acknowledged taking a cautious approach “because it had the words ‘climate change,’ which is a politically
sensitive issue.” A NASA scientist involved with the development of the exhibit commented, “I never felt that as a scientist, I was
pressured to change any of the input,” adding, “The real question is what happened at the highest level after that input came in.
That I don’t know.” In 2009, the San Diego Zoo decided to make climate change the theme of its 2010 calendar, which was
distributed to almost a quarter of a million subscribers to its Zoonooz magazine. Indignant climate change deniers “called and sent
letters and e-mails criticizing the zoo for taking a position on a topic that has been debated from San Diego to Shanghai,” the San
Diego Union-Tribune (November 25, 2009) reported. The managing editor of the magazine summarized their complaints: “we are
reporting on it in a way that makes human beings the ones who are causing it, and kind of the ‘bad guys.’” “The zoo isn’t backing
down,” the Union-Tribune explained, “and instead may be stepping more into the realm of political discourse as it strengthens its
identity as a conservation organization.” The director of applied animal ecology at the zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research told
the newspaper, “When there’s good, sound science behind things, we want to step up and let people know and even advocate for
change.” The Zoological Society of San Diego, which operates the zoo, officially recognizes (PDF, p. 64) “the substantial and
persuasive data on global climate change and its ramifications for endangered wildlife and habitats.” NCSE is here to help NCSE
stands ready to defend accurate science education in all of these settings. You can support our work by becoming a member, or by
visiting the Taking Action section and learning to be an effective advocate in your own community. You can learn more about the
attacks on climate change in the Climate Change Denial section, or brush up on the science of climate change in Climate Change 101.

Climate science in schools are declining – trump era lawmakers are inserting
climate denialism into curriculum
Boyle 2/27 ,(Rebecca Boyle, award winning freelance journalist in Saint Louis, “American Kids
Are About to Get Even Dumber When It Comes to Climate Science” Mother Jones, Feb 27, 2017,
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/02/politicians-are-fast-learning-how-bring-
climate-denial-classroom-under-trump/) –os
The debate surrounding science education in America is at least as old as the 1925 Scopes
“monkey trial,” in which a high school science teacher was criminally charged for teaching evolution in violation of Tennessee
law. But bills percolating through state legislatures across the US are giving the education fight a new flavor, by encompassing
climate change denial and serving it up as academic freedom. one prominent example, South Dakota’s Senate Bill 55, was voted
down Wednesday, but others are on the docket in three states, with possible others on the way. Advocates say the bills
are
designed to give teachers additional latitude to explain scientific theories. Opponents say they
empower science denial, removing accountability from science education and eroding the
foundation of public schools. In bills making their way through statehouses in Indiana, Oklahoma, and Texas, and a
potential measure in Iowa, making common cause with climate change denial is a way for advocates to
encourage skepticism of evolution, said Glenn Branch, deputy director for the National Center for Science Education, an
advocacy group. “The rhetoric falls into predictable patterns, and the patterns are very similar for
those two groups of science deniers,” he said. Science defenders like the NCSE say science denial has three pillars: That
the science is uncertain; that its acceptance would have bad moral and social consequences; and that it’s only fair to present all
sides. All three are at work in the latest efforts to attack state and federal education standards on science education, Branch said.
According to a survey published last year, this strategy is already making headway. The survey, in the journal Science, found that
three-fourths of science teachers spend time on climate change instruction. But of those
teachers, 30% tell their students that it is “likely due to natural causes,” while another 31%
teach that the science is unsettled. Yet 97% of scientists who actively study Earth’s climate say it is changing because of
human activity. In South Dakota, state Rep. Chip Campbell, R-Rapid City, said the bill would have enabled broader discussions in the
classroom, according to The Argus-Leader. “In science it is imperative that we show not only the strengths but also the weaknesses
of theories,” he said. “Weaknesses, not strengths, are the key to finding the truth.” Many of these bills are being pushed in response
to recently adopted federal standards for science education. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS), developed by 26 states,
were finalized in 2015. As of November 2016, 16 states had adopted them, and the guidelines are under consideration in several
others. “The concerns of these anti-science officials aren’t rooted in peer-vetted science. They are
rooted in opposition to learning the truth about climate change.” Efforts to undermine science education
are often related to adoption of the new standards. In West Virginia in 2016, for example, lawmakers removed
language in the standards that said human activity has increased carbon dioxide emissions and
affected the climate. In Wyoming, lawmakers passed a statute banning public schools from
teaching climate change is caused by humans, though that was later repealed. Also in 2016, Idaho lawmakers
passed a bill permitting the use of the Bible in public schools as long as it was in connection with astronomy, biology, and geology.
The bill passed in a modified form without referencing those scientific topics, but it was later vetoed. “The concerns of these anti-
science officials aren’t rooted in peer-vetted science. They are rooted in opposition to learning the truth about climate change,” said
Lisa Hoyos, the director of Climate Parents, an offshoot of the Sierra Club that supports climate education. “The purpose of these
bills is to create space for peer-reviewed, evidence-based science to be challenged based on teachers’ political opinions.”
Inherency – Government Hindrance
Climate change education is being silenced now – attempts have been both
politically and educationally contentious
Timmer 3/31 (John Timmer is is Ars Technica's science editor and has a Bachelor of Arts in
Biochemistry from Columbia University, and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the
University of California, Berkeley, “Anti-climate science think tank trying to get textbooks into
US schools,” Arstechnica, March 31, 2017, https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/anti-
climate-science-think-tank-trying-to-get-textbooks-into-us-schools/) -- sk

Even as the federal government did its best to pretend that climate change didn't exist, the push
against it expanded out into the school system this week. The state legislature in Idaho removed mention
of climate change from its science education standards, even as a "think" tank sent school teachers
copies of a text that promotes a plethora of non-scientific ideas about climate change. Trump flips
science the bird with new budget On the federal level, it has been a bad couple of weeks for science, as the
Trump administration released a budget outline that would dramatically slash spending on
research and science-based policies. That was followed by an executive order that blocked the US
government's first attempt to come to grips with the problem of climate change. Capping things off was
a bizarre hearing held by the House Science Committee, in which the chair of the committee accused the entire
climate science community of abandoning the scientific method. The new head of the EPA also
decided to reject the advice of the agency's scientists, just for good measure. You might think that science would
deserve a breather after all that, but it's not to be. Yesterday, Politico reported that the staff of the Department of
Energy's Office of International Climate and Clean Energy have been told to avoid using the term
"climate change" at all. While a DOE spokesman denied that this was a formal policy, the directive allegedly was handed down
in a meeting. Staff was told that the term would cause a "visceral reaction" among the new senior staff, including Department head
Rick Perry. Meanwhile, the
attempt to ignore the reality of climate change spread to schools. In Idaho,
legislators passed a resolution that removed five items from the state's science education
standards. All of them were about humanity's negative impact on the environment, and the net result is to remove climate
change from the teaching standards altogether. Local coverage of the debate over the move suggests at least some of the
opponents of the science standards felt that the negatives of the discussion of human impact needed to be balanced by some
positives. But as 59
Representatives voted in favor of removing mention of climate change, it's
probably safe to assume some of them voted because they don't believe it exists.

Republicans blocking out climate change curriculum in squo


Henry ’15 (Devin Henry is a journalist for The Hill, “Senate rejects climate change education
measure,” The Hill, July 15, 2015, http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/248068-
senate-rejects-climate-change-education-amendment) -- sk

Republican senators rejected an amendment to a No Child Left Behind reform bill Wednesday that looked to
establish a federal climate change education program. The measure, from Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.),
would have created a grant program for school districts to “develop or improve climate science
curriculum and supplementary education materials,” according to the amendment text. It failed on a 44-
53 vote. Before the vote, Markey said the amendment aimed to “ensure that we provide the best
science training available for this next generation, the green generation.” “The children of our
country deserve the best scientific education they can get on this topic,” he said. “They are the future
leaders of our country and our world. They must be equipped for this generational science.” Sen. Lamar
Alexander (R-Tenn.), the author of the Senate’s education bill, equated the measure to Common Core, the
federal learning standards that many conservatives have slammed as a government takeover of
education. “If you like Washington, D.C., getting involved in Common Core in your state, you’re going to love this amendment
because it gets the federal government involved in creating a curriculum for climate change in your local high schools and other
schools,” Alexander said. Alexander called himself a “a Republican who believes climate change is a problem and that human activity
is a major contributor to that problem.” But he
warned that attaching the amendment to his bill could lead
to curriculum whiplash depending on which party holds the White House and sets education
standards. “Just imagine what the curriculum on climate change would be if we shifted from
President Obama to President Cruz and then back to President Sanders and then to President
Trump,” he said. “There would be a lot of wasted paper, writing and rewriting textbooks.” Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Mark
Kirk (R-Ill.), both of whom face tough reelection fights in swing states next year, were the only Republicans to vote for Markey’s
amendment. Among Democrats, Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Jon Tester (Mont.) voted against the
measure.
Inherency – Schools/Teachers
Status quo teachers’ lack of knowledge on climate change links to students
receiving falsified information and interpreting it as a debatable subject.
Day 17 (Adrienne, contributing writer to Common Sense News. “CNN PARENTS: Climate change
in schools where it's 'fake news',” CNN, June 14,2017,
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/health/climate-change-schools-partner/index.html) CVR
(CNN)Eric Madrid teaches advanced sciences, including topics on climate change and evolution, to
high school students in the deep-red Texas Hill Country. As one might expect in this conservative bastion of the
nation, some of the students say it's all lies or fake news. "But that's usually in the beginning of
the semester," said Madrid, who left a Ph.D.-level research gig to go into public education. "As I show them data and
evidence, that tends to go away." In fact, Madrid isn't so worrieed about his students. It's the other teachers who
concern him: "I get much more pushback from other teachers than students. Adults have already pretty much made
up their minds, and we also don't have the time to sit down and discuss the issues." 5 things you can
do about climate change 5 things you can do about climate change Madrid's situation underscores the confusion that the climate
change issue has presented to many schools across the country.
Although 97% of climate scientists agree that
global warming is linked to the burning of fossil fuels, a majority of middle and high school
teachers are not aware of this consensus. Many of these teachers teach climate change as if it
were an ongoing debate within the scientific community. This disconnect between scientists and educators was
captured in a recent survey (PDF) by the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit that works to promote science over
ideology. "Our survey
found that relatively few teachers had even a college course that devoted as
much as a single class to climate change," said Glenn Branch, the center's deputy director, who notes that many
teachers present misinformation about climate change or avoid teaching it entirely. "Scientists
believe that (climate change) is a really big issue, and it's really inconsistent in terms of how it's
being taught," explained Gerald Lieberman, director of the California State Education and Environment Roundtable, which
works closely with the California Department of Education on instructional strategies related to the environment. Meet the kids
suing the President Photos: Meet the kids suing the President Nationally, there
continue to be tensions surrounding
climate change, with the Trump administration expressing doubts about its validity and seeking cuts in
climate research programs. This conflict has trickled down to the state level too -- even in the
schools. A bill in the Texas House of Representatives would allow science teachers to teach "the scientific
strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories," namely theories around subjects such as climate change,
evolution, the origins of life and cloning. The bill maintains
that "the protection of a teacher's academic
freedom is necessary to enable the teacher to provide effective instruction." The Texas measure mirrors
efforts in Idaho and West Virginia, where objections to the inclusion of climate change in state education standards have met with
varying degrees of success. There is also a
bill in Florida that would make it easier for residents to challenge
school textbooks, including those that discuss topics such as climate change and evolution. "That
class of bill is couched in the language of academic freedom," said David Evans, executive director of the National Science Teachers
Association. "But teachers shouldn't be permitted to teach things in class that aren't science." Most of
these bills in other states have been defeated. In Iowa, legislators canned a measure that would have prohibited the state Board of
Education from adopting the Next Generation Science Standards, which include climate change in the curriculum. Does Trump
believe in global warming? Does Trump believe in global warming? 03:21 This year, 11 bills designed to alter science education
standards have been unsuccessfully introduced across the United States, by sponsors who perhaps have been encouraged by the
Trump administration's stance on climate change. Meanwhile, 18 states and the District of Columbia have approved the Next
Generation Science Standards, which were developed with the help of several national science organizations and unveiled in 2013.
The main critique of these standards is that climate change instruction is largely relegated to Earth and life science classes, not so
much to biology, chemistry and physics -- the science subjects that most students focus on in high school. "Classes where
it's
natural to discuss climate change have been neglected," Branch said. But Evans disagrees, saying that lessons
around climate change are in "appropriate places in the curriculum, based on what kids can learn when." Ann Akey, who teaches
Advanced Placement environmental science and environmental chemistry at Woodside High School in California, concurs with
Branch, though in her school they are working on weaving climate change into the bio-chem-physics curricula, taking it further than
the science guidelines suggest. 'I just don't think climate change is real' 'I just don't think climate change is real'
03:11 "California just adopted (the standards) in the last year, so it won't be fully implemented" for a few years, she said. Lieberman
is less sanguine about the speed of implementation, saying it will take seven to 10 years for California to fully execute the standards
and a decade or two for the rest of the nation to follow suit. "These are gigantic (educational) systems," he said, "and that is the core
of the problem." Evans sounded a more positive note, saying he thinks some school districts will adopt the standards before their
own state legislatures do. He cited Wisconsin, where the vast majority of school districts seem to have adopted the science
standards, even though the state hasn't done so. Where climate change is threatening the health of Americans Where climate
change is threatening the health of Americans "When we do climate science sessions at our conferences, it's standing-room only,"
Evans said. "Teachers are anxious to learn the science so that they can take it to their kids." But in the interim, those on the front
lines stress the need for professional development and support. Some are lucky in that department, like Chris Geerer, who teaches
sixth-grade general science at Parcells Middle School in Grosse Pointe Woods, Michigan. "I took a (climate change) class at Michigan
Tech a few years ago, but not everybody does that," Geerer said. "Hopefully, as we roll out (our new) middle
school curriculum, we will provide teachers with resources and background information, and
force them to think about climate change and digest it and be on board and comfortable
teaching it, too." Join the conversation See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and
Twitter. Madrid adopts a "show, don't tell" approach when teaching his Texas students about climate change. He has them track
data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. "I don't tell them anything, just tell them to get the data," he said.
"Any location they choose data from will show that it's real." Branch added that "state
science standards do make a
difference, as they influence what's in textbooks, what's in local curricula, and they influence
statewide testing, too. But at the end of the day, when the classroom door closes, it's really going to be the
individual teacher who determines whether or not climate change is going to be properly
presented or not."

Science is currently under fire by censorship and being classified as a belief


Johnston 3/6 (Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent, 3-6-2017, "Scientist urges mass
protest against Trump administration amid denial of climate change, evolution and vaccines,"
Independent, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-
climate-change-denial-mass-protest-global-warming-climatologist-dr-peter-gleick-pacific-
a7614466.html) - byl

A leading climatologist has warned US democracy is under attack from the “uninhibited use of
lies, false statements and bad science”, as he urged people to take part in public demonstrations in support of
science. In an article for the website Wired, Dr Peter Gleick, co-founder of the Pacific Institute in California, said
leading members of Trump administration rejected the “undeniable reality of climate change”,
evolution, the science about vaccines, and the need to study gun violence. And he said he had taken to
carrying a copy of the US Constitution in his briefcase to help remind himself that it guarantees the right to peacefully protest. At the
recent American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting, its chief executive Rush Holt said some members
had expressed fear that the US could become like the Soviet Union, where ideology carried more
weight than hard evidence. Clearly sharing similar concerns, Dr Gleick, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences,
said he planned to attend both the March for Science and the Climate March in April. The demonstrations were
prompted by Donald Trump’s stance on science and follow the Women's Marches around the world held in
response to a man who bragged about being able to sexually assault women because he was a celebrity becoming US
President. He later insisted he had never actually done so and his remarks were "locker-room talk". “A disturbing array of
fundamental social and human values are under assault in the United States,” Dr Gleick wrote. “These
values – basic
human rights, amicable international relationships, environmental justice, free speech,
separation of church and state, an open and independent media, and more – form the bedrock
of what makes our country special. “Yet these values are being undermined in an
unprecedented assault by the Trump administration and by politicians who see an opportunity for an
unprincipled massive power grab. “One tool being used in this assault on democracy is the uninhibited
use of lies, false statements, blatant and intentional misrepresentations of fact, and bad science.
“This is evident in the rejection of the undeniable reality of climate change by many of Trump’s top appointees, the promotion to
power of individuals who reject the fact of evolution in favour of pseudoscience and religious fundamentalism, the spreading of bad
medical science around the proven safety of vaccines, and the refusal to study the health risks of guns.” He said he had found the
news over the past few weeks “frightening”. “I have colleagues in countries targeted by travel and religious bans. My
work uses
scientific data collected, managed, and now potentially censored or hidden by federal agencies,”
Dr Gleick said. “I see Congressional representatives and committees seek out bad science to support
predetermined and ideological positions, and then threaten scientists who challenge them.”
Scientists tended to fear their work could become “tainted by politics”, he said, adding the rewards for expressing political opinions
were few. “But when the time comes to speak, to stand up, those of us who can must do so. That time has come,” he said. “When
politics threatens fundamental social values and principles, the defence of those values and principles becomes an over-riding
priority.” Dr Gleick said he had been tear-gassed when protesting against the Vietnam War in the 1970s and had also marched in
opposition to the Iraq War in 2003.

Climate change denying teachers are in America’s classrooms now – the aff is
key to solve
Turner 16 (Cory, Cory Turner edits and reports for the NPR Ed Team. He's led the team's
coverage of the Common Core while also finding time for his passion: exploring how kids learn
— in the classroom, on the playground, at home and everywhere else. Before coming to NPR Ed,
Cory was Senior Editor of All Things Considered. "Why Science Teachers Are Struggling With
Climate Change," NPR.org, 2-19-2016,
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/02/19/467206769/why-science-teachers-are-struggling-
with-climate-change) //JCL
Many middle and high school science teachers are getting climate change wrong. That's according to the results of a new, national
teacher survey backed by the National Center for Science Education and published in the journal Science. Before we get to those
results, a quick, climate science refresher is in order. NPR science correspondent Christopher Joyce says the
world's major
scientific organizations are now clear on global warming: "They've all said: It's happening, and it's
being caused by human activity. Add to that the fact that most of the published literature that you see in the big
journals, like Science and Nature and Geophysical Research Letters, is all showing a consensus. It's overwhelming." How
overwhelming? According to this and this, roughly 95 percent of climate scientists believe global warming is
happening and that humans are to blame. That's why this new survey of some 1,500 middle and
high school science teachers, representing all 50 states, is surprising. Roughly 3 in 4 say they talk about
global warming in class, though typically only for an hour or two. But the study's lead author, Eric Plutzer of Penn State, says
barely a majority are getting the science right. Click to subscribe! / "A little more than half are sending
clear messages that human consumption of fossil fuels is the major cause of recent warming,"
Plutzer says. What are the rest saying? Well, roughly 30 percent tell students that humans are only partly to
blame for climate change, along with natural causes. The problem with that, Plutzer says, is that it sends mixed messages,
suggesting that the causes of climate change are still up for debate — when there is no debate among the vast majority of climate
scientists. As for the rest ... "About
one in 10 [teachers] seem to be denying a human role altogether,"
while the remaining 5 percent don't talk about causes at all. Why the disconnect between science teachers
and climate science? "Very few of our teachers had formal training while in college," Plutzer says, "and so the
burden of learning the science falls to them." Robert Clifton is in his third year teaching science at Rose Park Magnet Math & Science
Middle School in Nashville. In college, he majored in biology but says he didn't get much climate science. "I took an ecology class, but
that was the extent of it," Clifton says. "As far as teaching it to the students, no, not a lot of it." Molly Sloss is in her second year of
Teach for America, teaching eighth grade science at Success Preparatory Academy in New Orleans. In college, she says, she took two
good science courses, but that's it. Luckily, Sloss says, "my mother was a middle school science teacher, so I pulled on her a lot." So,
Problem One: little to no formal training. Problem Two: science textbooks. "The minute they're published, they're outdated," says
Susan Oltman, who teaches sixth-grade science at Kittredge Magnet School in Atlanta. And, Oltman says, for teachers who abandon
their books, "it takes a whole lot of time to cull through resources and pull the best ones for your classroom." That means staying
current on the research. That is one reason, a few years ago, Oltman actually spent time at sea studying with climate scientists.
While Oltman tends to avoid debate — or talk of debate — when she covers climate change, Clifton, in Nashville, feels differently.
He recently asked his students to debate whether climate change is largely human-made or the result of natural causes. The
exercise, he insists, doesn't send mixed messages. To the contrary, Clifton says, debate is a powerful tool that can help students
learn to tell the difference between hard science and something they hear on television or at the dinner table. "Where are you
getting this from?" Clifton routinely asks his students. "If you're hearing this from your mother's second cousin twice removed, that's
not a credible resource." Before their debate, many of Clifton's students weren't sure about humans' role in global warming. After
reading the research and listening to the arguments, each student had to vote for a winner. And Clifton says every one of them came
down firmly on the side of science.
Teachers lack understanding and training to effectively teach climate science
Schwartz 16 (John, Climate change journalist, “Science teachers’ grasp of Climate Change is
Found Lacking”, NY Times, February 11, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/science-teachers-grasp-of-climate-change-is-
found-lacking.html?mcubz=2) -KW
Most science teachers in the United States spend some time on climate change in their courses,
but their insufficient grasp of the science as well as political factors “may hinder effective
teaching,” according to a nationwide survey of the profession. The survey, described in the
current issue of the journal Science, found that teachers spent little time on the topic — just one
to two hours on average over an academic year. “It’s clearly not enough time to really provide
students with a good scientific understanding,” said Eric Plutzer, the lead author of the paper
and a professor of political science at Pennsylvania State University. Many teachers also provide
misinformation about climate change, the survey found. The evidence that human activity is a
major cause of recent climate change is overwhelming, but 30 percent of the 1,500 teachers
surveyed said they emphasized that recent global warming “is likely due to natural causes,”
while 12 percent said they did not emphasize human causes. Half of that 12 percent said they
did not discuss any causes at all. Close to a third of the teachers also reported conveying
messages that are contradictory, emphasizing the scientific consensus on human causation and
the idea that many scientists believe the changes have natural causes. The authors of the paper suggested
that those teachers “may wish to teach ‘both sides’ to accommodate values and perspectives that students bring to the classroom.”
The survey also found, however, that only 4.4 percent of teachers said that they had faced overt pressure from parents, school
administrators or the community to teach about climate change. Professor Plutzer, who is the academic director
of Pennsylvania State’s survey research center, said that he and his colleagues were surprised by
the level of ignorance the teachers showed in the survey, especially in describing the current
state of scientific consensus on the topic. More than 95 percent of climate scientists agree that
recent global warming is caused mostly by human activity, but only 30 percent of middle
schoolteachers and 45 percent of high school teachers correctly identified the degree of
consensus as 81 percent to 100 percent. The research team, which collaborated on the project with the National
Center for Science Education, surveyed 1,500 teachers from high schools and middle schools in all 50
states. Josh Rosenau, the programs and policy director for the science education center, said that he found it “encouraging” to
see how many teachers were spending at least some time on climate change. “Coming into it, we expected the number to be a lot
lower than it was,” he said. And while the teachers might not be reporting a great deal of overt pressure, he said, “The broader
environment that they are living in is shaping how willing they are to be forthright about the science.” Bertha Vazquez, a teacher in
Miami who incorporates climate change into all her courses, said the
pressure was real. “Every year, I get the
email from a father who says, ‘This is garbage,’ and why am I teaching this?” she said. The fear
of that kind of response might dissuade other teachers, she said, even though climate change is
included in Florida’s education standards. “If you’re not as confident in the subject area, you’re going to avoid it,”
Ms. Vazquez said. “It’s no fun to field those phone calls.” An advocate for climate education, Ms. Vazquez has persuaded colleagues,
including those teaching German and art, to incorporate climate issues into their courses. The lack of knowledge of the science is
understandable, Professor Plutzer said, because “very few current teachers had much exposure to climate
science when they were in college.” Climate change is still not often part of a formal curriculum, so the instruction in
one year rarely can add to the previous year’s work, Professor Plutzer added. And teachers feel pressured to focus
more intensely on topics that appear on “high-stakes tests” that define much of today’s
educational process, he said. The evolving nature of climate science means continuing teacher education is essential, said
Mr. Rosenau of the science education center. “If you graduated college in the 1990s and are teaching evolution the way it was
taught when you were in school, you’re not doing anything wrong,” he said. “If you’re teaching climate change the way you learned
it in the 1990s,” when the role of human activities and burning of fossil fuels was less clear, “you’re kind of teaching climate change
denialism.” Still, climate science has increasingly become part of lesson plans, and is likely to become more prominent. The Next
Generation Science Standards developed several years ago by 26 states, while not providing a specific curriculum, serve as
guidelines that describe what students should learn in science classes. The standards have been adopted by 16 states and the
District of Columbia, but have a wider influence, because many school districts around the country have independently adopted the
standards. Mr. Rosenau said that the spread of the standards to states that included more than half of the nation’s students meant
that textbook publishers would be more likely to include information about climate change in books and teacher training materials
distributed nationwide. “In the long run, it’s going to affect everybody,” he said. Craig Whipkey, a high school science teacher in
western Pennsylvania, said he devoted about two weeks of instruction to discussing climate change in each of his three courses.
While he occasionally receives pressure from parents, he said, he teaches from the perspective that evidence of human effects on
climate change is compelling. “I no longer have to prove that it’s happening,” he said. Instead, the focus is, “Here’s what the
ramifications are going to be.”

Teachers don’t teach climate change effectively – community pressure, lack of


knowledge, and unawareness of consensus.
Plutzer Et Al. ’16, ( Eric Plutzer, Mark McCaffrey, A. Lee Hannah, Joshua Rosenau, Minda
Berbeco, Ann H. Reid, Eric Plutzer works at Department of Political Science, The Pennsylvania
State University, Mark McCaffrey, Joshua Rosenau, Minda Berbeco, and Ann H. Reid work at
National Center for Science Education, Oakland, A. Lee Hannah works at Department of Political
Science, Wright State University, “Climate confusion among U.S. teachers”, ScienceMag, Feb 12,
2016, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/664.full)-os
MIXING MESSAGES. Notably, 30% of teachers emphasize that recent global warming “is likely due to natural causes,” and 12% do
not emphasize human causes (half of whom do not emphasize any explanation and thereby avoid the topic altogether). Of
teachers who teach climate change, 31% report sending explicitly contradictory messages,
emphasizing both the scientific consensus that recent global warming is due to human activity
and that many scientists believe recent increases in temperature are due to natural causes (see
the first chart). Why might this be the case? Some teachers may wish to teach “both sides” to accommodate
values and perspectives that students bring to the classroom (6, 10). Beyond that, the survey data allow us to
evaluate three explanations. First, teachers might experience overt pressure from parents, community
leaders, or school administrators not to teach climate change. Only 4.4% of teachers reported such pressure
(6.1% reported pressure to teach it, mostly from fellow teachers). This is less than the 15% reporting pressure in Wise’s pioneering
survey (6), and far less than biology teachers reported in a survey on teaching evolution (10). Second,
teachers also may
not be very knowledgeable about a wide range of evidence—e.g., CO2 measurements from ice
cores and from direct measures at Mauna Loa—and how climate models work. Given the
relative novelty of the topic in classrooms, instructional materials, and preservice training, this
would not be surprising, and nearly 50% said that they would prioritize one or more unrelated
topics (e.g., pesticides, ozone layer, or impacts of rocket launches). Third, many teachers are unaware of the
extent of scientific agreement. This is critical because we might expect that, with limited
technical mastery, teachers may defer to scientific expertise. Yet, when asked “what proportion of climate
scientists think that global warming is caused mostly by human activities?”—only 30% of middle-school and 45% of high-school
science teachers selected the correct option of “81 to 100%.” Even among teachers who agree that human activities are the main
cause of global warming (a large majority of all science teachers), only 52% know the percentage of scientists who share their view.
If a majority of science teachers believe that more than 20% of climate scientist disagree that
human activities are the primary cause, it is understandable that many would teach “both
sides,” by conveying to students that there is legitimate scientific debate instead of deep
consensus. The combination of limited training and uncertainty about the scientific consensus affects teachers’ acceptance of
anthropogenic climate change. Although only 2% of teachers personally denied that recent global warming is happening, almost
one-sixth (15%) believe that it is mostly driven by natural causes, and another one-sixth thought that human and natural causes are
equally important. Indeed, teachers’ assessment of the scientific consensus is intertwined with their personal conclusions about
global warming and its causes (see the second chart).
Inherency - Students
Denialism is often propagated in classrooms by the students themselves –
they’re key to improving widespread acceptance
Harmon 6/4 (Amy, journalist for the New York Times, “Climate Science Meets a
Stubborn Obstacle: Students”, 6/4/2017,
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/04/us/education-climate-change-science-
class-students.html) RC
WELLSTON, Ohio — To Gwen Beatty, a junior at the high school in this proud, struggling, Trump-
supporting town, the new science teacher’s lessons on climate change seemed explicitly
designed to provoke her. So she provoked him back. When the teacher, James Sutter, ascribed
the recent warming of the Earth to heat-trapping gases released by burning fossil fuels like the
coal her father had once mined, she asserted that it could be a result of other, natural causes.
When he described the flooding, droughts and fierce storms that scientists predict within the
century if such carbon emissions are not sharply reduced, she challenged him to prove it.
“Scientists are wrong all the time,” she said with a shrug, echoing those celebrating President
Trump’s announcement last week that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate
accord. When Mr. Sutter lamented that information about climate change had been removed
from the White House website after Mr. Trump’s inauguration, she rolled her eyes.

Current education systems fail to inform kids on climate change and need
radical change to teach properly
Worth 3/28 (Katie, graduate of Columbia Journalism School, Katie Worth is FRONTLINE's
inaugural FRONTLINE-Columbia Tow Journalism Fellow. She began her professional life at the
Pacific Daily News on Guam, and later worked as an enterprise reporter for the San Francisco
Examiner, “Climate Change Skeptic Group Seeks to Influence 200,000 Teachers”, Frontline,
3/28/17, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/climate-change-skeptic-group-seeks-to-
influence-200000-teachers/)/AK47
Twenty-five thousand science teachers opened their mailboxes this month and found a package
from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think tank that rejects the scientific consensus on
climate change. It contained the organization’s book “Why Scientists Disagree About Global
Warming,” as well as a DVD rejecting the human role in climate change and arguing instead that rising
temperatures have been caused primarily by natural phenomena. The material will be sent to an additional 25,000 teachers
every two weeks until every public-school science teacher in the nation has a copy, Heartland president and CEO
Joseph Bast said in an interview last week. If so, the campaign would reach more than 200,000 K-12 science teachers. Accompanying
the materials is a cover letter from Lennie Jarratt, project manager of Heartland’s Center for Transforming Education. He asks
teachers to “consider the possibility” that the science is not settled. “If that’s the case, then students would be
better served by letting them know a vibrant debate is taking place among scientists,” he writes. The letter also points teachers to an
online guide to using the DVD in their classrooms. The Heartland initiative
dismisses multiple studies showing
scientists are in near unanimous agreement that humans are changing the climate. Even if human
activity is contributing to climate change, the book argues, it “would probably not be harmful, because many areas of the world
would benefit from or adjust to climate change.” The campaign elicited immediate derision from the National Center for Science
Education (NCSE), a nonprofit in Oakland, California that monitors climate change education in classrooms. “It’s
not science,
but it’s dressed up to look like science,” said NCSE executive director Ann Reid. “It’s clearly intended to confuse
teachers.” It’s too early to know how the materials will be used in schools around the country. There aren’t uniform standards for
teaching climate change, and the subject has caused rigorous debate in some states. Even when it is taught,
Reid says, “what goes on behind the classroom door is really up to the teacher.” The campaign
comes at a time when Heartland’s influence on national climate policy is at an apex. Myron
Ebell, a leading climate change skeptic and a longtime ally of the Heartland Institute, ran
President Donald Trump’s transition efforts for the Environmental Protection Agency. That
process led to the appointment of climate change skeptic Scott Pruitt as administrator of the
EPA. Pruitt, a former Oklahoma attorney general, has publicly questioned the scientific consensus around climate change, and has
brought in like-minded officials who support dismantling policies that curb fossil fuel emissions. Trump took a major step
toward that goal on Tuesday when he signed an executive order rolling back the Clean Power
Plan, an Obama administration initiative that aimed to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. “We’re getting a lot
of requests for expert opinion from the White House,” said Bast. “That’s very new. We haven’t had those calls for eight years. Even
12 years.” Last week in
Washington, D.C., Heartland held its annual conference challenging the idea
that there is a scientific consensus on climate change. The conference focused on the future of energy and
climate policy under Trump. Bast opened the meeting by saying, “This is a wonderful time to be a global warming realist,” using the
term that those in the movement use to describe themselves. “Those of us in the room who have been working on this issue for a
decade or longer can finally stand up and say hallelujah and welcome to the party,” said Bast. He was met with applause from the
200 or so people in the audience. This isn’t the first time the movement has targeted teachers. As early as
1998, a group of fossil fuel officials, lobbyists and conservative think tanks planned to distribute climate-change skeptical curricula
for classrooms nationwide. In 2012, an internal Heartland document outlined plans to do the same. Their message has been
embraced by some educators. A survey of 1,500 science teachers nationwide, funded by NCSE and published in the journal Science
last year, found more than half taught their students that humans are unequivocally causing climate change. But 31
percent of
teachers told their students that the cause of climate change is still being debated. About one in
10 teachers teach children that humans had no significant role in climate change, the study
showed.

Recent studies demonstrate how little people know about climate change, but
are open to the idea of it being taught and want to learn more about it, still not
enough believe to make sufficient changes.
Donald 14, (ros, PhD candidate in communications at Columbia Journalism School, “75 per cent
of Americans want to see climate change taught in schools, and four more graphs”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/75-per-cent-of-americans-want-to-see-climate-change-taught-in-
schools-and-four-more-graphs

The study also revealed many Americans don’t have a very high opinion
of their own knowledge about climate change. Only one in 10 say they
are “very well informed” about how the climate system works or the
different causes, consequences or potential solutions to climate change. 51 to 52 per cent say
they are “fairly well informed”. But a large majority – 75 per cent – say they
would like to know more and, as the graph below shows, 75 per cent say schools
should teach children about climate change. 68 per cent say they would
welcome a national education programme to teach Americans about the
issue. The study finds that 57 per cent of Americans know the greenhouse
effect refers to gases in the atmosphere that trap heat, and 50 per cent
understand human activities are the cause of extra warming in the
atmosphere. Most people correctly identify activities such as burning fossil fuels and running cars
and trucks on petrol as major contributors to climate change. But there remains a large number of
73 per cent incorrectly
people who are confused about the causes of climate change.
think the hole in the ozone layer contributes at least a little to
climate. Americans’ most trusted sources of information about climate change are the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, scientists, specialist
channels showing science programmes and museums. The survey also wanted to see
how Americans picture the climate system – do they think that it’s
vulnerable to human activities, or do they believe it’ll stay stable
regardless of what humans do? It offered five different descriptions of climate models and
asked respondents which most closely corresponds with their own perception of the climate system:
Fragile: Earth’s climate is delicately balanced. Small amounts of global warming will have abrupt
and catastrophic effects. Threshold: Earth’s climate is stable within certain limits. If global
warming is small, climate will return to a stable balance; if it is large, there will be dangerous effects .
Gradual: Earth’s climate is gradual to change. Global warming will gradually lead to dangerous
effects. Random: Earth’s climate is random and unpredictable. We do not know what will
happen. Stable: Earth’s climate system is very stable. Global warming will have little or no
effects. As the graph below shows, most people chose ‘threshold’, indicating that
they think the more the climate warms, the worse the effects will be. The
researchers also asked: Do you think global warming is happening? Overall, 63
per cent said they think it is, 19 per cent said no, and 18 per cent said they didn’t know.
Cross-referencing these answers with the previous question provides some interesting insights into
The majority of Americans who chose the
people’s ‘mental models’ of climate change.
Fragile, Threshold or Gradual models said they think climate change is
happening. Meanwhile, most of those who chose the Random model either said they didn’t know
whether climate change is happening or do not accept that it is. Respondents who chose
the Stable model tend not to agree climate change is happening.
Warming Science
Warming Real
Err aff—Climate skepticism is just three Idsos standing on each others shoulders
under a giant trenchcoat—their impact defense and turns are all academically
bankrupt.
Davies 14 (Kert, Writer for the climate investigations center, a well-known researcher, media spokesperson and climate activist
who has been conducting corporate accountability research and campaigns for more than 20 years, “Heartland Institute NIPCC
Climate Denier Craig Idso: “Climate Change Is Good For You”, http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/04/08/heartland-institute-nipcc-
craig-idso-climate-change-good-you)
Heartland Institute on the other hand, in its NIPCC “Climate Change Reconsidered II: the Biological Impacts” document, will say that
climate change is good for the world, will have a net benefit for both plants and human health. This is the latest line
run by right wing think tanks like Heartland, the coal industry’s ACCCE coalition, Peabody Coal,
the American Legislative Exchange Council, and echoed across the blogosphere by climate
deniers.
This set of messaging and all 'reports' to back this line, all appear to be coming from one
organization, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and specifically from its
chairman and former president, Craig Idso, one of the NIPCC’s lead authors, who has been arguing the same “C02 is beneficial” line for
nearly 20 years, along with his father, Sherwood Idso.
Background
Craig Idso, his father Sherwood B. Idso, and brother Keith Idso, founded Arizona-based organization in 1998.
The Center's claimed mission is to “separate reality from rhetoric in the emotionally-charged debate that swirls around the subject of carbon dioxide
and global change.” Its main publication is CO2 Science, a weekly magazine that features articles questioning the science verifying man-made climate
change and its impacts.
In 2012, leakeddocuments from the Heartland Institute revealed that they were paying Craig Idso
$11,600 a month for his NIPCC work. We do not know how much Idso has been paid since that time, or prior.
The organization’s total funding peaked in 2009 at $1.5 million a year. Funders have included
ExxonMobil (total, $100,000 since 1998), Donors Trust, Sarah Scaife Foundation and a number of other right wing
funders. See Conservative Transparency for a recent (but not full) breakdown. The Center's IRS 990’s are here at Citizen Audit.
Publications produced by Craig Idso, with members of C02Science,org:
In 2011 he and Sherwood wrote a book entitled “The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment”.
Idso has produced a series of video documentaries espousing his theory of C02’s beneficial effect on plant life.
Keith and Sherwood Idso wrote a paper in 1992 about how C02 benefits plant life, referenced in the NIPCC’s Summary for Policymakers.
After founding the organisation, Idso got his PhD in geography at Arizona State University under the tutelage of one of the very early
climate deniers employed by the fossil fuel industry, Robert C Balling Jr.
More resources at DeSmogBlog: Craig Idso; Sherwood Idso
Idso, the Greening Earth Society and the Western Fuels Association
Robert Balling, Idso's mentor, was one of the leading scientists paid
by the Greening Earth Society, the climate
science-denying front group created by the Western Fuels Association, one of the first and
earliest coal industry groups funding the denial of climate change. But the coal industry's line was not 'climate
denial' but 'climate change is good for you'. The Western Fuels Association is a cooperative of utilities and power companies supplying coal from the
Powder River Basin in the western U.S.
Robert Balling was one of the seven scientists deployed by Western Fuels in the 1990s to challenge the prevailing
consensus in climate science. Other names included some who are still on the core climate denial team today: Willie
Soon and Patrick Michaels.
It was the Greening Earth Society for which Craig and Keith Idso penned a paper in 1995: “The Greening of the American West: The Atmosphere’s Rising
CO2 Concentration Is Stimulating Woody Plant Growth in the U.S. Forests, Grasslands, and Deserts.”
Idso, Fred Palmer and Peabody Coal
From its inception, the Chair and CEO of the Western Fuels Association and the Greening Earth Society was Fred
Palmer, who was also a registered lobbyist for the Western Fuels Association, a coalition of utility and coal companies.
Palmer is now the Senior Vice President of Government Relations at Peabody Energy (Peabody Coal). (Guardian
backgrounder 2011), and was in the media in 2010 leading the charge for “green coal.” He chaired the World Coal Association from
2010 to 2012. Peabody is behind the recent climate denial hub “Advanced Energy for Life” campaign, working with Burson Marsteller as revealed by
Climate Investigations Center.
From 2001-2002, Craig Idso served as Director of Environmental Science at Peabody Energy in St. Louis, MO. This was to set up the long
relationship with the company that continues to this day.
Idso and ACCCE Tout the Social Benefits of Carbon
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) is an industry group promoting coal, of which Peabody
coal is a key corporate member.
There is a major fight heating up at the State and Federal level on how we set what the government calls the Social Cost of Carbon, a metric calculated
by the Government on the harm carbon (C02) does the economy, to our health and to the planet. These social costs range from the medical bills and
lost workdays (when a mother has to take her asthmatic child to the hospital), all the way to the impact of sea level rise on coastal communities.
In 2013, the EPA recalculated the social cost of carbon and increased the figure to $35 per metric ton, up from $21.
ACCCE and Peabody Coal retaliated by questioning why the Obama EPA didn’t included analysis of the benefits of CO2, enhancing agriculture, for
instance.
As part of this argument, ACCCE released a report in January, entitled “The Social Costs of Carbon. No, the Social
Benefits of Carbon” claiming the government is vastly underestimating the social benefits of coal as well as the benefits from the carbon
dioxide pollution produced by burning that coal, including enhancing photosynthesis and agricultural productivity. DeSmogBlog has more details.
Footnotes of the report reveal ACCCE commissioned Craig Idso to undertake a study that
appears to be a rehash of the work he has done for 20 years. Idso's contracted study, titled “The Positive
Externalities of Carbon Dioxide,” which makes up a large part of Chapter III of the ACCCE “Social Benefits” report.
Idso and ALEC
Idso’s “benefits of C02” was also a topic at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council Annual meeting.
According to Sourcewatch, he spoke at a workshop of state legislators that was to be titled “Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of
Increased Atmospheric CO2.” The title was later changed to “Benefit Analysis of CO2”.
Idso was joined in that workshop by two other speakers and fellow climate skeptics, Roger Helmer and
Robert Ferguson.[8]
ALEC has also used that same “CO2 is beneficial” line in submissions to the EPA.
Idso told the audience that we “should let CO2 rise unrestricted, without government
intervention”, a very different recommendation than that emanating from the IPCC and the vast
majority of the world's climate scientists.

Denialism causes scientists to downplay the threat of climate change due to


fear of being attacked.
Biddle and Leuschner 15 (Justin B., PhD, Philosophy Program, School of Public Policy,
Georgia Institute of Technology, and Anna, PhD, Karlsruher Institute for Technology,
Institute for Philosophy, “Climate Skepticism and Manufacture of Doubt: Can Dissent in
Science be Epistemically Detrimental?”, 2/10/2015) RC
First, these
attacks waste resources. Scientists should of course respond to serious objections to their work, but Mann, Bradley,
Hughes, Santer, Hansen, Schneider, and others have
been forced to respond over and over again to objections
that have already been answered – and many have been forced to do so not just in print, but in front of the U.S. Congress. They
have had to do this in part because of the political authority that the objections have acquired. In some cases, it is reasonable to ignore baseless
objections put forward for political purposes. But when those objections are disseminated by powerful conservative
think tanks, when they are promulgated in prominent publications such as the Wall Street Journal, and
when they are used by politicians in attempts to stall important climate legislation, climate scientists
ought to respond. They should respond because they have a moral obligation to society and also to defend their reputations. This requires a
lot of time and energy that could have been spent advancing their research programs. In this way, some dissent in climate science
slows scientific progress. Secondly, it is plausible to think that these attacks have an even more insidious
effect on research – that they affect the broader field of climate science, not just those scientists who are the immediate objects of attack – by
creating an atmosphere in which researchers fear to investigate particular hypotheses or draw
strong conclusions in support of those hypotheses. In an open letter in the journal Science, 250 scientists
protested against the “McCarthy like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on
innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distraction
to avoid taking actions, and the outright lies being spread about them” (Sills 2010, p. 689). In some
cases, climate scientists have been subjected to threats to personal well being and even death
threats, both publicly by conservative politicians in the media and privately via anonymous
emails from incited people (e.g., Mann 2012, pp. 224–227).5 It is plausible to worry that these attacks will influence
the types of problems that other scientists will be likely to address and/or the conclusions that
they are willing to defend. Moreover, there is empirical evidence that substantiates this worry. A
number of recent studies have concluded that IPCC reports consistently err on the side of underestimating
causes and impacts of climate change. For example, a number of empirical studies have
confirmed that IPCC reports have consistently underestimated CO2 emissions and sea level rise
(Freudenburg and Muselli 2010; NRC 2009; Rahmstorf et al. 2007; UNEP 2009). There are a number of potential explanations of this trend. For example,
Brysse et al. (2013) argue that a
part of the explanation is the tendency of scientists to “err on the side of least drama,” which
flows from the traditional emphasis upon avoiding false positives over false negatives. But they also argue that it might not be
the full explanation, especially in countries such as the U.S., where climate denialism has strong political and economic support: The frequent attacks
on Stephen Schneider – as well as attacks on other climate scientists such as Benjamin Santer and Michael Mann – suggest that one possible
reason why scientists may have underestimated the threat of anthropogenic warming is the fear that
if they don’t, they will be accused by contrarians (as was Schneider) of being alarmist fear-
mongers. That is to say, pressure from skeptics and contrarians and the risk of being accused of
alarmism may have caused scientists to understate their results. (Brysse et al. 2013, p. 330) While this possibility is
difficult to establish definitively, climate scientists have stated that denialist attacks have, in fact, had this
effect. For example, Oreskes and Conway write: At a recent conference, a colleague told one of us that in IPCC
discussions, some scientists have been reluctant to make strong claims about the scientific
evidence, lest contrarians ‘attack us’. Another said that she’d rather err on the side of
conservatism in her estimates, because then she feels more ‘secure.’ (Oreskes and Conway 2010, pp. 264–265)
Whether denialist attacks have been effective in leading climate scientists to alter the hypotheses they investigate and/or the strength of their
conclusions requires further investigation; but as we have shown, there are empirical grounds for worrying that they have. In
the next section, we will provide a general account of epistemically detrimental dissent, one that applies beyond climate science. Before we do this,
however, it is worth elaborating on the precise role that dissenting research plays in attacks against mainstream climate scientists. After all, attacks
against climate scientists need not rely upon dissenting research at all. The “climategate” scandal – in which someone hacked into a
server at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU), stole and published emails from a number of climate scientists (including Santer,
Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Tom Wigley, Keith Briffa, and Phil Jones), and then publicized parts of those emails taken out of context – involved
attacks on climate scientists, but the attacks were not based on research at all (Mann 2012, pp. 207–232).
What is the point of focusing on specific forms of dissenting research? We focus on these forms of dissenting research because the strategic use of such
dissent as another weapon in the arsenal of those who would attempt to undermine scientific authority in order to postpone political regulation
measures is a growing problem. Skeptics
and deniers often attempt to justify their dissent by arguing that it
plays an important role in scientific progress. For example, Christopher DeMuth, director of the aforementioned American
Enterprise Institute (AEI), stresses that “consensus plays an important role in science and scientific progress, but so does disputation – reasoned
argument is essential to good science, and competition of ideas is essential to scientific progress” (AEI 2007, att.3, 2). However, as we seek to
demonstrate,
there can well be dissent that is not epistemically fruitful at all, but that retards
scientific progress. Such dissent is not justified by scientific reasons but is rather detrimental to
both science and society.

Reject claims of specificity—Hidden funding and organizational opacity is now


the name of the climate denial game.
Fischer 13 (Douglas, Adjunct professor at Montana State University teaching climate science and policy, Writer for the Scientific
American, "Dark Money" Funds Climate Change Denial Effort”, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-
climate-change-denial-effort/)
The largest, most-consistent money fueling the climate denial movement are a number of well-
funded conservative foundations built with so-called "dark money," or concealed donations, according to an
analysis released Friday afternoon.
The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the
organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.
It foundthat the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like
DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over
the past five years.
In all, 140
foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from
2003 to 2010.
Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.
The study was published Friday in the journal Climatic Change.
"The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on global
warming," Brulle said in a statement. "Like a
play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the
spotlight – often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians – but behind the stars
is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers."
"If you want to understand what's driving this movement, you have to look at what's going on
behind the scenes."
Consistent funders
To uncover that, Brulle developed a list of 118 influential climate denial organizations in the United States. He then coded data on
philanthropic funding for each organization, combining information from the Foundation Center, a database of global philanthropy,
with financial data submitted by organizations to the Internal Revenue Service.
According to Brulle, the
largest and most consistent funders where a number of conservative
foundations promoting "ultra-free-market ideas" in many realms, among them the Searle Freedom Trust,
the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Howard Charitable Foundation and the Sarah Scaife
Foundation.
Another key finding: From 2003 to 2007, Koch Affiliated Foundations and the ExxonMobil Foundation were "heavily involved" in
funding climate change denial efforts. But Exxon hasn't made a publically traceable contribution since 2008, and Koch's efforts
dramatically declined, Brulle said.
Coinciding with a decline in traceable funding, Brulle found a dramatic rise in the cash flowing to
denial organizations from DonorsTrust, a donor-directed foundation whose funders cannot be traced. This one
foundation, the assessment found, now accounts for 25 percent of all traceable foundation funding
used by organizations promoting the systematic denial of climate change.

Satellite data collected over 20 years prove the troposphere is warmer than
estimated natural internal climate models
Santer 3/6/17 (Benjamin D. Santer, Susan Solomon, Frank J. Wentz, Qiang Fu, Stephen Po-
Chedley, Carl Mears, Jeffrey F. Painter & Céline Bonfils, 5-24-2017, "Tropospheric Warming Over
The Past Two Decades," Scientific Reports, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-
02520-7) - byl
In each of the six satellite datasets, all 20-year TMT trends are positive, irrespective of the trend
start date (Fig. 1B). The specific period of “the past two decades” yields 20-year TMT trends that
have not “leveled off”. As expected, there are multi-decadal changes in trend size12, 13. Recent
20-year trends are smaller than most of the earlier 20-year trend values. This is due to the
combined effects of multiple factors: the anomalous warmth at the beginning of the last 20
years (arising from a large El Niño event in 1997/98), the shift from a warm phase to a cold
phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation in the late 1990s14,15,16,17, changes in other
modes of internal variability18,19,20, a succession of moderate volcanic eruptions in the early
21st century21,22,23, a long and low minimum in solar output during the last solar cycle24, and
an increase in anthropogenic sulphate pollution25, 26. Figure 1C provides information on
whether observed TMT trends show unusually large warming relative to the estimated warming
trends caused by natural internal climate variability. Two features are noteworthy. First, we find
that significant 20-year tropospheric warming trends are a commonplace occurrence during the
satellite era. Second, despite their smaller size, warming trends over the last 20 years (January
1997 to December 2016) are significantly larger, at the 10% level or better, than estimates of
20-year trends arising from natural internal variability (Fig. 1C,D). This holds for all six satellite
datasets. In the latest versions of the RSS, STAR, and UAH TMT data, the probability that internal
variability could produce warming exceeding that observed over the last 20 years is only 1.6%,
3.1%, and 6.3% (respectively). These probabilities decrease markedly if the averages of all
individual 20-year trends are considered (see vertical lines in Fig. 1D). The unusual size of
observed tropospheric warming becomes even clearer for the full 38-year period of TMT
measurements. Over 1979 to 2016, global warming of the troposphere far exceeds current
estimates of natural internal climate variability (Fig. 1E). TMT trends in the latest versions of
the RSS, STAR, and UAH datasets are (respectively) 7.50, 7.64, and 5.35 standard deviations
removed from the mean of the distribution of unforced 38-year TMT trends. The probabilities
associated with these numbers are miniscule. In fact, the tropospheric warming trends in
versions 4.0 of the RSS and STAR data are unprecedented – they are not exceeded by any of the
212,808 unforced TMT trends in the distribution shown in Fig. 1E. In version 6.0 of the UAH
data, only 16 of the 212,808 unforced trends are larger than the observed TMT trend. To
plausibly explain the observed tropospheric warming by natural internal variability would
require that the model results in Fig. 1E underestimate real-world internal variability by a factor
of 2.5 or more. There is no evidence of a systematic model error of this size
A2: Heartland / NIPCC
The Heartland institute and the NIPCC lack scientific rigor and are just shells for
corporate greed
Climate Science Watch 13 (A government accountability project that attempts to expose the problems of
disinformation about the climate, “Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test”,
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/09/09/heartland-institute-nipcc-fail-the-credibility-test/)
Tomorrow the Heartland Institute launches a new report Climate Change Reconsidered. To write the report, Heartland assembled a
group it calls the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a particularly revealing choice of name. The
name, combined with the timing of the release to coincide with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s upcoming
Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), shows that Heartland is attempting to present itself as a legitimate alternative authority to the IPCC.
However, the Heartland institute is nowhere close to the IPCC in terms of credibility. A few key points
show the NIPCC to be a transparent marketing gimmick rather than a legitimate scientific undertaking: The NIPCC does not
follow the same rigorous scientific evaluation process as the IPCC. The Heartland Institute has
a long history of opposing settled science in the interests of its free-market funders, and has used
decidedly un-scientific tactics to do so. The NIPCC vs. IPCC Process The IPCC is supported by hundreds of scientists,
think tanks, and organizations around the world that assess and synthesize the most recent climate change-related
science. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007, involved more than 500 Lead Authors and 2000 Expert
Reviewers from more than one hundred participating nations. These authors and reviewers were all unpaid
volunteers, and are required to identify and show consideration to theories that differ from
conventional wisdom. Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC examines literature published exclusively by
climate contrarians who are paid to contribute their findings to NIPCC reports, according to
leaked internal documents of the Heartland Institute. The 2009 NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered had two
lead authors, Fred Singer and Craig Idso, and 35 contributors. Similarly, the 2011 Interim NIPCC report had three lead
authors, Fred Singer, Craig Idso, and Robert Carter, and only eight contributors. The NIPCC does not employ the same
rigorous standards and approval process used by the IPCC to ensure its assessment reports are
accurate and inclusive. The Heartland Institute’s Credibility The Heartland Institute has a long history of
valuing the interests of its financial backers over the conclusions of experts. It has campaigned
against the threats posed by second-hand smoke, acid rain, and ozone depletion, as well as the Endangered
Species Act. With its aggressive campaigning using tools such as billboards comparing climate change “believers” to the
Unabomber, Heartland makes no pretense at being a scientific organization. Heartland’s funding
over the past decade has included thousands of dollars directly from ExxonMobil and the
American Petroleum Institute, but a large portion of their funding ($25.6 million) comes from the shadowy Donor’s
Capital Fund, created expressly to conceal the identity of large donors to free-market causes. The Koch brothers appear to be
funneling money into Donor’s Capital via their Knowledge and Progress Fund. Heartland’s
credibility has been so
damaged that mainstream funders have been abandoning the organization, and it has been forced to
discontinue its annual climate conference.

The Heartland Institute was founded by corrupt interest groups for the sole
purpose of discrediting climate change – proves climate education is uniquely
key to ensure students aren’t indoctrinated by groups such as these
Goldenberg 12 (Suzanne, Suzanne Goldenberg is the US environment correspondent of the
Guardian and is based in Washington DC. She has won several awards for her work in the Middle
East, and in 2003 covered the US invasion of Iraq from Baghdad. She is author of Madam
President, about Hillary Clinton's historic run for White House, "Leak exposes how Heartland
Institute works to undermine climate science," Guardian, 2-14-2012,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-
climate) //JCL
The inner workings of a libertarian thinktank working to discredit the established science on
climate change have been exposed by a leak of confidential documents detailing its strategy and
fundraising networks. DeSmogBlog, which broke the story, said it had received the confidential documents from an "insider"
at the Heartland Institute, which is based in Chicago. The blog monitors industry efforts to discredit climate science. The
scheme includes spending $100,000 for spreading the message in K-12 schools that "the topic of
climate change is controversial and uncertain - two key points that are effective at dissuading
teachers from teaching science", the documents said. It was not possible to immediately verify the authenticity of the
documents, although Heartland issued a statement on Wednesday claiming at least one document was fake, and that it was the
victim of theft and forgery. However, Anthony Watts, a weathercaster who runs one of the most prominent anti-science blogs,
Watts Up With That?, acknowledged Heartland was helping him with $90,000 for a new project. He added: "They do not regularly
fund me nor (sic) my WUWT website, I take no salary from them of any kind." Watts, in an email, did not mention the entire cost of
his temperature station initiative but said: "Heartland simply helped me find a donor for funding a special project." "There is nothing
I can tell you," Jim Lakely, Heartland's communications director, said in a telephone interview. "We are investigating what we have
seen on the internet and we will have more to say in the morning." Lakely made no attempt to deny the veracity of information
contained in the documents. The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, has built a reputation over the years for providing a forum for
climate change sceptics. But it is especially known for hosting a series of lavish conferences of climate science doubters at expensive
hotels in New York's Times Square as well as in Washington DC. If authentic the documents provide an intriguing glimpse at the
fundraising and political priorities of one of the most powerful and vocal groups working to discredit the established science on
climate change and so block any chance of policies to reduce global warming pollution. "It's a rare glimpse behind the wall of a key
climate denial organisation," Kert Davies, director of research for Greenpeace, said in a telephone interview. "It's more than just a
gotcha to have these documents. It shows there is a co-ordinated effort to have an alternative reality on the climate science in order
to have an impact on the policy." The Valentine's Day exposé of Heartland is reminscent to a certain extent of the hacking of emails
from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in 2009. Those documents helped sink the UN's climate summit later that
year. In this instance, however, the Heartland documents are policy statements – not private email correspondence. Desmogblog
said they came from an insider at Heartland and were not the result of a hack. The documents posted on Desmog's website include
confidential memos of Heartland's climate science denial strategy, its 2012 budget and fundraising plan, and minutes from a recent
board meeting. The fundraising plan suggests Heartland is hoping for a banner year, projecting it will raise $7.7m in 2012, up 70%
from last year. The papers indicate that discrediting established climate science remains a core mission of the organisation, which
has received support from a network of wealthy individuals – including the Koch oil billionaires as well as corporations such as
Microsoft and RJR Tobacco. The documents confirm what environmental groups such as Greenpeace have long suspected: that
Heartland itself is a major source of funding to a network of experts and bloggers who have been prominent in the campaign to
discredit established science. Heartland is anxious to retain its hold over mainstream media outlets, fretting in the documents about
how Forbes magazine is publishing prominent climate scientists such as Peter Gleick. "This influential audience has usually been
reliably anti-climate and it is important to keep opposing voices out," Heartland documents warn. But the cache raises an equal
number of questions – such as the identity of an anonymous donor that has been a mainstay of Heartland. The unnamed donor,
who contributed $4.6m in 2008, has since scaled back contributions. Even so, the donor's $979,000 contribution in 2011 accounted
for 20% of Heartland's overall budget, the fundraising plan says According to the fundraising document Heartland hopes to bump
that up to $1.25m in 2012 [click for PDF]. The importance of one or two wealthy individuals to Heartland's operations is underscored
by a line in the fundraising document noting that a foundation connected to the oil billionaire Charles Koch had returned as a donor
after a lengthy hiatus with a gift of $200,000 in 2011. "We expect to ramp up their level of support in 2012 and gain access to the
network of philanthropists they work with," the document said. Heartland hopes to cash in on its vocal support for the controversial
mining method known as fracking, the document suggests. Heartland operates on a range of issues besides the environment. But
discrediting the science of climate change remains a key mission. The group spends $300,000 on
salaries for a team of experts working to undermine the findings of the UN climate body, the
IPCC. It plans to expand that this year by paying a former US department of energy employee to
write an alternative curriculum for schoolchildren that will cast doubt on global warming. The
fundraising plan notes the anonymous donor has set aside $100,000 for the project. The plan
also notes the difficulty of injecting non-scientific topics in schools. "Heartland has tried to make
material available to teachers, but has had only limited success. Principals and teachers are heavily biased
toward the alarmist perspective. Moreover, material for classroom use must be carefully written to meet curriculum guidelines, and
the amount of time teachers have for supplemental material is steadily shrinking due to the spread of standardized tests in K-12
education," the fundraising plan said. The documents suggest several prominent voices in the campaign to deny established climate
science are recipients of Heartland funding. They include, according to the documents, a number of contrarian climate experts. "At
the moment, this funding goes primarily to Craig Idso ($11,600 per month), Fred Singer ($5,000 per month, plus expenses), Robert
Carter ($1,667 per month), and a number of other individuals, but we will consider expanding it, if funding can be found," the
documents say. Whether these funding arrangements actually exist cannot be verified. However, Heartland's website notes that
Idso, Singer, and Carter were commissioned to write a report for the organisation.
Warming is Anthropogenic
It’s human caused—key new models prove.
Nuccitelli 4/19/16 (Dana, blogger on environmentguardian.co.uk. He is an environmental scientist and risk assessor,
and also contributes to SkepticalScience.com “Study: humans have caused all the global warming since 1950”,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/19/study-humans-have-caused-all-the-global-
warming-since-1950)
A new study published in Climate Dynamics has found that humans are responsible for virtually all of the
observed global warming since the mid-20th century. It’s not a novel result – in fact, most global warming
attribution studies have arrived at the same general result – but this study uses a new approach. Studies
attempting to figure out the global warming contributions of various human and natural sources
usually use a statistical approach known as ‘linear regression’. This approach assumes we know the
pattern of warming that each source (forcing) will cause, but we don’t know how big the resulting warming will be.
For example, we know that greenhouse gases cause more warming over land than water, the most
in the Arctic, and more warming in response to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. As an
example of this approach, this animated graphic shows what happens when a 2011 study by Foster & Rahmstorf removed the
known natural influences from the observed global surface temperature record, leaving behind the human-caused global warming
signal. We have an idea how much warming greenhouse gases will cause, but the range is fairly large (1.5 to 4.5°C in response to a
doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide). So, the standard approach uses the known patterns from each
forcing (greenhouse gases, other human pollutants, the sun, volcanoes, etc.), and without assuming the
effectiveness of each, statistically determines how much each pattern has contributed to the
observed temperature changes. However, some papers have argued that we do have some
knowledge about the effectiveness of each forcing, and should use that information in these statistical studies.
Conversely, the patterns of some forcings, like human aerosol pollution, are also uncertain and
complicate this approach. As the authors describe it, this new study “basically proposes a symmetric
treatment of the magnitude and the pattern of the response to each forcing.” Their statistical
model assumes that the temperature influence from several individual forcings will add up to
the total temperature influence from all the forcings. They then run various tests to check
consistency between the observed warming and the Earth’s natural temperature variability, the
expected temperature response from all the forcings, or the expected response from subsets of forcings. The study
considered temperature changes for the period of 1951–2010. During that time, global surface temperatures warmed about 0.65°C.
During that same period, their
statistical approach which combines observations and climate models
outputs found that humans have caused 0.67 ± 0.12°C warming, while natural factors have had
essentially no effect on global temperatures (-0.01 ± 0.02°C). This result is similar to the conclusion
in the latest IPCC report: It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global
average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and
other anthropogenic forcings together … The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed
warming over this period ... The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from internal
variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C. It’s
also consistent with numerous previous global
warming attribution studies, including those using the aforementioned statistical linear regression approach.
Lead author Aurélien Ribes told me: The main outcome of this study is to develop a new method that deals with uncertainty in a
more comprehensive way. By using this new method, we hope to further narrow the uncertainty in past and future greenhouse gas-
induced warming in the near future. In other words, this
new paper adds to the mountain of evidence
pointing to humans as the dominant cause of global warming since 1950, using a new statistical approach
to answer the question. Disentangling how much warming human carbon pollution has caused from
the amount of cooling caused by human aerosol pollution remains a challenging task, but rapid
global warming is the net result of human activities. This mountain of scientific and statistical
evidence is the reason why there is a 90–100% consensus among climate science experts that
humans are responsible for global warming. It’s what scientists call a “knowledge-based consensus”,
as described in the video below.
Satellite data confirms that the troposphere is unnaturally warming attributed
to human activity
Mooney 5/25/17 (Chris Mooney, 5-25-2017, "Scientists publish entire study taking down
Trump environment chief's climate change views," Independent,
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/epa-scott-pruitt-climate-change-denial-scientific-
paper-nature-scientific-reports-a7754871.html) - byl
In a sign of growing tensions between scientists and the Trump administration, researchers have published a scientific
paper that was conceived and written as an explicit refutation to an assertion by Environmental Protection Agency administrator
Scott Pruitt about climate change. The study, in the journal Nature Scientific Reports, sets up a direct test of a claim by Pruitt,
made in written Senate comments following his confirmation hearing, that “over the past two decades satellite data
indicates there has been a leveling off of warming.” After reviewing temperature trends contained in three
satellite data sets going back to 1979, the paper concludes that the data sets show a global
warming trend — and that Pruitt was incorrect. “Satellite temperature measurements do not support
the claim of a ‘leveling off of warming’ over the past two decades,” write the authors, led by Benjamin
Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Santer co-authored the study with three Livermore colleagues and scientists
from MIT, the University of Washington in Seattle and Remote Sensing Systems, which keeps one of the three satellite temperature
data sets. “In my opinion, when
incorrect science is elevated to the level of formal congressional
testimony and makes its way into the official congressional record, climate scientists have some
responsibility to test specific claims that were made, determine whether those claims are
correct or not, and publish their results,” said Santer in an interview, when asked about the framing of the research.
The study wades into an ongoing and highly fraught debate over how to interpret the temperature records of the planet’s lower
atmosphere, or troposphere, provided by polar orbiting satellites. Such data have often been cited by climate change doubters so as
to suggest that there is no global warming trend, or that global warming has recently slowed down, and therefore to contradict
thermometer-based measurements taken at the planet’s surface (which show a clear warming trend). But the new study
finds that all of the three satellite data sets — kept by Remote Sensing Systems, the Center for Satellite Applications
and Research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the University of Alabama at Huntsville — show a
long-term warming trend in the middle to upper part of the troposphere. After correcting for a
cooling-down of the stratosphere (the layer above the troposphere), the paper finds that the trend is
roughly 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit per decade for the first two data sets, and 0.26 degrees
Fahrenheit per decade for the third. The study further examined whether any shorter temperature trend in these data
sets could be described as a “leveling off,” as Pruitt had put it. It did so by examining 20-year periods in the data sets and comparing
those with the predictions of climate simulations that reflected the natural variations of the climate but excluded human-caused
greenhouse gas emissions. These models were thus meant to represent what the climate would do on its own if humans were not
altering it. The study finds warming trends for all the 20-year periods, including the “last two decades” referred to by Pruitt,
although it acknowledges that the trend is somewhat lower over these later periods. But it attributes this to natural climate
variations, including a very strong El Nino event in 1997 and 1998 that caused dramatic warmth around the beginning of the 20-year
window that ends in the present. Even
in these periods that saw somewhat less warming, the study finds
that it was still far more warming than would be without human perturbations of the climate.
“The probability that internal variability could produce warming exceeding that observed over the last 20 years is only 1.6 %, 3.1 %,
and 6.3% (respectively)” in the three data sets, the authors find. “Pruitt is not correct in saying that warming has leveled off,” Santer
said. “It hasn’t in any of the satellite data sets, and indeed, in older and newer versions of the three satellite data sets, we judge the
most recent warming to be statistically significant — to be larger than the warming that our current model-based estimates tells us
that we should see due to internal variability alone.” The EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“Another
solid piece of work by Santer et al. that demonstrate multi-decadal satellite-derived global
tropospheric temperatures are increasing far more than we would expect from natural causes,”
said Thomas Karl, a longtime climate researcher who formerly headed NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information.
“Other satellite instruments, which measure temperatures closer to where we live, work and grow our food show at least as much,
or more warming, in recent decades.” Gavin Schmidt, who heads the Goddard Institute for Space Studies at NASA, said by email that
when it comes to measurements of the Earth’s troposphere by satellite, “the trends over the whole period are clear.” “This doesn’t
however imply that a) there aren’t still issues with the satellite retrievals (there may well be), and b) that models did a perfect job
over this time period,” Schmidt cautioned. John Christy, a researcher at the University of Alabama at
Huntsville who keeps that data set and whose work has been often cited by climate change
“skeptics,” agreed there is a warming trend in the satellite data overall but said that climate
models predict that it should be larger. “The datasets are still significantly cooler than the model average,” he said by
email. Christy also argued that the other two data sets, which are warmer than his, are “outliers regarding the magnitude.” “I
wouldn’t get too excited about this study,” Christy said. But it is not as though a scientific study refuting one of his statements to the
Senate holds much risk for Pruitt, said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a political scientist at George
Washington University. “It’s significant in the sense that it shows the limits of the confirmation process, especially when the
president’s party controls the Senate and senators can no longer filibuster nominees. In other words, it’s possible to
float factually inaccurate statements and yet not ding your chances of confirmation,” Binder said.
“Of course, the climate change issue is highly partisan: Republicans tend to disagree with a general
scientific consensus that the earth is warming. So the idea that a Republican EPA nominee might give [a] factually
contested statement on climate change and not pay a price is not terribly surprising.” In the end, Santer argued, scientists
should fact-check politicians even if they’re at a disadvantage when it comes to how long it takes to do so. “These claims
were made in the U.S. Senate, in a confirmation,” said Santer. “It takes time however to set the record straight, to do due diligence,
to do the research necessary to address the claims. "And one would hope that the scientific response receives at least some token
amount of attention, and that the original incorrect claim does not dominate the public discourse on these critically important
issues.”

Their science is equivalent to dentistry.


Nuccitelli 4/13/16 (Dana, blogger on environmentguardian.co.uk. He is an environmental scientist and risk assessor,
and also contributes to SkepticalScience.com “It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming”,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-
agree-on-human-caused-global-warming)
Consensus on consensus
In our paper, we show that including
non-experts is the only way to argue for a consensus below 90–
100%. The greater the climate expertise among those included in the survey sample, the higher the
consensus on human-caused global warming. Similarly, if you want to know if you need open heart
surgery, you’ll get much more consistent answers (higher consensus) if you only ask cardiologists
than if you also survey podiatrists, neurologists, and dentists.
That’s because, as we all know, expertise matters. It’s easy to manufacture a smaller non-expert
“consensus” number and argue that it contradicts the 97% figure. As our new paper shows, when you ask
the climate experts, the consensus on human-caused global warming is between 90% and 100%, with several studies finding 97%
consensus among publishing climate scientists.
There’s some variation in the percentage, depending on exactly how the survey is done and how the question is worded, but
ultimately it’s still true that there’s a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on human-caused global warming. In
fact, even Richard Tol has agreed:
The consensus is of course in the high nineties.
Is the consensus 97% or 99.9%?
In fact, some believe our 97% consensus estimate was too low. These claims are usually based on an analysis done by James Powell,
and the difference simply boils down to how “consensus” is defined. Powell evaluated the percentage of papers that don’t explicitly
reject human-caused global warming in their abstracts. That includes 99.83% of papers published between 1991 and 2012, and
99.96% of papers published in 2013.
In short, 97%of peer-reviewed climate research that states a position on human-caused
warming endorses the consensus, and about 99.9% of the total climate research doesn’t
explicitly reject human-caused global warming. Our two analyses simply answer different questions. The
percentage of experts and their research that endorse the theory is a better description of “consensus.” However, Powell’s analysis
is useful in showing how few peer-reviewed scientific papers explicitly reject human-caused global warming.
In any case, there’s
really no question that humans are the driving force causing global warming.
The experts are almost universally convinced because the scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Denying the consensus by misrepresenting the research won’t change that reality.
With all of the consensus authors teaming up to show the 90–100% expert consensus on human-caused global warming, and most
finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists, this paper should be the final word on the subject.
Warming is Reversible
Every bit of warming and emissions count—mitigation is conjunctive.
Nuccitelli 12 (Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento,
California area. This piece was originally published at Skeptical Science and was reprinted with permission. “Realistically What Might
The Future Climate Look Like?” ThinkProgress http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/01/784931/realistically-what-might-the-
future-climate-look-like/)
This is Why Reducing Emissions is Critical
We’re not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted, we are quickly
running out of time to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that ‘danger limit’.
However, 2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. Every bit of CO2 emissions we can reduce means that much
avoided future warming, which means that much avoided climate change impacts. As Lonnie
Thompson noted, the more global warming we manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering
we will be forced to cope with in the future.
Realistically, based on the current political climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting global warming to 2°C
is probably the best we can do. However, there
is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C,
and anything greater than 4°C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since
various tipping points are expected to be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the
catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality, mass extinctions, hundreds of millions
of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc.). But we’re not stuck on that track
just yet, and we need to move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse gas
emissions as soon and as much as possible.

It’s reversible, but how policy design is key


Lemoine 2016 - Assistant Professor of Economics University of Arizona
Derek and Christian Traeger, "Economics of tipping the climate dominoes," Nature Climate
Change 6, 514–519 (2016)
The threat of climate tipping points plays a major role in calls for aggressive emission reductions to limit warming to 2 °C (refs
1,2,3,4). The scientific literature is particularly concerned with the possibility of a ‘domino effect’ from multiple interacting tipping
points5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. For instance, reducing the effectiveness of carbon sinks amplifies future warming, which in turn makes further
tipping points more likely. Nearly all of the preceding quantitative economic studies analyse optimal policy in the presence of a
single type of tipping point that directly reduces economic output11, 12, 13, 14. This type of tipping point affects the potential for
further tipping points only indirectly: the
resulting reduction in emissions will generally reduce the
likelihood of triggering further tipping points. So far, only a single paper analyses optimal climate
policy in the presence of tipping points that alter the physical climate system15, specifically a
temperature feedback tipping point and the carbon sink tipping point described above. These two tipping
points could interact directly; however, that paper considers only a single type of tipping point at a time. The present study
synthesizes the tipping point models from the previous literature to provide the first analysis of optimal climate policy when tipping
points can directly interact. Our study integrates all three types of previously modelled tipping points into a single integrated
assessment model that combines smooth and reversible changes with irreversible regime shifts. Each tipping point is stochastically
triggered at an unknown threshold. We solve for the optimal policy under Bayesian learning. Optimality means that resources within
and across periods are distributed to maximize the expected stream of global welfare from economic consumption over time under
different risk states. The
optimal policy must anticipate all possible thresholds, interactions and future
policy responses. The anticipation of learning acknowledges that future policymakers will have
new information about the location of temperature thresholds and can also react to any tipping
points that may have already occurred. Learning over the threshold location also avoids the assumption implicit in ref.
14 that tipping will eventually occur with certainty if temperatures stay permanently above the level where tipping points are
possible. Finally, going beyond the conventional focus on optimal policy, we also calculate the welfare cost of delaying optimal
climate policy. We demonstrate the value of monitoring for tipping points that have already been triggered, so that policy can
adjust and reduce the probability of a single tipping point turning into a domino effect.
A transition now is necessary to stave off the worst impacts of warming
Terry 2015 - Dept of Physics, Illinois Institute of Technology
Jeff, "The experts on nuclear power and climate change,” thebulletin.org/experts-nuclear-
power-and-climate-change8996
The US Energy Information Agency (EIA) predicts that 65 percent of the world’s electricity generation will be provided by fossil fuel
generators in 2015. Approximately 280,000 deaths due to combustion of fossil fuels will be recorded in
2015 (calculated using mortality factors in a paper by climate scientists Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen). The World
Health Organization estimates that another 150,000 die annually from the current effects of climate
change. In combination, 430,000 people die annually due to the effects of fossil fuels. It is amazing to me
that the developed world is willing to allow fossil fuel-related deaths on this magnitude, to avoid the risk of rare nuclear accidents
with low severity and risk that continues to decrease with time. Combatting climate change is going to require
taking immediate action based upon what current technology will support. I would urge immediate
construction of electricity generation with the goal of reaching 40 percent nuclear, 40 percent renewables, and
20 percent fossil fuel generation by 2050. This energy mix would greatly reduce the horrific
magnitude of deaths from fossil fuels and would go a long way toward mitigating climate
change. It is technically achievable as this energy generation mix is well within the capacity factor limit described by Jesse Jenkins,
a doctoral student and researcher at MIT. No miracle scientific breakthroughs are necessary to reach these levels, but new
information must be incorporated as it becomes available. We must apply what we learn as we build out toward this generation mix.
If nuclear plants start melting down; if wind turbines start to decimate bat populations; if solar installations start blinding pilots—we
must adjust the energy mix based upon our new scientific understanding. Combatingclimate change requires
scientific evaluation of data. We may not like what the science tells us, but basing energy policy
on what we hope for is as unwise as inaction. If we wait to act on climate change for perfect sources
of energy, it may end up being too late. Nuclear energy is a reliable, low carbon dioxide source of electricity that can and
should be used to combat climate change.
A2: Skepticism Good
The “climate controversy” causes much confusion or outright avoidance of the
topic, creating an uninformed public.
Bastasch 13 (Michael, reporter for the Daily Caller on energy and education, “New K-12
Education Standards to Mandate Climate Change Instruction, 3/29/2013,
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/29/new-k-12-education-standards-to-mandate-
climate-change-discourage-skeptics/) RC
Climate change may soon be coming to every classroom in the country. Pending nationwide
science standards will recommend that K-12 students at public schools learn about climate
change to help fill a knowledge gap concerning the subject, while skepticism will be discouraged.
“Only one in five [students] feel like they’ve got a good handle on climate change from what they’ve
learned in school,” Mark McCaffrey of the National Center for Science Education told NPR, adding that many teachers will also need climate change
science training. “So the
state of climate change education in the U.S. is abysmal.” New science
standards are being developed by the National Research Council with help from 26 states to
identify science that “all K–12 students should know,” according to the website promoting the standards. It has been
almost 15 years since the last time the National Research Council and the American Association for Advancement in Science published
recommendations on which states base their standards. “There was never a debate about whether climate change would be in there,” says Heidi
Schweingruber of the National Research Council. “It is a fundamental part of science, and so that’s what our work is based on, the scientific consensus.”
Schweingruber added that much consideration was put into how to teach what can be a depressing topic and not alarm students. “We’ve heard stories
of students who learn about climate change,” said McCaffrey. “Then they go home and tell their parents, and everybody’s upset because the parents
are driving their kids to the soccer game, and the kids are feeling guilty about being in the car and contributing to this global problem.” NPR notes that
educators say the controversy surrounding climate change encourages many teachers to avoid
the topic or show competing viewpoints — like Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” against the British documentary
“The Great Global Warming Swindle” — which they say just causes more confusion about the issue. “To the extent
that these standards do paint a picture that I think runs counter to the scientific evidence, we’re going to make sure that we point that out,” says James
Taylor, a senior fellow at the
Heartland Institute. The conservative think tank is developing a curriculum that
questions man-made global warming.

Climate denialism locks in concrete political and economic consequences.


Biddle and Leuschner 15 (Justin B., PhD, Philosophy Program, School of Public Policy,
Georgia Institute of Technology, and Anna, PhD, Karlsruher Institute for Technology,
Institute for Philosophy, “Climate Skepticism and Manufacture of Doubt: Can Dissent in
Science be Epistemically Detrimental?”, 2/10/2015) RC
To begin to explain this, consider contemporary dissent from a very different hypothesis –
namely, the Einsteinian hypothesis that simultaneity is relative. Suppose furthermore that this
dissent involves a violation of established conventional standards. Should we consider this
dissent to be epistemically detrimental, in the sense of impeding knowledge production? We do
not believe so. We should consider the dissent to be an instance of bad science (due to the
violation of established conventional standards), but not of epistemically detrimental dissent,
and we should not consider it to be epistemically detrimental dissent because it will have
virtually no impact on scientific progress at all. Scientists who continue to defend the relativity
of simultaneity in the face of this dissent will encounter a very different atmosphere than that of
current climate science. They will not be forced to respond over and over again to the same bad
arguments. They will not be dragged before houses of congress or parliament and asked to
justify their conclusions. They will not have their emails hacked and taken out of context, and
they will not find themselves at the center of a controversy called “simultaneity-gate.” The main
reason why none of these unfortunate circumstances will befall the defenders of the relativity of
simultaneity is that the non-epistemic consequences of wrongly rejecting (or accepting) this
hypothesis are negligible, especially in comparison to hypotheses like anthropogenic climate
change; in particular, there are no significant financial consequences for powerful political
and/or economic stakeholders.
Other Internals
Mitigation/Adaptation
Education on climate change helps build competence and promote climate-
resiliency.
UN CC:Learn ’13, (The one UN Climate Change Learning Partnersip, UN CC:Learn is a
partnership of 33 multilateral organizations which supports Member States in designing and
implementing results-oriented and sustainable learning to address climate change, “Integrating
Climate Change in Education at Primary and Secondary Level” UNITAR, 2013,
http://www.uncclearn.org/sites/default/files/inventory/resource_guide_on_integrating_cc_in_
education_primary_and_secondary_level.pdf) -os
By raising awareness and promoting knowledge and skills-development, education is an
essential component and a catalyst for responding to global climate change. Its importance has
been increasingly highlighted at the international level. In particular, Article 6 of the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)2 encourages Parties to promote, develop
and implement educational, training and public awareness programmes on climate change and
its effects. In addition, the United Nations General Assembly proclaimed the UN Decade of
Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) 2005-2014, emphasizing that climate change is
one of the key action themes of the Decade3. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)
aims to promote the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values necessary to shape a sustainable
future4. It affects all components of the education system – which include, among others,
legislation, policy, finance, curricula, teacher education, instruction, learning, assessment,
school governance and infrastructure – and considers learning as a lifelong process taking place
in various settings. In addition, it proposes learning methodologies for promoting critical
thinking, problem-solving skills, as well as predicting events affecting both natural and human
ecosystems and acting on these in collaborative ways. ESD provides an umbrella for many forms
of education5. In this framework, Climate Change Education (CCE) fosters understanding of the
complexities and interconnection of the various challenges posed by climate change. More
specifically, CCE promotes learning about the causes and effects of climate change as well as
possible responses, providing a cross-curricular and multidisciplinary perspective. It develops
competences in the field of climate change mitigation and adaptation, with the aim to promote
climate-resilient development and reduce the vulnerability of communities in the face of an
uncertain future. Crucially, CCE helps individuals to make informed decisions. Additionally, by
preparing learners, communities and education systems to face natural hazards, CCE contributes
to disaster risk reduction (DRR) efforts. Finally, CCE highlights the links between consumption
patterns and climate change in order to mobilize responsible actions contributing to reduced
greenhouse gas emissions through more sustainable lifestyles
Though as people tend to be educated during their early years, the benefits of improving or
expanding an education system may not be seen for several decades. These findings add to the
recent report from the Royal Society that suggests large-scale engineering projects are not the
only way to adapt to climate change. It recommends a balanced approach to adaptation of both engineering and ecosystem-based
measures.

Teaching about climate change is key to mitigate its impacts


Shaw 14 (Sophia, Sophia Shaw serves as president and CEO of the Chicago Botanic Garden.
There, she oversees the Science Career Continuum mentoring program preparing young people
for Stem careers in the environmental sciences. "It's time to teach climate change in school.
Here's how," Guardian, 9-19-2014,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/19/its-time-to-teach-climate-change-
in-school-heres-how) //JCL
Why is it so difficult to teach climate change in our classrooms? My kids hear climate change
discussed in the news as a very real threat, but it is largely absent from school science curricula.
In fact, most children the world over don’t receive any formal academic reasoning to put the
vast amount of information and opinions into context, and they have no credible outlet to ask
their own questions. To date, many attempts to educate the public – and our kids – about
climate change have relied on scare tactics that focus on superstorms, massive floods and
ominous weather patterns to generate fear. But fear actually can inhibit the desire to learn
more and take action – particularly in young people. And, because the subject of climate change
can prove highly conceptual to students if the science is not well understood, there’s been much
debate among educators about how exactly it should be taught – not just at the high-school and
university level, but from grade school and up. So it’s no surprise that many teachers choose to
avoid climate change altogether in their classrooms. The trouble is that today’s students will be
tasked with managing tomorrow’s climate change impact – and jobs requiring science,
technology, engineering and math (Stem) skills already are on the rise. That demand will only
continue to expand as the effects of climate change progress and more effort is needed to
create and execute mitigation tactics and adaptation plans. Teaching climate change shouldn’t
be about preaching to our kids. A good science curriculum should empower students to ask their
own questions and give them the tools to find and understand the answers themselves. After
all, we know that students learn best when they can figure things out for themselves, rather
than being given facts to be memorized – the charred ceilings of many high school chemistry
labs can attest to that. Climate change curricula should be based on real-time empirical data,
encourage hands-on participation and problem-solving, and offer a pragmatic approach to what
individuals can do and are doing to combat climate change. And linking firsthand observations
to national climate-monitoring programs and using 400,000 years of atmospheric carbon dioxide
samples provided by institutions such as Nasa helps students see the real-life applications. In
theory, teaching climate change shouldn’t be controversial. Nasa has already shifted from
exclusively exploring outer space to exploring our planet – and a large portion of its research
now focuses on the impact of climate change on our environment. The legendary space agency,
charged with leading the world in scientific discovery, confirms what 97% of climate scientists
on the ground report: Earth’s climate is changing, in large part as a result of the buildup of
greenhouse gases released by human activities. If exploring space can be cool, with a planetary
mobile in every classroom, why not saving the planet? Using what we know about education
and our planet’s systems, the Chicago Botanic Garden teamed up with Nasa to develop a new
climate change curriculum to ensure that our kids have the opportunity to learn about the
realities facing our world. We hope this new set of tools will empower educators across the
country to get involved and grasp that they can teach climate change effectively in their
classrooms. The future of our communities, natural resources and ecosystems depends on
how well we understand, value and protect the habitats and species that sustain our world.
We need to be proactive and give young learners the tools to observe the effects of a changing
climate for themselves. It’s one more way to invest in the future of our planet and let our kids
shape the world that soon will be theirs. To quote Carl Sagan, “This is our world. It is our
responsibility to cherish it.”
Green Tech

Education solves – leads to higher levels of inovation and stimulates green tech
Dyster 13 [Adam Dyster, Adam Dyster is a first year history undergraduate at University College
London and a member of the UK Youth Climate Coalition., 9-7-2013, "Comment: education is
the key to addressing climate change," Climate Home - climate change news,
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/07/09/comment-education-is-the-key-to-
addressing-climate-change/]
It’s been introduced in the US curriculum, and threatened to be removed from the parts of the UK’s. It’s an issue that has sparked much debate, and in
the UK’s case, outcry from thousands, particularly from young people and schools (to recent success). So why has education sparked such interest and
been considered so vital an issue? Education
is vitally important for several, key reasons. It can deliver the
scientific facts about the biggest issue facing young people, something that is being felt by
millions worldwide. It equips youth with the skills to help combat climate change, and be part of
a green recovering, and positive future. It also encourages young people to be involved as global
citizens, and involves and engages them in an issue that’s impacts will be felt most keenly by
those now going through the education system. We have a responsibility to educate, not only bound by international
convention, but by moral and ethical duties. Schools must educate young people about the world around them, so that they are informed with facts
and key issues. Education should keep up to date with science and academic thought. Just as the facts and
science of stem cell research or alcohol abuse are taught, because of their relevance and strong scientific foundations, so should climate change and
sustainability – indeed, even more so, given the magnitude and impact of environmental issues. Facts not fiction Such
education must be
about facts and science, not treated as the political football as it so often is. Such politicisation
mires the issue, and means that the urgency and relevancy of climate change education is often
lost amidst political point scoring. This should, as with other relevant science-based issues, be an
area of consensus, not party political manoeuvring. Beyond establishing the facts of the issue,
education can have be a great force for good, preparing young people to face, and indeed
improve, the world after education has long been completed. How can we expect creative
solutions and innovation to combat climate and sustainability issues if we don’t educate the
next generation about them? The UK campaign against the removal of climate change from the Geography curriculum is itself proof of
the power of education. Esha Marwaha, at 15-years-old, was able to write so eloquently on the dangers of removing climate change that her petition
gained over 30,000 signatures in a matter of weeks. Yet without education, would we get another Esha, or another generation of activists, or even
another generation who care about climate change. Without education, those who want or who’re able to combat climate change will surely be in the
minority. New jobs This is especially relevant with the need for innovation and sustainable
development. Currently the green economy is nascent, its burgeoning growth providing
employment and a viable alternative to resource hungry industries and economic models. But
positive growth needs new generations who both understand the need for alternative
development and have the passion and desire to act. Education has a key role in showing young people that not only do
they have wider responsibilities, but also that they are entitled to involvement in decisions. Climate change and sustainability are
issues that cut across generations, and the decisions that are made today will have impact not
upon the generation that makes them, but generations to come. Education can help give young people the tools
to take part in these decisions, allowing them to enter into the debate. UN agreements Finally, there is a legal obligation for many countries to educate
about climate change. Under Article 6 of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, signatories are obliged to: ‘Promote and facilitate …the
development and implementation of educational and public awareness programmes on climate change and its effects’. This article is clear and direct,
and must not be ignored. However in many respects this legal obligation is a lesser consideration when compared to the moral obligation each
generation has to educate the next about climate change. Education
is the most powerful tool and can engage young
people in the debate, prepare them for working with the green economy, and give the definitive
science and facts about the biggest issue facing young people. To quote H.G. Wells: “Human
history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.”
Climate Leadership
Education key to climate leadership
Louie 16 [Jacqueline Louie, 6-30-2016, "Alberta Students Show Leadership In Climate Change
Education," Alberta Teachers' Association,
https://www.teachers.ab.ca/News%20Room/Summer%20Series/Summer-Series-
2016/Pages/climate-change-education.aspx]
When thousands of students speak, people listen. That’s what happened this spring, when more than 3,000
students from across Alberta came together, using virtual classroom technology, to discuss how
Alberta schools should show climate leadership. The Centre for Global Education—Canada’s largest
provider of real-time high school student collaboration—partnered with the Alberta Council for Environmental
Education (ACEE) to bring Grades 9–12 students together for online dialogue and collaboration.
“They learned about the political process, student governance and how to rally support for a
cause. These are all critical skills that students don’t get in a traditional classroom,” says Terry Godwaldt, executive director of the Centre for Global
Education, a community partnership between Edmonton Public Schools and TakingITGlobal, a nonprofit Canadian organization with the mandate of
empowering youth to act on the world’s greatest challenges. The students, from eight public and separate schools across the province,
worked together to write a white paper, with a leadership core of 80 students meeting weekly
through video conferencing to brainstorm ideas. To wrap up the process, a group of 10 students gathered
at the University of Alberta to refine all of the ideas into a white paper, with the support and
guidance of a multidisciplinary team of U of A graduate students, facilitated by the Faculty of Graduate Studies and
Research. The students then presented their recommendations at a daylong virtual town hall in
March, attended by Premier Rachel Notley, along with 60–100 students from each participating
school. The white paper recommendations emphasize the importance of including environmental education as an integral part of what students
are learning. “Climate education needs to permeate all of the curriculum,” Godwaldt says. “Climate change is
affecting Alberta communities in a very concrete, tangible way. It’s not about ‘them’—people in other parts of the
world. It’s about us.” According to Godwaldt, schools have an opportunity to provide students with authentic opportunities to learn,
“where we move away from talking about issues, and we start dealing with them. We don’t
have to do that outside school hours. We can do that in the curriculum and in every class that
we have. It’s been life-changing for our kids. These kids are on a mission. They feel they have
this mandate to make a difference.” In June, the students presented their white paper to Education Minister David Eggen and
Environment and Parks Minister Shannon Phillips. Godwaldt is hopeful that the paper will help shape the dialogue
taking place in Alberta and beyond. Judging from the minister of education’s reaction, that goal
has been achieved. Eggen says, “The process was remarkable. It was grassroots democracy engagement at its very best.” About the
recommendations, he says, “I will be holding up this climate leadership white paper as a shining example
of both process and content. . . . [The students] should expect to see some evidence of their work in our curriculum redesign.” The
climate leadership project has allowed students to learn proactive ways of influencing change,
according to teacher Aaron Dublenko, coordinator of Innovate, an Edmonton Public Schools
program that provides high school students with hands-on, project-based learning opportunities
for credit. “That’s the most critical part of what the climate leadership project has been about,”
says Dublenko, also an ACEE board member. “So that when decisions are being made, we’re ensuring that the next generation—which is going to be
These students develop incredible leadership skills. They
the most impacted by our decisions today—will have a say.
develop the mindset that they can bring about change. They can address their concerns to
decision makers, and be taken seriously.”
Sustainability
Education connects students to the environment
Gottlieb, Vigoda-Gadot, and Haim ’13 (Dr. Daniel Gottlieb is a clinical psychologist and
family therapist in Israel, Eran Vigoda-Gadot is professor of Public Administration &
Management, University of Haifa, Abraham Haim is Professor of Evo and Env Science, University
of Haifa, “Encouraging ecological behaviors among students by using the ecological footprint as
an educational tool,” Environmental Education Research, 19:6, 844-863, March 5, 2013,
https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T5Z8873EG-
F61BHLVPF/encouraging_ecological_behaviors_among_students_by_using_the_ecological_foot
print_as_an_educational_tool_a_quasi_
experimental_design_in_a_public_high.pdf)

Ecological footprint accounting is one of the most comprehensive ecological indicators for
measuring the fundamental conditions for sustainability. It is a resource and emissions
accounting tool measuring direct and indirect human demand on the planet’s regenerative
capacity (bio-capacity) and comparing it with the bio capacity available on the planet. This
method of accounting biophysical resources is possible because flows of resources and wastes
of a state, city, or even institutions (such as schools) can be tracked and expressed in terms of
global hectares (Rees 1992;Wackernagel and Rees 1996; Wackernagel et al. 2006).The ecological
footprint is based on the assumption that different categories of human activity, such as energy
and resource consumption and emission of waste require a certain amount of productive or
absorptive land. The total land required constitutes the ecological footprint of the population
involved. In the present age of globalization, the area required to support the existence of a
given human population is much greater than and often very distant from the area in which that
population lives (Barrett et al. 2005).The ecological footprint has been calculated for nations,
regions, products, and even the whole planet (Chambers, Simmons, and Wackernagel 2000;
Kissinger andGottlieb 2010; Lenzen and Murray 2001; Van Vuuren and Smeets 2000; Wackerna-
gel and Rees 1996; Wackernagel et al. 2004). Such studies have highlighted the global impacts of
consumption, but have not provided the intricate information at the institutional level (such as a
school) needed for remediation. Detailed local information is particularly important for schools,
which have the opportunity to mitigate their impact by reducing their ecological footprint. In
this context, we think that the ecological footprint is more than an indicator for sustainability. It
has the merits of being an educational approach to sustainability, especially concerning
overcoming some of the physiological perspectives of cur-rent global environmental problems.
As noted by Uzzell (2000), the direct experience of global environmental changes at the human
psychological level is unlikely because the physical signals of global environmental change are
way below the threshold of discernibility of human sensory and memory mechanisms. Further,
the time lapse between human actions (cause) and their noticeable effect on environmental
change is measured in many years to decades (Uzzell 2000; Wackerangeland Rees 1996). As a
result, citizens and future citizens who are disconnected unconsciousness and by physical
distances from the ecological space that supports their daily life style are locked into
unsustainable behaviors and consumption pat-terns. Further, an individual who receives the
benefits of an environmentally damaging action may not be the one who is likely to suffer the
consequences of it and will probably be unaware of it (Uzzell 2000; Wackerangel and Rees
1996). Therefore, global environmental issues such as global warming or diminishing of natural
resources can be considered by students as abstract concepts, not connected to the local level
or to their daily way of life style. This is partially because the knowledge is derived largely from
dry science facts taught by the teachers or transformed by the media, and partially because its
usage in educational and scientific feedback that will pay attention to the above gaps is not
common. From an educational point of view, one of the ecological footprint’s strengths is its
ability to communicate effectively the notion that any society depends on eco-logical goods
(resources) and services that might be beyond its local bio-capacity, and that we depend on the
carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems that might be on the other side of the world.
Calculating and exploring the school’s ecological footprint enable students to discover their
ecological space that is hidden from theireyes and from their consciousness, a space created by
the interrelations between the students and the natural environment (Wackernagel and Rees
1996). In this sense, the ecological footprint as an indicator for sustainability might meet the
demand for more transparent science that works in tandem with the needs of the society and
the environment. The ecological footprint as an educational approach reveals the story of
howcurrent behaviors and decision-making that are shaped by culture, globalization, trade, and
economic expansion feed into the acceptance and rationalization of the exploitative relationship
between industrial society and nature. In this context, theecological footprint meets the
aforementioned call for an interdisciplinary, decision-making relevancy, and holistic science in
the frame of education for sustain-ability.848D. Gottliebet al.
In sum, the ecological footprint as an educational tool was implemented on two complementary
levels: (1) as an indicator for sustainability from which it is possible for school students to
determine where the school’s (students and institution) greatest impact is occurring and to
rank-order consumption based on its contribution to the ecological footprint and (2) as an
educational approach for conveying the message of sustainability based on interdisciplinary
contents from the fields of sociology, ecology, and economics. Both levels aim to foster action
competence and PEBs among students.
Econ
Climate education vital to develop STEM skills which will help drive nation’s
econ. Plan alone can solve.
Riddel 14 (Roger, Graduate of University of Louisville with a BS in Communication and is
experienced in web and magazine writing to Education Dive, “Opposition to Next Generation
Science Standards growing”, May 19, 2014, Education Dive,
http://www.educationdive.com/news/opposition-to-next-generation-science-standards-
growing/264611/) //CVR
The opposition to the teaching of global warming as a human-influenced phenomenon has been
compared to battles over evolution in schools — only this debate includes the potentially
negative impacts climate change education could have on states with economies driven by fossil
fuels. Like Wyoming, Kentucky — where coal is king — initially rejected the standards before
Gov. Steven Beshear issued an executive order and put them in place anyway. As with the
Common Core debate when it comes to math and reading, many are also opposed to national
standards for science. Ultimately, however, it can also be argued that with science, technology,
engineering, and math (STEM) subjects playing a large role in the nation's current education
debate, it seems counterproductive to reject standards on the basis that you disagree with
scientific evidence discussed or find them potentially bad for business. With those STEM skills
vital for future jobs that will drive the nation's economy, Wyoming science teacher Roger Spears
told The New York Times, "Do you want our kids, or do you want other people to come and take
those jobs?"
Warming Impacts
Impact – 2AC Outweighs Everything
Climate change outweighs nukes, diseases, and rogue technology
--climate change is unique from all other existential risks: 1) probability is super high—it’s already happening and we’re quickly
approaching the threshold. 2) we’re not doing anything about it, especially at the scale to which it is occurring versus other threats.
3) firm historical precedent.
Wagner & Weitzman 15 (Gernot Wagner, Ph.D. Student in Political Economy and Government, Harvard University
& Martin Weitzman Professor of Economics at Harvard University, “How does climate stack up against other worst-case scenarios?”,
Excerpt from “Climate Shock”)
What then, if anything, still distinguishes climate change from the others remaining: biotechnology,
nanotechnology, nukes and pandemics?
For one, the relatively high chance of eventual planetary catastrophe. In Climate Shock, we zero in on
eventual average global warming of 6°C (11°F) as the final cutoff few would doubt represents a true planetary
catastrophe. Higher temperatures are beyond anyone’s grasp.
Yet our current path doesn’t exclude eventual average global warming above 6°C. In fact, our own
analysis puts the likelihood at around 10 percent, and that’s for an indisputable global catastrophe. Climate change would trigger
plenty of catastrophic events with temperatures rising by much less than 6°C. Many scientists would name 2°C (3.6°F) as
the threshold, and we are well on our way to exceeding that, unless there is a major global course
correction.
Second, the gap between our current efforts and what’s needed on climate change is enormous. We are
no experts on any of the other worst-case scenarios, but there at least it seems like much is already being
done.
Take nuclear terrorism. The United States alone spends many hundreds of billions of dollars each
year on its military, intelligence and security services. That doesn’t stamp out the chance of terrorism. Some of the money spent
may even be fueling it, and there are surely ways to approach the problem more strategically at times, but at least the overall
mission is to protect the United States and its citizens.
It would be hard to argue that U.S. climate policy today benefits from anything close to this
type of effort. As for mitigating pandemics, more could surely be spent on research, monitoring and rapid response, but
here too it seems like needed additional efforts would plausibly amount to a small fraction of
national income.
Third, climate change has firm historical precedence. There’s ample reason to believe that pumping carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere is reliving the past — the distant past, but the past nonetheless. The planet has
seen today’s carbon dioxide levels before: over 3 million years ago, with sea levels some 20 meters
higher than today, and camels roaming the high Arctic. There are considerable uncertainties in all of this, but
there’s little reason to believe that humanity can cheat basic physics and chemistry.
Contrast the historical precedent of climate change with that of biotechnology, or rather the lack of it.
The fear that bioengineered genes and genetically modified organisms will wreak havoc in the wild is a prime
example. They may act like invasive species in some areas, but a global takeover seems unlikely, to say the least.
Much like climate change, historical precedent can give us some guidance. But unlike climate
change, that same historical precedent gives us quite a bit of comfort.
Nature itself has tried for millions of years to create countless combinations of mutated DNA and genes. The process of natural
selection all but guarantees that only a tiny fraction of the very fittest permutations has survived. Genetically modified crops grow
bigger and stronger and are pesticideresistant. But they can’t outgrow natural selection entirely. None of that yet guarantees that
scientists wouldn’t be able to develop permutations that could wreak havoc in the wild, but historical experience would tell us that
the chance is indeed slim.
In fact, the best scientists working on biotechnology seem to be much less concerned about the dangers of “Frankenfoods” and
GMOs than the general public.
The reverse holds true for climate change. The
best climate scientists appear to be significantly more
concerned about ultimate climate impacts than the majority of the general public and many
policy makers. That alone should give us pause.
Changes causes extinction—laundry list
Stover 15 (Dawn, Contributing Editor at the Bulletin for Atomic Scientists, “Climate change: irreversible but not
unstoppable”, http://thebulletin.org/climate-change-irreversible-not-unstoppable8044)
Points of no return. If
the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can be limited to a
doubling—from about 280 parts per million (ppm) in the pre-industrial era to 560 ppm in the future (we’re currently at about 400
ppm)—the IPCC assessment estimated with “high confidence” that Earth’s temperature will reach
an equilibrium somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. However, the
report cautioned, “some aspects of climate will continue to change even if temperatures are stabilized.”
Among some of the most likely changes: The melting of snow and ice will expose darker patches of water
and land that absorb more of the sun’s radiation, accelerating global warming and the retreat of ice
sheets and glaciers. Scientists agree that the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet has already gone into an unstoppable decline. Currents
that transport heat within the oceans will be disrupted. Ocean acidification will continue to rise,
with unknown effects on marine life. Thawing permafrost and sea beds will release methane, a greenhouse gas.
Droughts predicted to be the worst in 1,000 years will trigger vegetation changes and wildfires, releasing
carbon. Species unable to adapt quickly to a changing climate will go extinct. Coastal
communities will be submerged, creating a humanitarian crisis.
Some of these changes may persist for hundreds or even thousands of years after the Earth’s temperature
stabilizes. Scientists worry that elements of the climate system could even reach tipping points beyond
which abrupt and planetary-scale changes might occur, such as the disappearance of monsoon
cycles or the Amazon’s vast tropical forests.

Climate change is a system disruptor and a risk amplifier--only mitigation


prevents biodiversity loss, marine ecosystem collapse, resource wars,
global food scarcity, and extreme weather events
Pachauri & Meyer 15 (Rajendra K. Pachauri Chairman of the IPCC, Leo Meyer Head, Technical Support Unit IPCC
were the editors for this IPCC report, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report” http://epic.awi.de/37530/1/IPCC_AR5_SYR_Final.pdf
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland,
151 pp)
SPM 2.3 Future risks and impacts caused by a changing climate
Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems.
Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in
countries at all levels of development. {2.3}
Risk of climate-related impacts results from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including
hazardous events and trends) with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems,
including their ability to adapt. Rising rates and magnitudes of warming and other changes in the
climate system, accompanied by ocean acidification, increase the risk of severe, pervasive and in some
cases irreversible detrimental impacts. Some risks are particularly relevant for individual regions (Figure SPM.8), while others
are global. The overall risks of future climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and
magnitude of climate change, including ocean acidification. The precise levels of climate change
sufficient to trigger abrupt and irreversible change remain uncertain, but the risk associated with
crossing such thresholds increases with rising temperature (medium confidence). For risk assessment, it is
important to evaluate the widest possible range of impacts, including low-probability outcomes
with large consequences. {1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, Box Introduction.1, Box 2.3, Box 2.4}
A large fraction of species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the
21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species
cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high
projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to
keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence). Future risk is indicated to
natural global climate change at rates lower than current anthropogenic
be high by the observation that
climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past
millions of years. Marine organisms will face progressively lower oxygen levels and high rates
and magnitudes of ocean acidification (high confidence), with associated risks exacerbated by rising
ocean temperature extremes (medium confidence). Coral reefs and polar ecosystems are highly
vulnerable. Coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk from sea level rise, which will continue for centuries even if the
global mean temperature is stabilized (high confidence). {2.3, 2.4, Figure 2.5}
Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by
the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction
in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other
ecosystem services (high confidence). For wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions,
climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature
increases of 2°C or more above late 20th century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Global
temperature increases of ~4°C or more 13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food
demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence). Climate change is
projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical
regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence,
medium agreement). {2.3.1, 2.3.2}
Until mid-century, projected climate
change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating health
problems that already exist (very high confidence). Throughout the 21st century, climate change is expected to
lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing countries with low
income, as compared to a baseline without climate change (high confidence). By 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of
high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common
human activities, including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence). {2.3.2}
In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and
ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal
flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (very high
confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in
exposed areas. {2.3.2}
Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food
security, infrastructure and agricultural incomes, including shifts in the production areas of food and non-food
crops around the world (high confidence). {2.3.2}
Aggregate economic losses accelerate with increasing temperature (limited evidence, high agreement),
but global economic impacts from climate change are currently difficult to estimate. From a poverty perspective,
climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction
more difficult, further erode food security and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the
latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence). International dimensions such as trade and
relations among states are also important for understanding the risks of climate change at regional scales. {2.3.2}
Climate change is projected to increase displacement of people (medium evidence, high agreement).
Populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather
events, particularly in developing countries with low income. Climate change can indirectly
increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such
as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence). {2.3.2}
Limiting the magnitude of climate change is key to prevent biodiversity
loss, marine ecosystem collapse, resource wars, global food scarcity, and
extreme weather events—magnitude of compounding pressures
outweighs probability and timeframe
Pachauri & Meyer 15 (Rajendra K. Pachauri Chairman of the IPCC, Leo Meyer Head, Technical Support Unit IPCC
were the editors for this IPCC report, “Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report” http://epic.awi.de/37530/1/IPCC_AR5_SYR_Final.pdf
IPCC, 2014: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland,
151 pp)
SPM 2.3 Future risks and impacts caused by a changing climate
Climate change will amplify existing risks and create new risks for natural and human systems.
Risks are unevenly distributed and are generally greater for disadvantaged people and communities in
countries at all levels of development. {2.3}
Risk of climate-related impacts results from the interaction of climate-related hazards (including
hazardous events and trends) with the vulnerability and exposure of human and natural systems,
including their ability to adapt. Rising rates and magnitudes of warming and other changes in the
climate system, accompanied by ocean acidification, increase the risk of severe, pervasive and in some
cases irreversible detrimental impacts. Some risks are particularly relevant for individual regions (Figure SPM.8), while others
are global. The overall risks of future climate change impacts can be reduced by limiting the rate and
magnitude of climate change, including ocean acidification. The precise levels of climate change
sufficient to trigger abrupt and irreversible change remain uncertain, but the risk associated with
crossing such thresholds increases with rising temperature (medium confidence). For risk assessment, it is
important to evaluate the widest possible range of impacts, including low-probability outcomes
with large consequences. {1.5, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, Box Introduction.1, Box 2.3, Box 2.4}
A large fraction of species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the
21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species
cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high
projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to
keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence). Future risk is indicated to
natural global climate change at rates lower than current anthropogenic
be high by the observation that
climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past
millions of years. Marine organisms will face progressively lower oxygen levels and high rates
and magnitudes of ocean acidification (high confidence), with associated risks exacerbated by rising
ocean temperature extremes (medium confidence). Coral reefs and polar ecosystems are highly
vulnerable. Coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk from sea level rise, which will continue for centuries even if the
global mean temperature is stabilized (high confidence). {2.3, 2.4, Figure 2.5}
Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by
the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction
in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other
ecosystem services (high confidence). For wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions,
climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature
increases of 2°C or more above late 20th century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Global
temperature increases of ~4°C or more 13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food
demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence). Climate change is
projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical
regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence,
medium agreement). {2.3.1, 2.3.2}
Until mid-century, projected climate
change will impact human health mainly by exacerbating health
problems that already exist (very high confidence). Throughout the 21st century, climate change is expected to
lead to increases in ill-health in many regions and especially in developing countries with low
income, as compared to a baseline without climate change (high confidence). By 2100 for RCP8.5, the combination of
high temperature and humidity in some areas for parts of the year is expected to compromise common
human activities, including growing food and working outdoors (high confidence). {2.3.2}
In urban areas climate change is projected to increase risks for people, assets, economies and
ecosystems, including risks from heat stress, storms and extreme precipitation, inland and coastal
flooding, landslides, air pollution, drought, water scarcity, sea level rise and storm surges (very high
confidence). These risks are amplified for those lacking essential infrastructure and services or living in
exposed areas. {2.3.2}
Rural areas are expected to experience major impacts on water availability and supply, food
security, infrastructure and agricultural incomes, including shifts in the production areas of food and non-food
crops around the world (high confidence). {2.3.2}
Aggregate economic losses accelerate with increasing temperature (limited evidence, high agreement),
but global economic impacts from climate change are currently difficult to estimate. From a poverty perspective,
climate change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction
more difficult, further erode food security and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the
latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger (medium confidence). International dimensions such as trade and
relations among states are also important for understanding the risks of climate change at regional scales. {2.3.2}
Climate change is projected to increase displacement of people (medium evidence, high agreement).
Populations that lack the resources for planned migration experience higher exposure to extreme weather
events, particularly in developing countries with low income. Climate change can indirectly
increase risks of violent conflicts by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such
as poverty and economic shocks (medium confidence). {2.3.2}
Impact – Structural
Climate change produces massive human injustices on improvised nations,
communities, and populations—crosses lines of race and gender—policy
response key
Quipu 13
Project Quipu, examining the manner in which financial news is reported in the popular media,
The Hot Spring Network proposes to create a system whereby live-update, rss-technology, and
financial and editorial expertise, come together to produce a reliable up-to-the-minute resource
for evaluating broad economic trends and engagements, without limiting analysis to single-
parameter references like GDP or individual stock indices, “Climate Justice is About Preventing
Structural Violence”, March 11,
https://web.archive.org/web/20130311092246/http://www.casavaria.com/cafesentido/2013/0
3/11/9120/climate-justice-is-about-preventing-structural-violence/
When we discuss climate change, global warming or the human-caused destabilization of global climate patterns, we
think of science, of energy, of the natural environment. We do not, often enough, think about justice. And
when we do, it is in the context of the right of rapidly industrializing nations to emit as much
CO2 as the nations that led the industrial revolution from the early 19th to the early 20th centuries.¶ Then,
when we are more thoughtful, we come to Tuvalu, Vanuatu, the Maldives and Micronesia,
where entire nations may need to be evacuated, as the rising seas spurred on by rampant CO2
emissions, rush in. (Incidentally, in the US, places like the Rockaways, in Queens, and lowlying areas of Staten Island, the New
Jersey shore and the entire state of Delaware, are now making plans for possible evacuation to higher ground, as sea levels rise and
become increasingly expensive to manage.)¶ But there are other ways in which climate destabilization plays
havoc with the calculus of human justice. The question of justice begins, surely, with the
unconstrained emission of climate-destabilizing gases, or greenhouse gases. But it leads us, eventually, to
the downstream impacts, felt in places like rural Pakistan, where the melting of glaciers has contributed
to a rash of catastrophic floods, whole regions have been set back decades by the devastation.¶
In places like South Sudan and Darfur, in western Sudan, or northern Nigeria, or northwestern China, devastating and
expanding droughts, which amount to comprehensive desertification in some cases, have left communities
without reliable access to drinking water. This often means women are forced by culture and by
circumstance, to spend hours each day migrating in search of water.¶ The relationship between
clean water access and the rights and security of women and girls is often much closer than people
realize. At the 2011 World Bank Civil Society Forum, it was cited by the head of the World Bank as one of the main
drags on progress in the civil liberties and economic opportunity enjoyed by women and girls
around the world. The know-how to build wells and access to reliable water pumps can break that barrier
and free women’s time and energy to motivate more self-determined activities, including
education, leadership and political decision-making.¶ Where the climate is more
comprehensively destabilized, we face the worst degradation of the human condition, and this
poses real challenges, structurally, politically and socially, to the advancement of rights, as
political and cultural conventions prioritize the practical application of power. We need to
address this dysfunction, as we plan our response to the climate crisis, and consider policy
options that will liberate individuals, families and communities, decentralizing political power
and giving human beings a voice.¶ Stakeholders need to have a voice that is significant, and that is
heard, and we need to examine the frameworks through which we motivate change, in order to
make sure they do not block that necessary hearing, without which we will not achieve the best
possible outcome for real people.
Millions will die from weather events, air pollution, disease and armed conflict
ensued by climate change
Reider ’16 (Travis N. Rieder, 11-29-2016, "Trump’s climate change denial will lead to
thousands—maybe millions—of deaths," Quartz, https://qz.com/846957/trumps-climate-
change-denial-will-lead-to-thousands-maybe-millions-of-deaths/) - byl
US president-elect Donald Trump has been unclear so far on how many of his campaign pledges he actually intends to see through.
Hopeful Democrats and moderates have clung to this uncertainty as reason to hope that a Trump presidency wouldn’t be as bad as
they feared. And on climate change, Trump has sent some mixed signals. He
famously called global warming fake in
a 2012 tweet. But in an interview with The New York Times on Nov. 22, he said that he has an “open mind”
concerning a global climate accord, and that there is “some connectivity” between human activity and climate change. As an
ethicist who looks at issues around climate change, I’d like to take Trump at his word, and make the moral case that an open-minded
president would not risk becoming responsible for the human suffering his proposed climate policies will cause. Climate policy and
consequences During the campaign, candidate Trump said that he would “cancel” the Paris
Agreement, a deal signed by most of the world’s countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
As president-elect, he has said his administration will massively invest in coal and fossil fuels and
cancel financial commitments to the UN for climate programs. These steps echo similar vows he
made as a candidate, such as bringing back the coal industry and building the Keystone XL oil
pipeline. Since the election, there has been significant analysis regarding how much of this agenda he can do, and
just how bad it would be for emissions. But we cannot overlook that the climate policy agenda laid out by candidate Trump
would be obviously bad to some degree. Trump can’t “cancel” the Paris accords (even formally withdrawing takes 3-4 years), but he
absolutely can signal his intent not to live up to the agreement—particularly byundermining US president Barack
Obama’s signature environmental achievement, the Clean Power Plan. And while it’s also true that
market forces will likely continue to push us toward renewable energy, they will not do so fast enough.
Why? The Paris Agreement, as written, is already insufficient to prevent dangerous climate change. Indeed, a recent report
reveals that full adherence to the agreement by all nations will limit warming only to 2.9-3.4
degrees Celsius (5.2-6.1 degrees Fahrenheit)—a far cry from the aspirational limit of 1.5 degrees
set by the Paris Agreement itself. That means that the agreement requires strengthening, not weakening.
If the US drops its commitment to cut national emissions, in the best-case scenario all nations other than the US keep (and
strengthen) their commitments. Recent modeling suggests that a Trump presidency results in “only” an
additional 3.4 billion tons of carbon emitted compared to a Hillary Clinton presidency. The worst-case scenario,
however, seems far too realistic. Some of the nations of the world will almost certainly be required to act against their own self-
interest to some extent; that is, the economic incentives alone will not push the world fast enough toward the ultimate goal of net
zero (or negative) emissions. And when
these nations see that America—the world’s second-largest
emitter—is not doing its part, they will decide that it is not rational for them to prioritize low-
carbon energy just so the Americans can work to undermine their progress. And the already-too-weak
plan will weaken further. Human suffering in waiting President-elect Trump, then, is in a radically powerful position to do either
good or harm. Because the current global agreements are already too weak, there is every reason to believe that we will cross the
1.5 degree Celsius (and likely the 2 degreeCelsius) threshold. Already, climate change is causing problems, such as more extreme
weather events and rising seas. Scientists have said pushing global average temperatures higher than 2 degrees Celsius above
preindustrial levels will lead to “dangerous” changes with more severe effects. The real question, then, is how long will
global temperatures remain in the “danger zone”? Asked another way: How many additional years would the
world spend at dangerous temperature levels because of Donald Trump’s proposed policies? Under the most optimistic
scenario, it could be only a few—perhaps the rest of the world would rally and cap the damage
that a rise in US emissions causes. But under the less optimistic scenario, it’s not unimaginable
that the needed, aggressive action on climate change could be set back by a decade or more.
Such a delay would be a moral catastrophe. Climate change is already having deadly effects, such as deaths from
climate-worsened storms. The World Health Organization estimates that by 2030, climate change will
cause 250,000 additional deaths per year, due to malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea and heat
stress. This doesn’t include the deaths and suffering from other extreme weather events,
displacement or armed conflict, nor does it account for those resulting directly from air
pollution. Spending additional years at that level of warming, then, could result in literally millions
more people dying. Moral responsibility For most of us, moral responsibility for the harms of climate change gets diluted,
thanks to the sheer scale of the problem. When I drive my car, take a vacation or keep my house warmer than I need, I contribute
infinitesimally to climate change through my emissions, and so
it is reasonable to think that my responsibility for
the consequent harms is relatively minor. Indeed, this is precisely the feature that makes
climate change such a massively difficult problem to solve.

Climate change creates environmental racism


Naomi Klein, 12-12-2014, Why #BlackLivesMatter Should Transform the Climate Debate,"
Nation, http://www.thenation.com/article/what-does-blacklivesmatter-have-do-climate-
change/
But the temperature target—pushed by wealthy nations in Europe and North America—would likely not
be enough to save some low-lying small island states from annihilation. And in Africa, where drought
linked to climate change was at that time menacing many lives in the eastern part of the continent, the target would
translate into a full-scale humanitarian disaster. Clearly the definition of “dangerous” climate change had more
than a little to do with the wildly unequal ways in which human lives are counted. But African delegates weren’t standing for it.
When the text was leaked, the dull UN bureaucracy suddenly fell away and the sterile hallways of the conference centre came alive
with shouts of, “We Will Not Die Quietly” and “2 Degrees is Suicide.” The paltry sums rich countries had pledged for climate
financing were angrily dismissed as “not enough to buy us coffins.” Black lives matter, these delegates were saying—even if this
corrupted forum was behaving as if that was far from the case. The highly racialized discounting of certain lives does not just play
out between countries but also, unfailingly, within them—perhaps most dramatically within the United States. I was reminded of
this while reading about Akai Gurley, the unarmed 28-year-old black man who was “accidentally” shot and killed last month in the
dark stairwell of a Brooklyn housing project. Like the dilapidated elevator, the lighting system in the building had been left
unrepaired, despite complaints. And when that neglect of a public institution that disproportionately serves African-Americans
intersected with armed fear of black men, the result was lethal. When Superstorm Sandy hit New York City two years earlier, a
similar combination of forces showed its brutal face, but on a much larger scale. Housing projects suffering from decades of official
neglect were devastated by the storm, with water and electrical systems completely knocked out for weeks. No lights. No heat. No
power for lights or elevators. But the worst part was how fear of those darkened buildings clearly played a role in keeping
government officials and relief agencies from checking in on elderly and sick residents, leaving them stranded in high-rise buildings
without basic provisions for far too long. And Sandy was by no means the only example of this toxic combination of heavy weather
and highly segregated neglect. “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” Kanye West famously said, going way off script
during a 2005 telethon for victims of Hurricane Katrina. As that storm showed so nakedly, the
worst impacts of extreme
weather follow racial lines with the same devastating precision as the decision about whether
to employ lethal police force. During Katrina, it was overwhelmingly New Orleans’s black residents who were
abandoned on their rooftops and in the Superdome; who did not receive emergency aid in the earliest days; who
were called “looters” when they took matters into their own hands; who were labeled “refugees” in their own
country; and who were shot by both vigilantes and cops on the streets of their city. Race also continues to
play no small role in determining whose homes and schools are rebuilt (or torn down, or
privatized) in the name of “building back better.” Taken together, the picture is clear. Thinly veiled
notions of racial superiority have informed every aspect of the non-response to climate change
so far. Racism is what has made it possible to systematically look away from the climate threat
for more than two decades. It is also what has allowed the worst health impacts of digging up,
processing and burning fossil fuels—from cancer clusters to asthma—to be systematically
dumped on indigenous communities and on the neighborhoods where people of colour live,
work and play. The South Bronx, to cite just one example, has notoriously high asthma rates—
and according to one study, a staggering 21.8 percent of children living in New York City public
housing have asthma, three times higher than the rate for private housing. The choking of those
children is not as immediately lethal as the kind of choking that stole Eric Garner’s life, but it is
very real nonetheless. If we refuse to speak frankly about the intersection of race and climate
change, we can be sure that racism will continue to inform how the governments of
industrialized countries respond to this existential crisis. It will manifest in the continued refusal to
provide serious climate financing to poor countries so they can protect themselves from heavy
weather. It will manifest in the fortressing of wealthy continents as they attempt to lock out the
growing numbers of people whose homes will become unlivable. And in the not too distant future, the firm
if unstated belief that not all lives matter could well push our governments to deploy high-risk “geoengineering”
technologies like spraying sulfur into the stratosphere in order to reduce global temperatures.
Never mind that several studies project that a side effect could be suppressing the summer
monsoons in India and Africa, with the water and food security of billions of people hanging in
the balance. Indeed, it is distinctly more likely that our governments will favor these terrifying techno-fixes over approaches to
emission reduction that are far more likely to succeed, in no small part because those solutions are being offered by poor people
with darker skin. Such casually discounted, eminently sensible responses include free public transit for all; decentralized, community
controlled renewable energy; land redistribution to support small-scale agro-ecological farming; and respecting the rights of
indigenous people to refuse logging, drilling and mining on their lands. Here is some good news: if
we committed ourselves
to responding to the climate crisis on the basis that black lives matter, and that requiring people of color to
shoulder even more of the burdens of uncontrolled emissions is morally unacceptable, it would
demand these types of hopeful transformations. In practical terms, that would mean unprecedented economic and technological
investments in some of the most neglected parts of the world—from Kenya to Ferguson to Pine Ridge—bringing greatly improved
services, increased democracy and self-determination, real food security and countless good jobs. In short, a
justice-based
climate mobilization would do more than end the way neglected communities are policed; it
might just help end the neglect itself.

Global warmings impacts hit poor countries the hardest


Anderson 10 - Ms. Anderson holds a master’s degree in international relations from the
Graduate Institute of International Studies / l'Institut universitaire de hautes études
internationales in Geneva and a bachelor’s degree in political science with an interdisciplinary
concentration in international relations from Yale University. Allison Anderson is an adjunct
professor on Critical Challenges and Opportunities in Education in Emergencies through to
Recovery at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA). She is also a
consultant for Unbound Philanthropy, supporting education in emergencies grantees and
representing the foundation within the International Education Funders’ Group. (Allison,
"Combating Climate Change through Quality Education," Brookings, 9-16-2010, pg.6,
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/09_climate_education.pdf)-AK47
We recognize that climate change poses serious risks and challenges to all countries,
particularly developing countries…. Addressing climate change will be fundamental to
safeguarding and advancing progress towards the Millennium Development Goals. – U.N. High
Level Plenary meeting on the Millennium Development Goals1 According to the United Nations
International Panel on Climate Change, climate change is progressing and will have widespread
effects on human life and natural systems.2 Climate change is a key causative factor in increased
heat waves, fl ooding, droughts, intense tropical cyclones, rising sea levels and loss of
biodiversity.3 The average number of disasters caused by natural hazards has increased in the
last 20 years from 200 a year to more than 400 today,4 and this is predicted to increase by as
much as 320 percent in the next 20 years.5 People and particularly children living in poverty in
underdeveloped countries with weak governance and poor education systems are the hardest
hit by climate change. The effect of the physical consequences – more frequent extreme
weather, melting glaciers and shorter growing seasons – adds to the existing pressures for
those societies. Over the long term, these impacts combined with factors such as population
pressure are likely to lead to environmental degradation and deterioration in livelihoods, and
exacerbate existing socio-economic tensions and create new ones. This will have implications for
migration, stability and security at local, national, regional and global levels.6 Moreover,
disasters caused by hazard-induced climate change can damage or destroy school facilities and
educational systems, threatening the physical safety and psychological well-being of
communities and interrupting educational continuity. The economic impacts of disasters reduce
school enrollment, as children are kept out of school to help with livelihoods. Research suggests
that in all instances such outcomes are likely to affect girls and children with disabilities
disproportionately. Despite being threatened by climate change, the education sector offers an
opportunity to combat climate change through contributing to mitigation efforts and enhancing
the adaptive capacity of education systems and learners, thereby reducing vulnerabilities and
building resilient societies.

Rising temperatures threaten sea turtles


Phys.org 17 (Phys.org is a science, research and technology churnalism website, “Warming
temperatures threaten sea turtles,” https://phys.org/news/2017-06-temperatures-threaten-
sea-turtles.html, June 21, 2017)

The study by Dr Jacques-Olivier Laloë of the University's College of Science and published in the
Global Change Biology journal, argues that warmer temperatures associated with climate
change could lead to higher numbers of female sea turtles and increased nest failure, and could
impact negatively on the turtle population in some areas of the world. The effects of rising
temperatures Rising temperatures were first identified as a concern for sea turtle populations in
the early 1980s as the temperatureat which sea turtle embryos incubate determines the sex of
an individual, which is known as Temperature-Dependent Sex Determination (TSD). The pivotal
temperature for TSD is 29°C as both males and females are produced in equal proportions -
above 29°C mainly females are produced while below 29°C more males are born. Within the
context of climate change and warming temperatures, this means that, all else being equal, sea
turtle populations are expected to be more female-biased in the future. While it is known that
males can mate with more than one female during the breeding season, if there are too few
males in the population this could threaten population viability. The new study also explored
another important effect of rising temperatures: in-nest survival rates. Sea turtle eggs only
develop successfully in a relatively narrow thermal range of approximately 25-35°C, so if
incubation temperatures are too low the embryo does not develop but if they are too high then
development fails. This means that if incubation temperatures increase in the future as part of
climate warming, then more sea turtle nests will fail. The researchers recorded sand
temperatures at a globally important loggerhead sea turtle nesting site in Cape Verde over 6
years. They also recorded the survival rates of over 3,000 nests to study the relationship
between incubation temperature and hatchling survival. Using local climate projections, the
research team then modeled how turtle numbers are likely to change throughout the century at
this nesting site. This research suggests that that warmer temperatures associated with climate
change may lead to higher numbers of female sea turtles and increased nest failure. Dr Laloë
said: "Our results show something very interesting. Up to a certain point, warmer incubation
temperatures benefit sea turtles because they increase the natural growth rate of the
population: more females are produced because of TSD, which leads to more eggs being laid on
the beaches. "However, beyond a critical temperature, the natural growth rate of the
population decreases because of an increase of temperature-linked in-nest mortality.
Temperatures are too high and the developing embryos do not survive. This threatens the long-
term survival of this sea turtle population." The researchers expect that the numbers of nests in
Cape Verde will increase by approximately 30% by the year 2100 but, if temperatures keep
rising, could start decreasing afterwards. The new study identifies temperature-linked hatchling
mortality as an important threat to sea turtles and highlights concerns for species with TSD in a
warming world. It suggests that, in order to safeguard sea turtle populationsaround the world, it
is critical to monitor how hatchling survival changes over the next decades. Dr Laloë said: "In
recent years, in places like Florida—another important sea turtle nesting site—more and more
turtle nests are reported to have lower survival rates than in the past. This shows that we should
really keep a close eye on incubation temperatures and the in-nest survival rates of sea turtles if
we want to successfully protect them. "If need be, conservation measures could be put in place
around the world to protect the incubating turtle eggs. Such measures could involve artificially
shading turtle nests or moving eggs to a protected and temperature-controlled hatchery."

Climate change decreases the moisture in mountains increasing the risk of


forest fires.
Gergel et al 17 (Diana R. Gergel in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at
the University of Washington., Bart Nijssen is an associate Professor WOT, and Matt R.
Stumbaugh is part of Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of
Washington, John T. Abatzoglou is an associate professor at the University of Idaho and received
the University of Idaho College of Science Early Career Faculty Award in 2012, Dennis P.
Lettenmaier (Ph.D., University of Washington, 1975) is a Distinguished Professor with interests
in hydrologic modeling and prediction, hydrology-climate interactions, and hydrologic
change. He is an author or co-author of over 300 journal articles. He was the first Chief Editor of
the American Meteorological Society Journal of Hydrometeorology, and is a past President of
the Hydrology Section of the American Geophysical Union. He is a Fellow of the American
Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering, “Effects of
climate change on snowpack and fire potential in the western USA,”
http://128.97.229.50/SurfaceWaterGroup/Publications/gergel_et_al_published.pdf, published 1
February 2017)
Our projected snowpack changes are generally consistent with previous studies that have
examined changing snowpack in the western USA (e.g., Maurer 2007). Our results show
relatively large declines in snowpack in all mountain ranges for all future scenarios and GCMs
(Online Resource 7). Spring snowpack in mountains near the Pacific Coast is extremely sensitive
to warming temperatures, while snowpack in more continental mountain ranges (Northern and
Southern Rockies) is more sensitive to changes in precipitation (Online Resource 9), a result that
is consistent with Adam et al. (2009) and other recent studies (e.g., Scalzitti et al. 2016; Luce et
al. 2014). This sensitivity to warming temperatures explains the strong decline in snowpack in
the Cascades and Sierra Nevada that is robust to potential increases in precipitation. The
Cascades are projected to lose up to 81% of April 1 SWE storage, or up to 47.3 km3 of total SWE
by the 2080s. The Sierra Nevada are projected to lose up to 76% of SWE storage, or up to 13.4
km3 of total SWE. These declines translate into dramatic losses of a key source of water storage
for the surrounding regions, many of which primarily rely on snowmelt for water supply. For
example, the San Joaquin Basin in California has over 80 dams, with a total storage capacity of
about 9.5 km3 (7.7 million acre-feet) on the San Joaquin, Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus
rivers (California Environmental Protection Agency 2011). The maximum projected loss of SWE
storage in the Sierra Nevada exceeds the San Joaquin Basin total storage capacity by 40%. Even
the average projected loss of SWE storage in the Sierra Nevada for RCP 8.5 in the 2080s (11.3
km3 ) exceeds the San Joaquin total storage capacity. Future projected declines in April 1 SWE
translate to declining summer soil moisture for all mountain ranges. Low summer soil moisture,
in turn, is closely linked to fire potential and burned area in forested systems like the Northern
Rockies (e.g., Higuera et al. 2015). Thus, projected declines of summer soil moisture in the
mountain ranges lead to increased drought and are likely to increase the potential for wildfire in
systems where large fires have historically Fig. 5 Ensemble-mean summer (JJAS) 100-h dead fuel
moisture (DFM) shown over a the five mountain ranges and b the six lowland regions, for the
control period (1970–1999) and RCP 8.5 2010–2039, 2040–2069, and 2070–2099. For the
control period, % DFM is shown, and for future periods, the % difference in DFM. DFM was
calculated using the NFDRS algorithm for fuel moisture coincided with such conditions (e.g.,
Westerling et al. 2003), but significant uncertainty remains with regard to projected changes in
snowpack, soil moisture, and fire potential. Our findings are mostly consistent with previous
studies that have identified the Sierra Nevada, Cascades, and Northern Rockies as the most at-
risk areas in the western USA for increasing fire activity in a changing climate (Westerling et al.
2011a, b; Barbero et al. 2015; Littell et al. 2010; McKenzie and Littell 2016), with the exception
of fire potential projections in the Yellowstone region in Westerling et al. (2011b), which our
results contradict. Summer soil moisture at lower elevations shows a mixed response to climate
change. The Northwest Interior, Lower Colorado, and Great Basin are projected to experience
increased summer soil moisture, while modest decreases are projected for the Missouri and
Coastal North regions. The Coastal South region lacks a strong signal. Summer soil moisture
increases in these basins are due to increased spring precipitation (Online Resource 5), which
supersedes the effects of warming temperatures (Online Resource 3). There is much larger
uncertainty in precipitation than temperature projections (Kharin et al. 2013); hence, the lack of
robust agreement for areas where spring snowpack does not strongly influence summer soil
moisture. The weaker drought-fire relationships, particularly for rangeland-dominated regimes,
and lack of robust changes in soil moisture are less informative for projecting future fire
potential in the lowland regions. Similar differences are apparent in DFM changes between
mountains and lowland regions. Decreases in 100-h DFM across mountain ranges, in concert
with declines in soil moisture, suggest the potential for increased fire activity. Decreases in DFM
in the lowland regions may enhance fire potential in flammability-limited fire regimes, but may
not substantially alter fire potential in arid systems. Moreover, the models show a lack of
agreement in changes in DFM in areas where the projected change in summer soil moisture
lacks a distinct signal, such as in the Coastal South region (Online Resource 10). The confounding
signals of increased summer soil moisture and decreased DFM in regions such as the Northwest
Interior may have interesting impacts on fire regimes that warrant additional analysis, but are
beyond the scope of this study. 5 Conclusions Projected effects of climate change across the
western USA contrast strongly for mountains and lowlands. The water balance of the
mountainous portions of the domain is strongly linked to snow accumulation and ablation,
which is strongly temperature-sensitive but varies across the domain. Changes in April 1 SWE in
the higher-elevation areas of the Northern and Southern Rockies, North Cascades, and Southern
Sierra are more uncertain due to larger spread in precipitation projections, whereas in other
parts of the mountainous west, temperature projections dominate. Warming temperatures will
result in declining snow water storage, and consequently, moisture inputs to the soil column will
increase in winter and decrease in spring and summer. The result will be substantial reductions
in summer soil moisture storage and increases in water deficit. We project large decreases in
DFM in mountain ranges, which would increase fire potential. The main conclusions of our work
are as follows: & In the five mountain regions, we project large declines in spring snowpack and
summer soil moisture, primarily due to warming temperatures. This will result in April 1 SWE
losses by the 2080s of up to 81% for the Cascades and 76% for the Sierra Nevada mountains. &
Ensemble mean summer soil moisture is projected to decrease in the mountain ranges and to
increase in lowland regions. In the lowland regions, trends are not robust across GCMs due to
differences in precipitation projections. & Dead fuel moisture content (as represented by 100-h
and 1000-h DFM) is projected to decrease in the mountain ranges and mostly increase in the
lowland regions (for the ensemble mean). Lowland increases are of much smaller magnitude
than the mountain decreases. Changes in fuel moisture content, however, are not robust across
the western USA. & Overall, we conclude that the mountain ranges are on average likely to
experience higher fire potential under future climate projections. Other parts of our domain
may also experience increased potential, but there is greater uncertainty in the lowland regions,
where there is less agreement between GCMs, as well as in the Sierra Nevada, where there is
disagreement between soil moisture and fuel moisture projections
Impact – Biodiversity
Climate change decks biodiversity
Radford 6/9, ( Tim Radford, a founding editor of Climate News Network worked for the
Guardian for 32 years for most of that time as a science editor. He has been covering climate
change since 1988, “Warmer climate raises extinction risk” Climate News Network, June 9, 2017,
http://climatenewsnetwork.net/warmer-climate-raises-species-extinction-risk/) -os
Biologists have once again confirmed that the wild things face a growing extinction risk, and that the biggest
losers could be humankind itself. They point out that at a conservative estimate the economic benefits of biodiversity –
the collective word for all the richness of the planet’s species – are at least 10 times the cost of
conservation of that biodiversity. And yet, they report, human actions already threaten a quarter of all
mammal species and 13% of all birds. An estimated 21,000 plants and other kinds of animal are
known to be at risk. In one of the world’s richest habitats of all – the terrain where south-east Asia, India and China meet –
people in the last 50 years have put at risk two thirds of all mammals that weigh more than
10kg. This summary of waste and despoliation is in a series of papers in the journal Nature, one of which looks again at the threats
to biodiversity, while another concentrates on the ways people influence and depend on the fruits of three billion years of natural
evolution. Human pressure It is a given that human economies depend entirely on what grows on the planet, and what can be
excavated from its soils. The clearing of the forests and the settlement of the grasslands, pollution from the cities, overhunting and
overgrazing, all driven by the swelling of human numbers, have now taken rates of species extinction to alarming levels.
Climate
change, too, has now become a factor: it has been linked to the potential extinction of species,
and to the obliteration of species in particular regions. It has also been identified as a danger to
the diversity of plant life as temperatures rise and rainfall patterns change with rising ratios of
atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas emitted from internal combustion engines and
coal-fired power stations. No one yet claims that climate change itself is the principal hazard, but it exacerbates the impact
of all the other pressures on wildlife. Tropical targets So a team led by David Tilman of the University of Minnesota has delivered a
paper looking at the next 50 years, as human impact on habitat poses, they say “unprecedented levels of extinction
risk on many more species worldwide” – especially the large mammals of tropical Africa, Asia and South America. The
world had lost half of its terrestrial mammalian megafauna – mammals heavier than 44kg – by 1,000 BC, and 15% of all bird species.
In the last 3,000 years human numbers have multiplied 25-fold and another 4bn of us will join the human race by the century’s end.
So, the scientists argue, unless steps are taken, extinction rates will accelerate. But, they point out, some steps
are being taken: 31 bird species have been saved by conservation programmes from total extinction, and the same efforts have
halted the decline of one threatened vertebrate in five. Captive breeding programmes have reintroduced species that were once all
but lost. But there is much more to be done: lion numbers in Africa, for instance, have fallen to one-tenth of
their potential. And in a second paper, a team led by Forest Isbell of the University of Minnesota and backed by co-authors
from eight nations on four continents, instances the benefits of conservation. “Human activities are driving the sixth
mass extinction in the history of life on Earth, despite the fact that diversity of life enhances
many benefits people reap from nature” Biodiversity in the form of trees and scrubland saves humans up to US$3
trillion just as carbon storage: that is, it keeps dangerous levels of carbon out of the atmosphere. At a practical finance level, the
calculated value of biodiversity to commercial forest productivity is set at between $166bn a
year and $490bn. Right now, the world spends about $25bn a year on conservation. It would cost $76bn annually to meet all
the world’s conservation targets. And, the authors point out, a cash value simply cannot be set on many of
biodiversity’s blessings. Some things are priceless. “Human activities are driving the sixth mass
extinction in the history of life on Earth, despite the fact that diversity of life enhances many
benefits people reap from nature, such as wood from forests, livestock forage from grasslands,
and fish from oceans and streams,” said Dr Isbell. “It would be wise to invest much more in conserving biodiversity.” –
Climate News Network
Biodiversity loss causes extinction.
Diner 94 — David N. Diner, Major in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the United States
Army, 1994 (“The Army And The Endangered Species Act: Who's Endangering Whom?,” Military
Law Review (143 Mil. L. Rev. 161), Winter, Available Online via Lexis-Nexis) -os
4. Biological Diversity. – The main premise of species preservation is that
diversity is better than simplicity. 77 As the current mass extinction has progressed, the world's
biological diversity generally has decreased. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the
number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry
serious future implications. 78
[*173] Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number
of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems
inherently are more stable than less diverse systems. "The more complex
the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress. . . . [l]ike a net,
in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric
can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads --
which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole." 79
By causing widespread extinctions, humans have artificially simplified
many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity increases, so does the risk of
ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara Desert in Africa, and the dustbowl
conditions of the 1930s in the United States are relatively mild examples
of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new
animal or plant extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined
affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse and human extinction. Each new
extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one,
the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the
abyss.
Impact—Wars

Climate change induced sea level rise leads to failed states, resource and
territorial wars, and the death of billions of people
Scotti 6/27 (Ariel Scotti is a writer and reports for the New York Daily News, “Two Billion
People May Become Refugees from Climate Change by the End of the Century,” The New York
Daily News, June 27, 2017, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/billion-people-refugees-
climate-change-article-1.3282594) -DS
An unimaginable 2 billion people could become displaced from their homes by 2100 due to
climate change-related rising ocean levels. That would be about one-fifth of the world’s
population at that time, and account for those who live near coastlines, according to new
Cornell University research. The researchers at Cornell estimate that these issues, exacerbated
by climate change, will create 1.4 billion refugees by 2060. Geisler said that number could reach
2 billion by 2100. “We’re going to have more people on less land and sooner than we think,” the
study’s lead author, Charles Geisler, said in a statement. “The future rise in global mean sea
level probably won’t be gradual, yet few policy makers are taking stock of the significant barriers
to entry that coastal climate refugees, like other refugees, will encounter when they migrate to
higher ground.” By 2100, Earth’s rising population is expected to reach 11 billion, according to
the United Nations. As oceans swell from melting sea ice and coastlines are pushed inland, the
sea water will ruin fertile land, making it more difficult for nations to feed that many people.
And landmass available to live on will be diminished. The researchers at Cornell estimate that
these issues, exacerbated by climate change, will create 1.4 billion refugees by 2060. Geisler said
that number could reach 2 billion by 2100. He admits that these predictions are based on the
worst case scenario. “We project what will happen if the entire low elevation coastal zone is lost
due to swollen oceans — swelling caused by more melt water (glaciers and ice sheets) and
warmer oceans,” Geisler told the Daily News. “That’s where the 1.4 billion becomes relevant.
Permanent flooding of the low elevation coastal zone means land 10 meters above mean sea
level would be lost to ocean encroachment. We’re going to have more people on less land and
sooner than we think,” the study’s lead author, Charles Geisler, said in a statement. “This is a
sobering possibility, as it exceeds most estimates of what could happen within a century or
two...Sea level changes and the climate forces behind them aren’t going to be linear, slow, or
predictable. Ocean tides and currents themselves are changing; together with ever-stronger
storm systems, they spell inland surge effects such as we have seldom seen.” By collecting
climate and demographic research, such as a 2015 study that cites, “mean sea levels could rise
by one meter or more by 2100,” Geisler came to the astounding figure of 2 billion displaced
people. The 2015 study also said that by 2060, about 1.4 billion people living in coastal areas
would be at risk of losing their homes to the sea. These numbers are up from a 2009 estimate —
based on older understandings of population growth and the effects of climate change — which
concluded that up to 350 million people could be displaced by 2050. In places like Florida — the
second largest coastline in the U.S., state and local officials have planned for a “coastal exodus,”
Geisler said, and other places like China need to begin anticipating weather-induced population
shifts that drive people inland. Those moves will drive up greenhouse gasses that are already
escalating global warming. Low-elevation coastal zones also need to prepare for the storm
surges associated with climate change. And in Virginia, despite President Trump’s call “not to
worry,” scientists are giving Tangier Island about 20 years before it’s under water. Geisler and
his team believe that land conflicts — caused by displaced people struggling to find places to live
— could lead to the selling of public land and spaces for human settlement. “The pressure is on
us to contain greenhouse gas emissions at present levels,” he said. “It’s the best ‘future
proofing’ against climate change, sea level rise and the catastrophic consequences likely to play
out on coasts, as well as inland in the future.” Refugees resulting from climate change were
already an issue this past April in the Dominican Republic, where the Ozama River flooded
during a storm, forcing people to permanently abandon their homes. And in Virginia, despite
President Trump’s call “not to worry,” scientists are giving Tangier Island about 20 years before
it’s under water.

Climate change is a conflict drive—food insecurity and climate disasters


increases the risk of escalation.
Fragoso 7/26/16 (Alejandro Davila Fragoso, graduate from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, “The Link Between
Armed Conflict And Climate Change Just Got A Bit Stronger”, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/07/26/3801541/climate-
disasters-and-conflict-outbreak/)
Social scientists have for several decades tried to understand what makes a country experience conflict, with poverty, income
inequality, weak governance, and ethnic animosity making up the long list of compounding factors at play. As
human-caused
climate change brings a rise in extreme weather events, scientists have now increasingly looked
into the climate as another significant driver of conflict. On Monday, a study from the Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research reported that climate disasters increase the likelihood of
armed conflict outbreaks in highly ethnically divided societies, though researchers didn’t find a direct triggering effect.
“There is something going on which is just not clear cut,” said lead author Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, in an interview with
ThinkProgress. He added the idea is that climate disasters contributed to the turmoil that eventually led to
a conflict outbreak. “There is a risk enhancement due to these natural disasters.”
Published in the National Academy of Science, the study used a method of statistical analysis that scientists at
times employ to evaluate neuronal spike triggers. Researchers applied this so-called coincidence analysis on some
240 conflict outbreaks, along with 18,000 climate disasters that included droughts, floods,
frosts, heat waves, and wildfires from 1980 through 2010 extrapolated from two different
datasets. According to the study, some 23 percent of conflicts in the 50 most highly ethnically
fractionalized countries coincided with climate calamities occurring in the same month. When
different types of disasters were treated separately, they found that 9 percent of conflict outbreaks worldwide coincided with
droughts or heat waves within the same month.
Several countries in sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, and parts of South America seem to be the
most at risk, said Schleussner, noting these are countries already more vulnerable to climate change.
Indeed, in a warming world, countries near the already-hot tropics disproportionately suffer from the
increasing heat, in part because they are closer to biophysical thresholds, according to studies. Countries south
of the Equator tend to be poorer, too, and lack resources to swiftly adapt to food insecurity or
respond to climate disasters. For their part, northern countries like the United States and European nations are
much more politically stable and resilient to climate emergencies. However, they are also facing the
many challenges climate change poses, including rising seas and loss of land productivity.

Impact is War
Tirone 2/19 (Jonathan, Journalist, “Fears Grow that Climat Conflicts Could Lead To War”,
Bloomberg News, February 19 2017) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-
19/war-is-the-climate-risk-that-europe-s-leaders-are-talking-about) -KW
Among the 21st-century threats posed by climate change -- rising seas, melting permafrost
and superstorms -- European leaders are warning of a last-century risk they know all too well:
War. Focusing too narrowly on the environmental consequences of global warming
underestimates the military threats, top European and United Nations officials said at a global
security conference in Munich this weekend. Their warnings follow the conclusions of defense
and intelligenceagencies that climate change could trigger resource and border conflicts.
“Climate change is a threat multiplier that leads to social upheaval and possibly even armed
conflict,” the UN’s top climate official, Patricia Espinosa Cantellano, said at the conference,
which was attended by the U.S. secretaries of defense and homeland security, James Mattis and
John Kelly. Even as European Union countries struggle to assimilate millions of African and
Middle Eastern migrants and refugees, security officials are bracing for more of the same in the
future. Secretary General Antonio Guterra named climate change and population growth as the
two most serious “megatrends” threatening international peace and stability. “Ground zero” for
armed conflict over the climate will be the Arctic, where record-high temperatures are melting
ice and revealing natural resources that some countries might be willing to fight for, Finland’s
President Sauli Niinisto said on a panel. “We have already seen flag planting and already some
quarrels on the borderlines,” Niinisto said, pointing to new Russian military bases on its Arctic
border. “Tensions will rise.” The Arctic climate paradox -- where countries could fight for rights
to extract the very fossil fuels that would cause even more global warming -- underscores
energy’s role as a cause and potential moderator of climate change, according to Niinisto. For
Russia, the world’s biggest energy supplier, European nations switching to renewables
represents an economic threat. At the same time, European over-reliance on Russian energy
exposes them to coercion, according to Kelly Gallagher-Sims, a former climate and energy
adviser to President Barack Obama. “Climate change is already exacerbating existing stresses
that contribute to instability and insecurity,” Gallagher-Sims told Bloomberg last week before
leading a policy meeting on Arctic security at the Fletcher School at Tufts University near Boston.
“The main relationship between renewable energy and trans-Atlantic security” is that clean
power “permits Europe to rely less on Russian gas,” she said. For their part, Russian leaders in
Munich said they want peaceful coexistence with Europe and will abide by the Paris accord on
climate change -- even if it’s unlikely they’ll try convincing U.S. President Donald Trump to do
the same. It’s not clear when and if Trump will make good on his frequent campaign promises to
pull the U.S. out of the Paris accord, a 2015 UN agreement to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions
that was adopted by nearly 200 countries. Since he took office, the administration has rolled
back U.S. rules to combat climate change and eased restrictions on fossil-fuel companies. U.S.
Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a member of the committee on the environment and
public works, told officials in the Bavarian capital they may have to fight to preserve the 2015
Paris agreement from global warming skeptics in the White House. “The response of the
international community will be significant,” Whitehouse said. While the probability of
abandoning Paris may be small, they “decrease further if the response of the international
community” to the U.S. “is not only, don’t you dare but, that there’ll be consequences in other
areas” if you leave.
China Add-On
Lack of us leadership on climate change causes China to fill the vacuum
Shinkman 17 [Paul D. Shinkman Senior National Security Writer, 6-2-2017, "If Trump Doesn’t
Want a World Leadership Role, China Will Take It," US News & World Report,
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2017-06-02/following-trumps-paris-agreement-
decision-china-poised-to-overtake-us-global-leadership]
President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate
change, following a visit to Europe that many leaders there viewed as a farewell tour for
American involvement, leaves a global leadership vacuum at a critical time – and experts believe
China will gladly exploit it. RELATED CONTENT French President Emmanuel Macron (L) and US President Donald Trump attend the
Summit of the Heads of State and of Government of the G7, the group of most industrialized economies, plus the European Union, on May 26, 2017 in
Taormina, Sicily. The leaders of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, the US and Italy will be joined by representatives of the European Union and
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as well as teams from Ethiopia, Kenya, Niger, Nigeria and Tunisia during the summit from May 26 to 27, 2017.
Foreign Nations Outraged at Trump Top officials from the communist nation wasted no time capitalizing on Trump's Thursday announcement from the
White House Rose Garden, which commences a years-long process of renegotiating U.S. participation in the almost universally accepted climate change
accord. During
a pre-scheduled visit to Brussels, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said Friday his country
would help address concerns among European leaders who "worry about global uncertainty,"
and touted the common ground between China and the EU on international relations. Li also
met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who in the wake of Brexit is quickly emerging as
the most influential leader on the continent, and who agreed China and Germany would work
together to ensure "an open global economy" and maintain free trade. Li's trip came the same day Chinese
state media decided to run an op-ed saying foreign powers should "stop meddling" in Asian countries' affairs, reiterating criticism at the U.S. specifically
ahead of a major international summit in Singapore this weekend attended by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. No country or single bloc could replace the
U.S. in the role it has established for itself since the end of World War II, experts say, and replicate the kind of leadership that, among other things,
orchestrated the Paris Agreement in the first place. But
Trump's purposeful retreat from maintaining global
leadership will undoubtedly have negative consequences. "If the biggest country in the world is saying, 'It's the law of
the jungle, every man for themselves, you're with me or you're against me,' you're going to see a lot of people following that advice," says Vikram
Singh, who until 2014 served as a top Pentagon official for Asian affairs, now vice president at the Center for American Progress. "This
is a
completely seismic shift in how America is behaving on the world's stage." China's response to
Trump's retrenchment is a combination of optimism and worry, Singh says. In one sense, they
have an opportunity to try to push the U.S. out of its security affairs, namely its claims in the
South China Sea, and to invest its capital through its One Belt One Road initiative in emerging
energy, technology and innovation hubs in Europe, especially in the kind of climate science
newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron has touted. RELATED CONTENT President Donald Trump arrives
in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Thursday, June 1, 2017, to speak about the US role in the Paris climate change accord. (AP
Photo/Andrew Harnik) Political Aftermath of Trump’s Paris Play However, China perhaps more than any other country has benefited from the system of
trade and global security the U.S. helped ensure. Despite openly criticising the U.S. for its alliances with other Asian powers, for example, Beijing is
privately grateful that countries like Japan and South Korea don't possess nuclear weapons, Singh says. In
other ways Trump is forcing
China into this role – the president's following through on backing away from campaign
promises about climate change agreements must now prompt China to wonder whether he'll
also enact other proposals, including allowing Tokyo and Seoul to pursue a nuclear weapons
program. "China is looking at this and saying, I have to step up and lead in some areas. Some in
opposition and some hedging against not having the U.S." in a leadership role, Singh says. And
when it looks at the possibilities for further relations with the EU, "there are going to be huge
new opportunities." There are, however, key factors limiting China's ambitions to becoming the world's new hegemon. The country's rapid
expansion in recent decades has complicated its ability to maintain a strong middle class. Its struggling real estate market and its rising debts prompted
Moody's Investor Service to downgrade China's credit rating in March. Trump's rhetoric still provides the kind of fodder the state propaganda services
need to maintain the image of an American boogeyman, but that won't help Beijing distribute limited resources to a growing population. "These are all
signs of a very, very, very worrisome Chinese leadership's perspective of domestic challenges," says Jian Chen, a professor at Cornell University in
Chinese-American relations who just returned from a trip to China. "The biggest challenge facing the Chinese are those from within. They have their
own problems." RELATED CONTENT Protesters gather outside the White House in Washington, Thursday, June 1, 2017, to protest President Donald
Trump's decision to withdraw the Unites States from the Paris climate change accord. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh) Trump the Disrupter Trump has
created the space for reconfiguring a world leadership role, Chen says, at a time when both
China and the European Union believe they're in a position to expand their international
presence. Chen believes a nuanced interpretation of the Chinese premier's rhetoric in recent weeks indicates Beijing does not aspire to replace
the U.S., but that they seen an opportunity and place for China to have a larger presence. Beijing also believes the U.S. over-extended its international
responsibilities since the end of the Cold War, Chen says. "I think this is a time for the U.S. to renegotiate its global leadership role with other countries,
including China, not for other countries to replace the U.S.," he says. "The U.S. is indispensable." The danger, however, lies in international
misunderstanding during this time of shifting power. The risks posed by a miscalculated military move, for example, are higher now than any other time
in recent memory. "We're moving toward a world in which the use of armed conflict to settle disputes, like Russia-Ukraine, potentially China and the
South China Sea, is more likely rather than less because there's going to be less censure upon doing such things," Singh says. "It's unpredictable. A lot
more assertiveness by strong countries is likely." "However they try to spin it, this is a watershed moment."

Chinese climate leadership prevents solutions to global warming – even as they


say they will reduce their emissions they push coal abroad
Sivaram and Saha 16 (Varun and Sagatom, VARUN SIVARAM is the Douglas Dillon Fellow and
Acting Director of the Program on Energy Security and Climate Change at the Council on Foreign
Relations. SAGATOM SAHA is a research associate for energy and U.S. foreign policy at the
Council on Foreign Relations, 12/20/16, The Trouble With Ceding Climate Leadership to China,
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2016-12-20/trouble-ceding-climate-
leadership-china)krm
The trouble is that China would lead on climate-change issues only insofar as doing so would
advance its national interests. Some of those interests, such as China’s desire to cultivate foreign
markets for clean energy exports and curb domestic air pollution, line up with combatting
climate change. Others, such as the incentives the country faces to export coal power plants
abroad, could get in the way of reducing emissions. In some cases, it is unclear where China’s
interests lie—for example, whether it wants to promote or stunt breakthrough innovations in
clean-energy technologies. Still, one thing is certain: ceding climate leadership to China would
be disastrous for the United States, whose diplomatic standing and position in the race to supply
the world’s clean-energy needs would fall precipitously as a result. Washington helped shepherd
a breakthrough on climate change in late 2015, when 195 countries signed the Paris agreement,
under which governments volunteered action plans to control their greenhouse gas emissions.
The Obama administration played a crucial role in building the international consensus around
that agreement, and it coordinated the deal’s rapid entry into force just a year later, after 115
countries had ratified it. Together with the several ancillary deals that the United States recently
helped broker—aimed at limiting refrigerant emissions that warm the earth, curbing the carbon
footprint of aviation, and hashing out financial assistance that will help developing countries
address climate change—the Paris agreement gave the range of climate accomplishments
secured during the Obama administration’s final year a breathtaking scope. China is now poised
to build up an advanced nuclear industry at the United States’ expense. These successes have
earned the United States diplomatic capital, particularly among its European allies, that it would
be foolish to squander. Reversing course on climate policy could enrage the United States’
partners across the Atlantic and might make them less willing to cooperate on Washington’s
geopolitical interests, such as presenting a unified front against Russian aggression, and its
economic ones, such as the repatriation of corporate profits stashed in Europe. Nevertheless,
the president-elect’s advisers have exuberantly described Trump’s plans to withdraw the United
States from the Paris agreement and possibly even the overarching 1992 international
framework for climate diplomacy. On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to cancel payments to
UN climate bodies, such as the Green Climate Fund, which provides financial assistance to
developing countries. He also pledged to repeal Obama’s Clean Power Plan, thus reducing the
likelihood that the United States will uphold its international commitment to reduce its
greenhouse gas emissions by at least 26 percent relative to 2005 levels before 2025. In a sign of
its willingness to take over the mantle of climate leadership, China has strongly denounced
Trump’s promises. Senior Chinese officials have urged the United States to uphold its climate
commitments, and Beijing has pledged to make good on its own regardless of what the next
administration does.

Chinese leadership worsens climate change – they continue to invest in coal


Economy 17 [Elizabeth Economy, Elizabeth Economy is the C.V. Starr senior fellow and director
of Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations., 6-12-2017, "Why China Is No Climate
Leader," POLITICO Magazine, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/12/why-china-
is-no-climate-leader-215249]
When President Donald Trump yanked America's support for the Paris Climate Accords, pundits
were quick to hail China as the world's new environmental leader. Two veteran journalists wrote that the decision
was “the greatest strategic gift to the Chinese, who are eager to fill the void that Washington is leaving around the world.” But is leadership on climate
change really a strategic gift? Do the Chinese want it? And above all, do they merit it? The quick answer is
no, no and no. True global leadership is costly: It requires vision, creativity, perseverance, deft diplomacy and often cold, hard cash. It also
demands a willingness on the part of political leaders to align, and in some cases subordinate, their own narrow interests to those of the larger
international community. The Chinese, including President Xi Jinping, understand this. That is why any
number of Chinese analysts
have been quick to reject the idea that Chinese leadership on climate change is realistic, arguing
as one did, “Taking on global leadership is too much, too soon for China.” Xi Jinping, himself, is somewhat less
willing to reject the idea out of hand. China as a global power shaping norms and institutions is a central element of his rejuvenation narrative. He
therefore flirts with the prospect, proclaiming China ready to defend globalization and to protect the Paris climate agreement . But nowhere
does Xi say that China will actually lead; that is left to others. So where does China stand on the climate leadership
spectrum? First, the good. It will meet its Paris commitment: By 2030, China’s CO2 emissions will peak and its energy intensity (the amount of energy
consumed per unit of GDP) will be reduced by 60-65 percent. In addition, Beijing is making strides toward rebalancing its energy mix. This year it
cancelled 85 new coal fired power plants on top of the 18 that it cancelled last year; if brought on line, these 103 new plants would have exceeded
China’s 2020 targets of 1100GW of coal-fired power capacity by 150 GW. (By way of comparison, total U.S. energy produced from coal is 350GW.)
Moreover, China has pledged not to approve new coal-fired power plants in as many as 13 provinces and regions until 2018. (Of course, one might
reasonably ask what is happening in the other 18 provinces and regions, and what 2018 might bring.) China has also stepped up its commitment to
renewable energy. In 2016 China invested $78.3 billion in renewable energy—topping both Europe ($59.8 billion) and the United States ($46.4 billion).
China also ranks first in terms of total installed renewable electric capacity. Much of this capacity, however, remains idle. In 2016, in three of the most
wind power-rich provinces and regions—Gansu, Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia—for example, levels of curtailment (capacity not utilized) reached 43
percent, 38 percent and 21 percent respectively. The curtailment rate for solar energy was similarly high. In contrast, curtailment rates in the United
States and Europe are generally between 0-5 percent. In the wait and see category, China is reportedly set to launch a nationwide CO2 cap and trade
system sometime this year. This system could be spectacular, or it could be spectacularly embarrassing. Now the bad. China is still the
largest emitter of CO2 on the planet by a substantial margin, contributing 29 percent of the
world’s total CO2 emissions in 2015. The United States comes in a distant second at 14 percent. In addition, while Beijing is
cutting back on coal-fired power plants—particularly in its wealthy and pollution-conscious
coastal provinces—it is upping its count of CO2 emitting coal-to-chemical (including coal-to-gas)
plants. There are 46 coal-to-chemical plants in operation and another 22 under construction that will add another 193 million tons of carbon
emissions annually. A conservative estimate suggests that by 2020, such plants will contribute as much CO2 as all of Poland’s contribution to global
carbon emissions, while the extreme scenario—if
China builds all the coal-to-chemical plants outlined in its 13th
Five Year Plan—will lead to a contribution of almost 800 million tons per year, more than
German’s total carbon emissions in 2015, and equal to roughly 10 percent of China’s current
CO2 contribution. China also falls short in the eyes of some independent monitoring groups that
assess countries’ climate commitments. The 2017 annual report by German Watch and the Climate Action Network ranks China
48th—just a few places behind the United States at 43rd—in terms of how much it has done to avoid climate change and how much it plans to do. True
climate leadership belongs to the Europeans—France, Sweden and the United Kingdom, in particular—although even these climate leaders come in for
some criticism. Moreover,
the Climate Action Tracker, produced by three international research
institutions, indicates that China’s current emission reduction targets are not consistent with
ensuring that the earth’s warming remains below 2 degrees C. And finally the ugly. Whatever positive
steps China is taking at home are not being replicated in its behavior abroad. China is the
world’s largest exporter of coal-fired power plant finance and technology. Even as Xi is calling for an
“international coalition for green development on the Belt and Road” (his comprehensive new trade and development initiative involving 65
countries),
Beijing is backing more than 100 new coal-fired power projects in the Belt and Road
countries. China’s much-touted Belt and Road deals in Pakistan, for example, include plans for as
many as 12 coal-fired power plants—even in areas recognized for their superior solar energy
potential. In addition, China is actively pushing coal-to-chemical plants abroad. The Paris accords
don’t account for countries’ actions outside their own borders, so China is not breaking the
letter of its Paris commitments, but these Belt and Road investments are certainly not in
keeping with the spirit of the agreement. Beyond the clear limitations of China’s climate policies at home and abroad, there
remains the larger question of diplomatic leadership. Will China rally other countries to adopt another round of more ambitious greenhouse gas
reduction targets? Will it stop the overseas financing and sale of coal-fired power plants and coal-to-chemical plants? Will it push forward to limit other
harmful greenhouse gas emissions, such as methane? Will it accede to international monitoring and verification of its emissions, an important measure
it continues to reject? Thus
far, there is no indication that China has plans to adopt any of these
leadership-worthy measures. When Trump, in the midst of withdrawing the United States from the Paris agreement, offered up the
possibility of renegotiating the climate pact, the rest of the world in effect said, “not going to happen.” Undoubtedly other countries are becoming
accustomed to the idea of a world without American leadership. But filling the void left by the United States must be earned, not simply granted by
overeager officials and pundits. China may one day earn that right, but not today.

Chinese climate leadership bad – they have not been able to implement clean
energy even domesticaly
Taplin 17 [Nathaniel Taplin, Nathaniel Taplin writes on the Chinese economy and commodities
for Heard on the Street in Hong Kong, after spending five years in Beijing and Shanghai with
Thomson Reuters and the independent macro consultancy Gavekal Dragonomics. At Reuters he
covered China’s debt and money markets, monetary policy and financial system. At Gavekal, he
headed up global commodities coverage and wrote extensively on China’s energy sector,
industry and trade, 6-2-2017, "China Is a Highly Suspect Leader on Climate Change," WSJ,
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-is-a-highly-suspect-leader-on-climate-change-1496394151]
And then there were two: With the U.S. now intent on leaving the Paris climate agreement, the
European Union and China, the world’s other two large carbon-dioxide emitters, must now lead
the charge against global warming. But beware predictions of a green-tech bonanza in China.
Though the country has invested enormously in clean power over the past decade, returns—
whether financial or in power generated—have been strikingly low. As with global trade, China
needs to fix market distortions at home before it can become a credible leader on climate
change. The motivation is there. China is both the world’s largest source of greenhouse gases
and a country highly vulnerable to climate change: It is overpopulated, particularly in coastal
areas, its northern aquifers are running dry at an alarming rate and pollution is already intense.
The opportunity seems rich: Wind power accounted for less than 4% of power generated last
year; solar, barely 1%. But vestigial energy-price controls and the powerful State Grid continue
to hold back progress. Cheap capital and high state-mandated “on-grid” power prices
encouraged massive investment in renewable power—wind projects ate up close to $100 billion
from 2008 to 2015. But the grid itself has little incentive to buy such pricey and unreliable
electricity. Despite some progress with State Grid over the past decade—fewer completely
disconnected wind farms—China still generates far more wind power than it transmits. Last year
the gap was about 50 billion kilowatt-hours, enough to power a small European country. Coal’s
resilience is another big problem. Although its share of China’s electricity mix is declining—
slowly—investment in coal power plants is rising. The problem, once again, lies with a mismatch
in regulated prices. As coal prices slid 60% in 2014 and 2015, the regulated price of coal-
generated power stayed level, widening generator margins and stimulating investment. After
falling 30% when coal prices were high from 2010 to 2012, annual investment in coal power has
rebounded by nearly 20%. Last year it hit 117 billion yuan ($26 billion), the highest since 2010.
China has made some real progress on tackling water pollution and raising standards for heavy
polluters such as refineries, particularly in the wealthy eastern regions. But as in the financial
sector, capital continues to be directed into unproductive areas. Opportunities still exist—in
nuclear power, water conservation and energy-efficient building technology, for example—but
investors expecting an abundance of profitable green-power projects will be disappointed.2
Turns – Economy
Slowing the pace of warming is key to prevent catastrophic economic
damage
Worland 15 (Justin, Writer for TIME “Climate Change Could Wreck the Global Economy”.
http://time.com/4082328/climate-change-economic-impact/)
Temperature rise due to climate change
may radically damage the global economy and slow growth
in the coming decades if nothing is done to slow the pace of warming, according to new
research.
The researchers behind the study, published in the journal Nature, found that temperature change due to
unmitigated global warming will leave global GDP per capita 23% lower in 2100 than it would be without
any warming. “We’re basically throwing away money by not addressing the issue,” said Marshall Burke,
an assistant professor at Stanford University. “We see our study as providing an estimate of the benefits of reducing
emissions.”
The economic effects of climate change may be even worse than this study makes them
sounds. The research relies on historical data from countries around the world on how temperature increase has
affected productivity. This means the study does not account for the economic impact of sea level
rise, storms or any of the other expected effects of climate change beyond simple warming.
“Sea level rise, increased storm intensity…if you think those things are going to worsen the effects of climate change, then our
estimates would be an underestimate of the potential impacts, which is sort of terrifying,” said Burke.
This study is far from the first to suggest that climate change will slow economic growth. Big business has been especially keen on
highlighting the potential damage. A
Citigroup report released last month found that minimizing
temperature rises to 2.7ºF (1.5ºC) could minimize global GDP loss by $50 trillion compared to a
rise of 8.1ºF (4.5ºC) in the coming decades.
The study breaks down productivity into agricultural and non-agricultural fields. The effect of
agricultural productive is easy to explain: crops grow most productively within a certain temperature range. (The effects of warming
on crop productivity have been well documented.) But research still don’t know why warm weather decreases productivity for
workers in other fields.
Turns – Hegemony
US is losing heg because of a lack of climate leadership.
Heer ’17, (Jeet Heer, senior editor at the New Republic who has published in a wide array of
journals, “Trump Is Paving the Way for China to Rule the World”, New Repbulic, Jan 24, 2017,
https://newrepublic.com/article/140081/trump-paving-way-china-rule-world) –os
Last week, the leaders of the world’s two largest economies gave important speeches offering diametrically opposed visions of the global economic
order. President Donald Trump’s inauguration speech on Friday made a forceful case for an “America First” policy that would defend the national
economy from globalization. “One by one, the factories shuttered and left our shores with not even a thought about the millions and millions of
American workers that were left behind. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world,”
Trump said, later adding, “We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies and
destroying our jobs.” Three days earlier, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Chinese President Xi Jinping presented his
country as a defender of economic globalization and an exemplar of international cooperation
on issues like climate change. “Pursuing protectionism is just like locking oneself in a dark room,” Xi argued. “While wind and rain may
be kept outside, so are light and air. No one will emerge as a winner in a trade war.” China is now closer to the international
norm than the U.S. on such key issues as trade, climate change, and Israel-Palestine. Is America
at risk of abdicating its international leadership role to China, just as the British Empire did in 1945? Xi’s words
at Davos were met with applause by the global elites there, suggesting some support for China’s
ascension. “If people want to say China has taken a position of leadership, it’s not because China
suddenly thrust itself forward as a leader,” Zhang Jun, head of the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s Office of International Economic
Affairs, said. “It’s because the original frontrunners suddenly fell back and pushed China to the front.” Trump’s protectionism is only
one sign of that abdication of global leadership. “America First” encapsulates a larger turn to isolationism, as seen in
Trump’s hostility to the Paris Climate Accord (which Xi insists is still necessary) and institutions like NATO, the United Nations,
and the World Trade Organization. “I warned you all back in October that the Chinese would seem like the last great liberals in the world,” Washington
Post columnist Daniel Drezner wrote on Tuesday. “And now it appears to have come to pass.” He later added, “A large fraction of the world still
believes in the liberal order that the United States helped to erect 70 years ago, even if the current U.S. administration does not. They will look to any
country willing to publicly defend that power.” Examples of this shift are already evident. Trump’s rejection of the
Trans-Pacific Partnership has caused Asian nations like the Philippines, Singapore, and Malaysia to gravitate toward China’s alternative to the TPP, the
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. The Trump administration also seems to be abandoning the two-state solution, and China has decided
to fill the vacuum. After Trump proposed moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, Xi called for East Jerusalem to be capital of a Palestinian state and
offered $7.6 million in aid to the Palestinians.

Lack of climate leadership destroys US power and credibility abroad


Beauchamp 17 [Zack Beauchamp, 6-1-2017, "Trump’s withdrawal from Paris is a major blow
to the American-led global order," Vox,
https://www.vox.com/world/2017/6/1/15719968/trump-paris-climate-agreement-world]krm
It’s official: The Trump administration will pull the United States out of the Paris climate change

agreement. “In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord,” President Trump said
in a Rose Garden statement on Thursday afternoon. The move puts the United States in rare company. The only countries that aren’t part of the Paris agreement are semi-
authoritarian Nicaragua and Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s regime is too busy slaughtering its own people to worry about climate change. Think about that for a second. The
United States, the world’s sole superpower and architect of the international order, is
reportedly going to quit an agreement that shares near-universal support globally. Even North
Korea is on board. This isn’t just a random piece of trivia. It speaks to the major, major implications that Trump’s
decision has for America’s strategic position around the world. While the president cast the Paris agreement as
fundamentally unfair to the United States — "at what point does America get demeaned, at what point do they start laughing at us" — it actually is part of a web of
interconnected agreements that sustain America’s dominant global position in the world. Isolating the US in this fashion sends an extraordinarily strong signal to other major
powers that the US cannot be trusted to act on its international commitments, or even to work within international organizations at all. Washington depends on other countries
America’s status as sole superpower persists in
trusting it to stay in agreements to maintain agreements that preserve American strength.

part because other powerful countries, like France and Germany and Japan, think that American
leadership is in their best interests. Every time Trump suggests these countries can’t count on
the US anymore — through actions like pulling out of Paris and insulting NATO allies in his
foreign trip — he threatens the very foundations of America’s global power. “It’s death by a thousand cuts — and
So while the key issue when it
I don’t know what cut we’re at,” says William Wohlforth, an international relations professor at Dartmouth College.

comes to Paris is climate change itself — whether the world’s countries can continue to work
together effectively to prevent catastrophic warming — it’s also a vital issue for America’s
position in the world. The Trump administration either doesn’t understand this or doesn’t care.
“Trust takes a long time to build — and you can lose it very quickly,” Paul Musgrave, a scholar of US foreign policy at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, says. The
counterintuitive connection between the Paris climate agreement and US power Obama Meets With European Leaders In Berlin Obama with the leaders of Germany and Italy.
(Michael Ukas/Pool /Getty Images) Paris isn’t a treaty, or formal international law. It’s a nonbinding agreement, one that commits countries to taking a set of unspecified steps
to keep global warming below 2°C. Actually meeting that goal is nigh impossible, but Paris is essentially designed to shame and prod countries into at least making a good-faith
effort to seriously reduce their CO2 emissions and build up their green energy capabilities. This flatly cannot work without the United States. As the world’s largest economy and
second-largest CO2 emitter (China is No. 1), US cooperation with Paris is vital to convincing other countries to make a serious effort to meet their targets. If the US isn’t trying,
the logic goes, then why should we? For this reason, the Obama administration played a major role in writing the original text of the Paris agreement, shaping it such that its
Pulling out of the agreement at this point suggests that the US doesn’t
terms were acceptable for American interests.

care about climate change anymore, or about the potentially catastrophic consequences for the
planet. But it also sends a broader signal that the US considers its obligations to be optional.
That the US leadership can no longer be trusted to adhere to agreements on issues of vital
concerns for other countries — even when it helps set the terms of the agreements itself. “We’re
talking about undoing something that was the project, the signal accomplishment of a whole group of countries — on more or less on a whim,” Musgrave says. The problem
the entirety of America’s global strategy is founded on the opposite perception. It
with that, though, is that

depends on other countries trusting the US to abide closely enough to its on-paper agreements
that it won’t pose a threat to them. Consider American’s staggeringly large military. The US spends more on defense than every other major
economy combined (meaning Japan, Germany, Russia, France, the UK, India, and Brazil). It also has more than 27 times as many foreign bases as every other nation combined.
Historically, this kind of extraordinary military advantage would lead other countries to counterbalance, to build up their own militaries to match the potential threat emanating
Yet there’s no worry among French or British leaders that the US is going to invade
from Washington.

their countries. Other developed countries, like South Korea and Germany, even allow the US to
maintain massive bases on their soil. That’s because the US has credibly committed to ally
indefinitely with these countries. America is obligated to do more than just not invade Germany;
it’s pledged to actually defend Germany in the event of an attack. These kinds of agreements
render extraordinary amounts of US dominance over other countries basically acceptable to
major powers that might otherwise be rivals. You can see a similar effect play out in nonmilitary parts of world politics, like the economy.
The US is the only country to have veto power over major decisions at both the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, giving it tremendous power over global cash
flows. World Trade Organization negotiating rules give the US disproportionate leverage over the rules governing global trade. Yet other countries seem to be basically fine with
that: They treat the IMF, World Bank, and WTO as the basic arbiters of how the global economy functions. The reason why, again, is that these organizations bind the US too. If a
WTO ruling on a trade dispute goes against the United States, the US has committed to accepting that. These rules constrain America enough, and benefit all the weaker
countries in enough concrete ways, that everyone is willing to accept their basic contours. This helps preserve America’s dominant place in the global hierarchy indefinitely. “By
binding itself to other states within a system of rules and institutions, the leading state makes its power more acceptable to other states, creating incentives for support rather
Leaving Paris undermines faith
than opposition,” Princeton professor G. John Ikenberry writes in Liberal Leviathan, his influential book on US power.

in this system to operate as promised. The US has made a major commitment to other countries
to agree to a certain set of rules for tackling a shared problem, climate change. It has now
decided to quit those rules, and simply do whatever it wants. What’s to say the US won’t do the
same thing again on something else — abandon a NATO ally, say, or simply ignore an
unfavorable WTO ruling? “There’s a lot of trade-offs that happen between one policy area and
another,” Wohlforth says. “Once you’re backing out of too many things, aside from the thing
you’re negotiating, you can end up reducing your leverage.” Leaving the Paris climate deal sends
a signal that all US commitments are optional — and that’s why it’s so dangerous Leaders Meet For NATO
Summit Trump at NATO. (Dan Kitwood/Getty Images) Now, US action in one specific policy area typically doesn’t

undermine the entire international system. President Obama’s failure to follow through on his threat to use force in Syria, for example, didn’t
affect anyone’s perception of American commitment to NATO. And the US has a broad reservoir of trust when it screws up, even badly. In the runup to the 2003 Iraq War, for
example, the Bush administration shrugged off a lack of United Nations Security Council authorization and dismissed allies who opposed the war as “old Europe.” This damaged
trust in the US’s ability to abide by the rules, and thus damaged the entire international order. But subsequent diplomacy under both Bush and Obama aimed at restoring
Paris is different. And it’s different because Trump is
Western allies’ faith in the US managed to mostly undo the damage.

different. This is a president who describes his foreign policy as “America First,” and who
warned against “the false song of globalism” in his most comprehensive foreign policy speech
during the campaign. This is a president who has repeatedly questioned the importance of the NATO alliance, and who refused to commit to defending these
allies at the organization’s recent summit. This is a president who declared that the WTO is a “disaster,” and whose advisers prepared a report proposing to simply ignore
unfavorable rulings from the organization. In short, Trump seems actively hostile to the international political order. Given that context, every little thing he does to signal lack of
interest matters. “If you had an administration that was not doing all of these other things that threatened to have the same effect ... the US [order] could easily bear singling
out the Paris agreement,” Wohlforth says. “In this case, we are following a string of these kinds of decisions. It’s in that context that you’re worried: What’s going to be the straw
that’s going to break the camel’s back?” Wohlforth doesn’t think that Paris is that straw; rather, it’s one more straw on the pile when there’s already a ton of them. Global
trust in US leadership isn’t yet at a breaking point, but it’s so low that it can ill afford another
stressor. We don’t know exactly what the breaking point will be, but we do know that quitting a
major international agreement on a serious global problem brings us closer to it. “[Withdrawing from Paris] is
not cheap talk,. [Leaving Paris] is sending a signal that you’re not even going to send lip service to coordinating on global issues,” Musgrave says. We’re already

seeing some signs of such a backlash. At a much-commented-on speech last weekend, German
Chancellor Angela Merkel declared that Germany needed to take a more assertive role in global
politics, because “recent days have shown me that the times when we could rely completely on
others are over to a certain extent." The subtext — that Germany couldn’t rely on the US
anymore — was unmistakable, coming as it did on the heels of meetings with Trump at the
NATO and G7 summits (the G7 is an organization made up of seven large advanced economies).
Less commented on, however, was the fact that Merkel specifically cited her chats with Trump on climate change as a

reason for this pronouncement. “We Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands,” she said. "It became clear at the
G7, when there was no agreement [on climate] with the USA, how long and rocky this path
would be.” Now that “no agreement” has turned into the US actively undermining global efforts to combat climate change, Merkel’s argument appears to be
supercharged. The consequences of recklessly disregarding allied opinion and international institutions may not be felt tomorrow. But in the long run, they

could permanently undermine the core foundations of American power — leading other
countries to put less faith in US-led institutions, and seek alliances and structures that don’t
depend on the US. That would by necessity limit US influence over major powers in the world;
Musgrave goes so far as to call it “hegemonic suicide.” We’re a long way from that scenario, something that was unthinkable prior
to the Trump administration. But the more Trump does stuff like quit the Paris agreement, the weaker America is likely to get in the long run. That’s some notion of “America
First.”

Lack of commitment on climate change is the biggest threat to US leadership


Worland 17 [Justin Worland, Justin Worland is a New York-based writer for TIME covering
energy and the environment, 5-31-2017, "3 Major Costs of Withdrawing From the Paris Climate
Agreement," Time, http://time.com/4799404/paris-agreement-trump-withdrawal-climate/]
Trump's move to leave the Paris Agreement is perhaps the biggest snub he could deliver to
America's European allies short of leaving NATO. World leaders, particularly those in Europe,
have warned Trump with increasing urgency as his presidency unfolded that withdrawing from
the deal would be a mistake. And at the same time they have offered him the diplomatic leeway to weaken the U.S. commitment to
fighting climate change. Still, Trump declined to sign on to a joint statement endorsing the deal following the G-7 summit last week and in the days that
followed many leaders distanced themselves from Trump and their country's historic ties to the U.S. Looking
ahead, lack of
agreement on climate change more broadly will complicate relations with other nations. The
U.S. will act as the lone dissenter in meetings with allies whenever climate change is
mentioned—including in the context of national security—and be excluded from other
discussions entirely, including upcoming meetings hosted by China and the European Union. In
relations with countries like China, where relations have been tense, c limate change has acted as an area of common
ground that has allowed the U.S. to strengthen ties even as other issues stressed the
relationship. That would now be lost.The U.S. also has few, if any, allies in this fight. Nicaragua and Syria
are the only other countries that do not support the Paris Agreement—and both do so for entirely different reasons.
Turns – Terrorism
Climate change-induced weather events exacerbates the War on Terror – Syrian
Crisis proves
Saravade ’15 (Vasundhara Saravade, 11-23-2016, "We Must Fight Climate Change to Win the
War on Terror," Fair Observer,
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/we-must-fight-climate-
change-to-win-the-war-on-terror-32101/) - byl
We need to learn from the Syrian situation, where a lack of resources eventually led to conflict and
war. Paris, Beirut, Baghdad—all three cities were targeted by the Islamic State (IS) in November. And even with hundreds of
deaths, these were only a few among countless other victims of terrorist attacks that have taken
place in 2015. In November 2008, Mumbai witnessed its own terrorist attack. The “city that never sleeps” was
at a standstill for four days as terrorist attacks took place across the city, killing 164 people and wounding 308 others. Among the
innocent civilians and police officers who were killed was my parents’ friend, Ashok Kamte, the additional commissioner in the
Mumbai police department. Both my parents are police officers, and Ashok was my mother’s batch-mate from her National Police
Academy days. As a kid, I remember visiting his family’s house when he was the superintendent of police in the Kolhapur district of
Maharashtra. It was so surreal and numbing to hear that he had died on 26/11. I still remember the morning of November 26,
watching in tears as news of terrorist attacks flashed on the TV screen. Even though I had only met Ashok a few times, his death in a
senseless terrorist attack broke my heart. We lost not one, but 164 such people during that carnage. The same pain tugged at my
heart as I read about the attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad. Although it is in the name of religion that IS carries
out such condemnable acts, no religion preaches the merciless killings of human beings. Instead,
it is a lack of empathy created by a fight for survival that has led to such acts of terror. A fight
that will only get worse when countries like Poland close their borders to refugees in the name of
national security. I have always believed that the world is a place where a butterfly flapping its wings can cause a tsunami.
Terrorism is not caused by an act of war or the words of a fundamentalist. It is caused by the inequalities that
countries have faced in the past as well as the ones they are facing today. Inequalities that are
exacerbated by problems like climate change. Religion isn’t at the root of terrorism. It is scarcity of resources and a
lack of empathy that causes mindless acts of terror. SYRIA’S PERFECT STORM Let me tell you the story of Syria, a country that
was once peaceful, but has since become so scarred with terrorism that millions of people have
had to flee. This isn’t a story that was started by a religious movement or a terrorist group, but rather by manmade
climate change. The story begins when Syria suffered its worst drought on record from 2006 to 2010.
The drought was very intense and lasted longer than could be explained by natural variations in weather. This was no
ordinary drought, but rather an impact of climate change. Nearly 85% of the livestock died and
Syria’s famed fields of halaby peppers withered away. President Bashar al-Assad’s government offered little help to the common
farmers. His administration awarded well rights along political lines, so most farmers had to drill their own illegal wells. And people
who spoke out against him faced imprisonment, torture and even death. Around a million rural villagers lost their
farms to drought. These people moved into cities like Daraa to look for other means of livelihood. In cities, the water problem
became even more acute, and there weren’t enough jobs. The once prosperous farmers were now lucky to even find work as street
sweepers. Tempers rose and frustrations festered. Finally, a
group of teenage boys expressed their anger by
spray painting a slogan they borrowed from new revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Unfortunately, the
local secret police came and arrested 15 of the boys. In the cell of the nearby political security branch, police officers beat and
tortured the teenagers. Without showing any empathy or remorse, these policemen burned their skin and pulled out their
fingernails. The boys came from some prominent families in Daraa, and upon hearing this, the family members marched to the
governor’s house. Assad’s Syria is a government accustomed to authoritarian rule, meaning any protests that happened in Daraa
were met with violence. Soon after, Syrians
in other cities gathered in support of the “children of Daraa.”
Protests spread following the path of the drought—from Damascus to al-Qamishli. This kind of sustained uprising
was not supposed to happen in Syria. Right up until the first protests in Daraa, international security analysts had proclaimed Syria
immune to the rising “Arab Spring,” the popular name given to the democratic wave of civil unrest in the Arab world that began
in December 2010. It was this revolutionary movement that created an ideal atmosphere for terrorism
to grow and thrive. Political oppression was not the only cause of the Syrian conflict. Perhaps manmade climate change
played an even bigger role. CLIMATE CHANGE AND CONFLICT According to Francesco Femia, director of the Center for Climate and
Security, environmental stressors are capable of causing wide-scale conflict. When 1.5 million
people lose their livelihoods and face drinking water shortages, a survival mindset sets in. The
displacement of a massive population further leads to a sense of social unrest. After decades of
ineffective leadership, the effects of climate change may have been the “ultimate unhinging stressor for Syria.” But even if the
country recovers from political instability and eradicates terrorism, Syria still stands to lose
nearly 50% more of its agricultural capacity by 2050. If current rates of greenhouse gas emissions continue, more
extreme droughts will return and water shortages will worsen. But this situation is not only restricted to Syria. Extreme weather
events have started occurring in other parts of the world, too. From
extreme flooding affecting Chennai in India
to the increased forest fires in Indonesia, climate change is showing its impact. One can even
compare the Syrian situation to that of the state of Maharashtra in India, where a prolonged
drought has been occurring since 2009. Hundreds of farmers commit suicides every year, yet the government does
not do anything to address the climate change impact that is affecting the state. With only 8% water left in the dams this year, it is
essential that we address such impact of climate change. Otherwise, environmental
stressors will lead to potential
law and order problems in the Maharashtra. We need to learn from the Syrian situation, where a lack of resources
eventually led to conflict and war.

Current reliance on fossil fuels generates an income for terrorist groups to


thrive
Saravade ’15 (Vasundhara Saravade, 11-23-2016, "We Must Fight Climate Change to Win the
War on Terror," Fair Observer,
https://www.fairobserver.com/region/middle_east_north_africa/we-must-fight-climate-
change-to-win-the-war-on-terror-32101/) - byl
THE IMPORTANCE OF CLIMATE ACTION It may not even be a coincidence that the Paris attacks on November 13 were committed
biggest climate conference known as the Conference of Parties (COP21). An
just weeks before the
article in The Ecologist points out that any failure of COP21 will benefit IS, as the terrorist group
stands to make $500 million a year from oil sales—together with other oil producers. Another article in the
Financial Times says: “Oil is the black gold that funds ISIS’s [Islamic State] black flag — it fuels its war machine, provides
electricity and gives them critical leverage from its neighbours.” The article goes on to state that IS derives its financial stability
straight from its status as a monopoly producer of an essential commodity consumed in vast quantities throughout the area it
controls. Even without being able to export, IS can thrive because it has a huge captive market in Syria and Iraq. So the
last
thing that IS wants is a global climate agreement that limits consumption on fossil fuels. In this time
of horror and distress, it is crucial that we guard the powerful climate action mandate of COP21 in the coming years. We need to
learn from the Paris attacks and the Chennai floods, because when global temperatures breach the 2 degrees Celsius threshold,
extreme weather events are only going to have a domino effect on terrorism.
Solvency
S - Climate Change Education Good
Climate Change Education is beneficial in broadening the understanding of the
ramifications of climate change along with empowering students to take action.
Honda ‘14 (Rep. Mike Honda (Michael Makoto Honda is an American politician and former educator, 7-
29-2014, "Climate Change Education Works for Students," HuffPost, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-
mike-honda/climate-change-education_b_5631936.html) - Hebron AL

While some members of Congress debate the scientific facts of climate change, students are
weighing the evidence and deciding for themselves. One student in my district, Brandon Truong, a youth leader
with the Alliance for Climate Education (ACE), questions why there is still so much public debate when the scientific evidence is so
clear. “What makes me so different from the average person when it comes to climate change?” he asks. The answer: “Well, nothing
— really.” Brandon grew up in Fremont, CA. He
admits that he was, like a lot of his peers, unaware of many
social issues that affected his community — including climate change. He says it was hard for
him to decide which side of the “debate” to believe. “Only after starting high school did I learn
how to differentiate between credible and non-credible information from my teachers and
organizations like ACE, which works to educate high school students about climate change,”
Brandon says. “At Irvington High School, which I graduated from this spring, seniors are required to do a project called QUEST. This
project entails identifying a social issue, doing research, writing papers, and finally giving a presentation. This
dynamic
opportunity gave me the chance to gain a deeper understanding of climate change, and maybe
even inspire some of my peers to take action with me. In the midst of my research and work with
ACE, I was excited to learn that my Congressman, Mike Honda, had proposed a bill regarding climate change
education.” Earlier this year, I introduced the Climate Change Education Act. This bill will allow students across the
country access to science based climate change education. The act will create a Climate Change
Education Program to broaden the understanding of human-induced climate change, possible
long and short-term consequences, and potential solutions. The program will include supporting
teacher training in STEM fields to incorporate climate change science into K-12 curricula, and
improving quality and access to higher education for green collar jobs and public education. As
Brandon observes, educating people about climate change is just the first of many steps we need to
take as a nation to address climate change. “Millions of students, like me, currently go to school
in states where teaching climate science is not mandatory in school curriculum,” Brandon adds.
“Luckily, I live in California — I’m given the opportunity to have a 21st century science education. But, what about kids in other
states? Don’t they have the same right to climate science education? My generation can’t be expected to solve a problem of the
magnitude of climate change if we’re never given the opportunity to learn about it.” As a member of the Safe Climate Caucus, I
pledged to work together with the other 39 members to end the conspiracy of silence in Congress about the dangers of climate
change. Students like Brandon inspire me to continue to keep the discussion on climate change going. We
need more young
leaders like him to truly begin to change the dialog on climate change. “As for me, learning
about, and acting on, this issue has inspired me to pursue higher education in the field of Environmental Science and Biology
at UC-Santa Cruz,” Brandon says, “and be more aware of my and my family’s habits as consumers. As I sit here today and write this, I
hope that you will consider the possibility of something different and better than what we have today. Let’s work together, as we
did in the past, to pave the way for our future generations.” With this he leaves me, and hopefully others who speak out about
climate change in Congress, a little hope for the future. This post is part of a series from the Safe Climate Caucus. The Caucus is
comprised of 39 members of the House of Representatives who have committed to ending the conspiracy of silence in Congress
about the dangers of climate change.
Reaching a consensus over how climate change is taught is crucial to solving
future issues – Trump’s decision makes the issue more urgent than ever.
Kantele 6/20 (Franko, journalist for the Associated Press writing for the Colombus
Dispatch, “Debate Heats Up over Teaching Climate Change in US Schools”, 6/20/2017,
accessed through the ProQuest SIRS database) RC
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- The struggle over what American students learn about global warming is heating up as conservative lawmakers, climate
change doubters and others attempt to push rejected or debunked theories into the classroom. An overwhelming majority of
climate scientists say manmade emissions drive global warming, but there's no such consensus
among educators over how climate change and its causes should be taught. Several U.S. states
recently considered measures allowing or requiring teachers to present alternatives to widely
accepted viewpoints on such topics. For example, a stalled proposal in Iowa would have
required teaching "opposing points of view" on topics such as global warming, and proposed
science standards in Idaho would have students taught that human impact is driving global
warming and that natural factors also contribute. The debate is arriving on teachers' doorsteps
nationwide, as thousands are being mailed the book "Why Scientists Disagree about Global
Warming" from a Chicago-area advocacy group called The Heartland Institute that challenges the assertion that there is
consensus about a human-caused climate crisis. In a follow-up statement, the institute's president said science instructors should
"keep an open mind" and shouldn't teach "dogma pushed by some environmental activist
groups." The National Center for Science Education made rebuttal flyers explaining that Heartland relies
on debunked theories. The National Science Teachers Association dismissed the mailing as propaganda and
urged educators to recycle the books. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the United
States from an international agreement aimed at curbing global warming is reinforcing some teachers' sense of urgency
about discussing humans' role in accelerating climate change. "This isn't just something we're talking about
because it's going to be on the test," said Jim Reding, a high school teacher in Granville, Ohio, who said he
wants his students to think critically and have civil, reasoned conversations on the topic. " This is something that could have an
impact on my life or my children's life going forward." An NCSE survey released last year of 1,500 public middle- and high-
school science teachers found about three-quarters taught something about climate change during the 2014-15 school year. About a quarter give equal
time to "perspectives that raise doubt about the scientific consensus," the survey found. Approaches
to teaching climate science
depend largely on state science standards and decisions by districts and instructors, because the
federal government doesn't dictate curriculum, said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the science education center. Many
schools teach climate change in some way, but teachers vary in knowledge of the topic and how much they
emphasize human impact, he said. Lawmakers in Alabama and Indiana recently passed resolutions in support of giving teachers' latitude
in how they help students analyze and critique scientific theories. Bills to put similar allowances into law fizzled in Oklahoma, South Dakota and Texas.
Florida lawmakers approved making it easier for people to challenge textbooks as inappropriate, and critics argued that bill could lead to schools
removing books that discuss climate change. The executive director of the science teachers association, David Evans, criticizes such measures as efforts
to introduce theories that aren't evidence-based. It's "permission, or in some cases even an imperative, to talk about things which are not scientific in
the science classroom," he said. "And we firmly oppose that." But the South Dakota bill's primary sponsor, Republican Sen. Jeff Monroe, argued it's a
matter of balance and critical inquiry. He said he heard from educators seeking more latitude because they feel pressured under state standards to
teach primarily one view on scientific theories such as climate change. He said none would publicly speak about their feelings or testify when
lawmakers considered the measure because they feared backlash in their schools and communities. "All I want is for them to be able to show the
strengths and weaknesses of the theory, whatever they're talking about," and for state law to outline that allowance, Monroe said. Joe
Skahan,
a science teacher in Lynn, Massachusetts, said he feels strongly about climate change as a
problem and ways to address it, but he lets students draw their own conclusions based on
what's observable. He devotes several weeks of lessons to climate science and might have
students build windmills to learn about renewable energy, discuss rising sea levels or evaluate
benefits of energy-efficient lightbulbs. "It's up to teachers to be confident and, you know, not afraid to keep strong to teach the
science regardless of what they're saying at the White House," Skahan said. Trump said he left the Paris climate accord because it was unfair to the
country. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos backed Trump's announcement and told reporters then, during a visit to a charter school in Washington on
June 2, that she believes the climate is changing, but she wouldn't answer a reporter's question about whether human activity is causing that. The
Republican president previously downplayed evidence of human impact in climate change and
once suggested global warming is an economically motivated "hoax" by the Chinese, though his
current beliefs are less clear. "The president believes that the climate is always changing -- sometimes for the better and sometimes for
the worse. Pollutants are part of that equation," the White House said in a statement this month. Evans, of the teachers association, said he doesn't
want students caught in political rhetoric but believes Trump is sending the wrong message about climate change and "the value of science in public
life." Students
should be presented with evidence, not opinion, and understand topics like climate
change by learning the science behind them, not merely accepting others' conclusions, he said.

Climate change education is key to overcome political ideology and foster belief
in anthroprocentric warmng, a study proves knowledge of climate change
overcomes biases of teachers.
Stephenson, Peterson and Bradshaw 16 [Kathryn T. Stevenson, M. Nils Peterson, Amy
Bradshaw, professors at North Carolina State University, Department of Forestry &
Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, September 7, 2016, “How Climate
Change Beliefs among U.S. Teachers Do and Do Not Translate to Students”,
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161462]krm
Although nearly all (>95%) climate scientists attribute global warming to human activities[1], only
about half of U.S. adults agree[2,3], and similar polarization can be found across many parts of the world [4,5].
Researchers attribute this persistent disconnect between scientific consensus and public perceptions to individuals’ heavy reliance
on worldview and political ideology, which drive individuals to seek information from ideologically compatible sources [6] and shape
their interpretation of new information [7]. Although worldview and political ideology are the overwhelming drivers of climate
change perceptions [8], some
research does suggest that climate-specific knowledge can predict
acceptance of anthropogenic global warming as well as climate change concern among
adolescents [9] and adults [10,11], indicating that climate education may have the potential to
overcome ideologically-driven polarization. However, a recent survey of U.S. science teachers
suggests that climate literacy is low and polarization is high among the very people who have
the potential to leverage education to unite public opinion [12]. Gaps between teachers’ knowledge about
climate science and the scientific consensus of anthropogenic global warming are concerning when considering the importance of
climate change education in schools. A 2016 national survey of US teachers found that although a vast
majority of middle and high school science teachers (70% and 87%, respectively), dedicate at least an
hour of instruction to climate change, 30% emphasize that global warming is due to natural
causes and 31% teach “both sides” (i.e., that recent global warming is due to human activity but
that many scientists think it is due to natural causes)[12]. Similarly, less than half of teachers
(30% of middle school science teachers and 45% of science teachers) responded to the correct
proportion of climate scientists who think global warming is caused mostly by human activities
[12]. The disconcerting fact that so little time is dedicated to climate change (median of 1–2 hours [12]) aside, these numbers
call into question the quality of climate education our children are receiving. Perhaps the most troubling
aspect of this study was that teachers’ political ideology was the most powerful predictor of their
classroom approach [12]. This would suggest that the biggest determinant of how our children
are presented information about climate change in science classrooms is driven by a factor that
is incredibly hard to change and largely independent from science [13]. Despite the role that politics seems
to play in how climate change is addressed in science classrooms, research on how students learn about climate change is more
encouraging. Among adults, worldview and political ideology seem to be primary drivers of climate
change beliefs [8], and education level and scientific literacy may further entrench people into their ideologically-based beliefs
[6,14]. Among adolescents, however, worldview is associated with polarized climate change
beliefs at low levels of climate change understanding, but climate education appears to
eliminate ideological differences once adolescents understand key scientific concepts associated
with climate change [9]. Although changing climate change perceptions among adults may be difficult because of the strong
influence of worldviews and political ideology [8], educational interventions may be effective among
adolescents at fostering climate change knowledge, belief in anthropogenic global warming,
behavioral intentions and reported behavior around climate change [15,16]. This research points to the
possibility that although teacher beliefs may influence how climate change is presented in the classroom [12], younger
audiences may be able to better separate scientific evidence from its politically driven context.

Climate change education is key to address causes, mitigate damage, and adapt
Calderón 17 (Felipe, Felipe Calderón, former President of Mexico, is Chair of the Global
Commission on the Economy and Climate, "Why Climate Change Is an Education Issue," Project
Syndicate, 6-29-2017, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/climate-change-
education-issue-by-felipe-calderon-2016-07) //JCL
NEW YORK – Climate change affects us all, but we still are not acting as quickly as we should to
address its causes, mitigate the damage, and adapt to its effects. Many people don’t understand the risks
climate change poses to global economic and social structures. And, sadly, many who do understand are dismissive of the far-
reaching benefits a global shift to sustainability and clean energy would bring about. According to a recent Pew study,
seven out of ten Americans classified as political independents were not very concerned that
climate change would hurt them. Worse still, Yale University researchers recently found that 40% of
adults worldwide have never even heard of climate change. In some developing countries, such as India, that
figure climbs to 65%. These figures are discouraging, but they can be improved. The Yale study concluded that,
“educational attainment tends to be the single strongest predictor of public awareness of
climate change.” By investing in quality education, we can set the next generation on the right
path to addressing this global problem. Education and climate action work together in three
ways. For starters, education fills knowledge gaps. Understanding how climate change is already having an impact on
one’s life can have practical benefits. This is especially true for poor populations that are most vulnerable to
crop failures and natural disasters, such as landslides and floods, caused by climate change. Populations that
must rebuild from scratch after each new catastrophe miss out on opportunities for rapid development. By understanding
that their world is changing – and that the likelihood of future disasters is increasing – these populations
can build resilience and learn to adapt to the sudden and slow stresses of a changing climate.
Second, education challenges apathy. Knowing the measures available to address climate change
can open up vast opportunities for economic growth. Global investors should be made to understand that
sustainable solutions can increase wellbeing and create additional economic opportunities. To take one example, in
Niger, education and improved farming techniques helped double real farm incomes for more
than one million people, while restoring huge tracts of severely degraded land. In the US, as of 2014, there
were more jobs that depended on solar energy than on coal mining. Still, many people insist that
implementing measures to mitigate the effects of climate change is too costly to our current way of life. According to the
Pew study, almost seven out of ten people believe that, given the limitations of technology, they
would have to make major lifestyle changes. This does not have to be the case, and education
can challenge the kind of skepticism that forecloses opportunities for climate-smart living. Finally,
education furnishes the technical knowledge needed to build a better future through innovation
– one that includes clean and safe energy, sustainable agriculture, and smarter cities. Broadening access to education
would lead to more homegrown innovation – entrepreneurs spotting opportunities to address local problems.
Globally, we cannot rely on knowledge centers such as Silicon Valley or Oxford to develop a silver bullet to the climate problem.
Solutions may come from tech hubs, but they will also come from villages and developing cities,
from farmers and manufactures with vastly different perspectives on the world around them.
And this will create a virtuous cycle. It is easier for educated people to migrate and integrate
into new societies, sharing the knowledge they’ve brought with them. Fortunately, younger generations
today are better educated and more committed to reducing their own carbon footprint than previous generations were. They are
leading the way and forcing us all to reconsider our own actions. But we must broaden the availability of education
worldwide to ensure that their efforts are not in vain. In recognition of education’s importance, the government
of Norway, under the visionary leadership of Prime Minister Erna Solberg, has established the International Commission on
Financing Global Education Opportunity, of which I am a member. We will meet this week in Oslo, and it is my hope that we will
confront the challenges of our time and act on the knowledge that education is the best problem-solving asset we possess.
Addressing the dangers of climate change is not only an existential imperative; it is also an
opportunity to move toward a cleaner, more productive, and fairer path of development. Only
an educated global society can take the decisive action needed to get us there.

Education solves for climate change through adaptation – gives people key
skills and knowledge to be better prepared for natural disasters
McSweeney 14 (Robert, Robert McSweeney covers climate science. He holds an MEng in
mechanical engineering from the University of Warwick and an MSc in climate change from the
University of East Anglia. He previously spent eight years working on climate change projects at
the consultancy firm Atkins, "Education is "top priority" for climate change adaptation, study
shows," Carbon Brief, 11-27-2014, https://www.carbonbrief.org/education-is-top-priority-for-
climate-change-adaptation-study-shows) //JCL
Education does more to reduce deaths from climate-related disasters than economic growth, a
new study finds. The researchers say education helps reduce vulnerability to disasters and
enhances adaptation to climate change. Financing adaptation It’s hard to pin down exactly how much money developing
countries need to adapt to climate change. But some estimates suggest that it could be as much as $100 billion a year. Countries have so far pledged $9
billion to the UN Green Climate Fund, which will provide money for adaptation and mitigation in developing countries. Spending on climate change
adaptation tends to be focused on large infrastructure projects, such as flood defences and irrigation systems. But new research, published in Science,
suggests that investing in education could be a better way to reduce vulnerability to climate-related
disasters. Improving education reduces disaster deaths The researchers argue that previous studies have concentrated too heavily on how
economic development has reduced vulnerability to disasters such as floods, droughts and landslides. They point to recent case studies
that show improvements in education can give people the skills and knowledge to be better
prepared for, and better able to recover from, natural hazards. For example, better-educated
people in Cuba, Haiti and the Dominican Republic were faster at responding to hurricane alerts
and recuperated more quickly once one had struck. The researchers compare the influence
economic growth and education have on the number of deaths from disasters for 167 countries
across the world. They use Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per person as an indicator of economic growth and the number of women
completing at least secondary school education as an indicator for education. They then cross-reference these with a database of climate-related
disasters. The results
suggest that rising GDP has not reduced the number of deaths from climate-
related disasters in the past four decades, while having a greater number of women in education has.
Better awareness of risk So how does education reduce vulnerability to climate-related disasters? In an accompanying press release, co-author Dr Raya
Muttarak explains: “Education directly improves knowledge, the ability to understand and process
information, and risk perception. It also indirectly enhances socioeconomic status and social
capital. These are qualities and skills useful for surviving and coping with disasters.” Educated
people have a better awareness of risk, the authors argue, and it gives them the knowledge and skills to
adapt flexibly. This is important because while scientists can make long-term projections of climate
change, year-to-year weather variations mean they can’t say exactly when a disaster will hit and how severe
it will be. So a flexible approach to adaptation gives people and communities more capacity to cope when a disaster occurs. Projecting future
disaster deaths When the researchers run simulations of future climate-related disasters, they find a similar pattern: improved education
significantly reduces the number of deaths from disasters. The results are shown in the graph below. The researchers
use two pathways of how global education might change in the future: rapid expansion (red lines) and limited expansion (blue lines), which indicate,
respectively, either substantial or minimal investment in education around the world. The study models each education pathway against three
scenarios of future change in climate-related disasters: no change (solid line), a 10 per cent increase (dashed line) and a 20 per cent increase (dotted
line). You can see that for each scenario of climate-related disasters, the improved education pathway results in fewer deaths. The results suggest how
“education is key in reducing disaster fatalities and enhancing adaptive capacity,” says lead author Professor Wolfgang Lutz in the press release. Lutz Et
Al (2014) Fig2 Predicted number of disaster deaths (in millions) per decade with rapid expansion of education (SSP1) and limited expansion (SSP3). The
graph shows three scenarios of changing extreme events: no change (solid line), a 10 per cent increase (dashed line) and a 20 per cent increase (dotted
line). Adaptation
through education Investment in education should be “top priority” for adapting
to climate change in developing countries, the authors recommend.

Increasing funding for climate change education is key to mitigate and adapt to
climate change
Anderson 10 - Ms. Anderson holds a master’s degree in international relations from the
Graduate Institute of International Studies / l'Institut universitaire de hautes études
internationales in Geneva and a bachelor’s degree in political science with an interdisciplinary
concentration in international relations from Yale University. Allison Anderson is an adjunct
professor on Critical Challenges and Opportunities in Education in Emergencies through to
Recovery at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA). She is also a
consultant for Unbound Philanthropy, supporting education in emergencies grantees and
representing the foundation within the International Education Funders’ Group. (Allison,
"Combating Climate Change through Quality Education," Brookings, 9-16-2010, pg.6,
https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/09_climate_education.pdf) //JCL
Recommendation 1: Expand the climate change agenda to include education as a tool in
adaptation and mitigation strategies. Climate change presents the international community with
a historic opportunity to make development more sustainable through integrating adaptation
and mitigation measures. Education, through enabling individuals and communities to gain new
knowledge and skills, and to change their attitudes and behaviors, is a critical component of this
process. An expanded climate change agenda that promotes education as a tool to enhance
adaptive capacity and ensure that lifestyles and livelihoods are climate-friendly, reduce
vulnerabilities and manage risk is one that will be more effective and sustainable. …
Recommendation 3: Finance education to combat climate change. An investment in education
for sustainable development, including combating climate change, is an area where
development aid can achieve multiple objectives at once. A focus on the education of young
women is a “win-win” solution, as it will not only benefit the fight against climate change, but
also ensure environmental sustainability, combat HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and improve
child mortality, maternal mortality and related sustainable development outcomes, as
previously shown through development research. Currently, an inadequate level of financial
resources is impeding climate change education and outreach efforts. Funds urgently need be
invested within the education sector in order to enable all people, particularly youth, to build
green societies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the vulnerability of individuals and
systems to the impacts of climate change.

Scientists need the help of non-scientists to advocate for science in the age of
alternative facts
Rohn ’17 (Jenny Rohn, 1-25-2017, "Scientists can’t fight 'alternative facts' alone," Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2017/jan/25/alternative-facts-experts-
scientists-fight-alone-humanities) - byl
The uneasy tide of untruths has been rising, so subtly that we are up to our chins without being
sure how it ever got to that point. The recent jaw-dropping performance of Donald Trump and
his cronies, firing off random statements without even bothering to check whether they are
true, is not as disturbing as the fact that they seem to be getting away with it. It is no longer
enough for a reputable press outlet to cry foul – the corrections are shrugged off as partisan
conspiracy theorists, and the exposé no longer leads to shame, or the mending of ways. Say
something loud enough and often enough, and it starts to sound true. Get away with it enough,
and it becomes a viable strategy. The resistance to truth has been building for some time. The
general public has had enough of experts, we were told last year before the Brexit referendum.
But actually, expert views going unheeded by governments is nothing new. And the public has
been swayed by charismatic pseudoscientists for hundreds of years: today’s homeopathy
practitioners are just a modern version of yesterday’s snake-oil salesmen. Among the scientific
community, the preferred solution to countering irrational beliefs and outright lies has always
been education and engagement. More science in schools. Science exhibitions in museums.
Professional science “communicators” trudging through the tundra or hanging intrepidly off
helicopters on television. And more recently, encouraging ordinary jobbing scientists to be more
open about their work: pub talks, library chats, science stand-up and café scientifiques remain
on the line-up in major cities, and such activities are finally being incentivised in universities,
along with research output, grant income and teaching. This is all worthy stuff, and probably
works at some level. But is it enough? I think not. First, countering the “alternative facts”
mentality by providing the actual facts is only the first step. I’d even go so far as to say that it’s
fatal to assume that all you need is the right message. As the snake oil peddlers know only too
well, a persuasive, trusted persona is often much more effective. Unfortunately, scientists have
traditionally endured a bad reputation, rooted in ancient fears about meddling in the territory of
the gods. This classic uneasiness has been reinforced in modern times by conspicuous PR
disasters such as the Manhattan Project, and by the nagging suspicion that clever technology
attempting to enhance nature to improve our lives might have a sting in the tail. Society’s
ambivalence about science is reflected over the past century in fiction, in which the trope of
well-meaning boffin losing control of his experiment is played out again and again in Hollywood
and in countless speculative novels. While science communicators and friendly jobbing scientists
engaging with the public probably helps improve the overall reputation of scientists to some
extent, there is always the worry that they are preaching to the converted – the sort who
already like science, know roughly how it works and are not too susceptible to irrational beliefs
and conspicuous lying. The real conundrum is how to reach the sort of person who wouldn’t be
caught dead in a science museum or darken the door of a pub featuring researchers earnestly
describing their PhD instead of widescreen sport. My feeling is that scientists have to invade the
space of popular culture in a way that they have never managed before. In their description of
the new thriller Apple Tree Yard on iPlayer, the BBC described the protagonist incorrectly as a
‘doctor’ instead of a scientist – were they afraid that the S word might kill ratings? When was
the last time you saw a scientist as a contestant on a celebrity quiz programme, or switching on
the Christmas lights in a town centre? How many times do scientists turn up as characters,
major or minor, in television sit-coms, soaps or movies and novels about ordinary life, as
opposed to in science fiction? How often are scientists asked to air casual opinions on political
panels or broadcast interviews of major world events – in a milieu where it’s not uncommon to
see sports figures, politicians, journalists and the like asked to comment on issues not in their
remit? Science is the invisible profession. Most people have no idea what scientists do, and
may harbour a vague feeling of suspicion or uneasiness about the whole endeavour. Never
seeing scientists participate in normal life only enhances the sense that they are the ‘other’,
doing things that are ‘secret’ and by extrapolation, potentially dangerous. Until very recently,
Hollywood scientists were almost always portrayed with unflattering stereotypes. Though
refreshing changes have occurred in recent years, with scientist characters becoming more
human (and even female), we still have a long way to go to improve the image of science and its
practitioners – the vanguard of rational thought – in the eyes of the world. We scientists can no
longer go it alone. We need new allies, and new strategies. Non-scientists who believe that
science and the truth are concepts worth salvaging can actively help sell science too. Contrary
to popular scientist belief, the humanities may actually hold the key. Writers: include more
scientist characters in your fiction – not necessarily flattering portrayals, but human ones.
Producers – get more scientists up on air, not even necessarily talking shop. Make them familiar,
down-to-earth presences in our day-to-day world, until people are comfortable with the idea of
rubbing shoulders with researchers and understand them as multi-dimensional people. Only
then will the world at large have any chance of trusting the messenger.

Anthropogenic warming is occurring in the squo, and climate change education


is uniquely key to solve warming
Lombrozo 16 – associate professor of psychology at UC Berkeley, affiliate of the Department of
Philosophy, member of Institute for Cognitive and Brain Studies, recipient of NSF CAREER award,
McDonnell Foundation Scholar Award in Understanding Human Cognition, and Janet Taylor
Spench Award for Transformational Early Career Contributions. Bachelor degrees in Philosophy
and Symbolic Systems from Stanford, and PhD in psychology from Harvard University (Tania,
"What Does A Trump Presidency Mean For Climate-Change Education?," NPR.org, 11-21-2016,
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/11/21/502847128/what-does-a-trump-presidency-
mean-for-climate-change-education) //JCL
On Nov. 8, the World Meteorological Organization published a press release summarizing the findings from a report
on global climate from 2011-2015. The report identified the last five years as the hottest on record, with 2015
marking the first year with global temperatures more than 1 degree Celsius above the pre-industrial era. Arctic sea ice
declined, sea levels rose and many extreme weather events occurred — events that were "made
more likely as a result of human-induced (anthropogenic) climate change." The same day the press
release was published, Donald Trump was elected as the next president of the United States. This combination of events is deeply
troubling. Trump has called climate change a hoax and has threatened to withdraw from the 2015 Paris agreement to limit climate
change. Already, Trump has named climate skeptic Myron Ebell to head his Environmental Protection Agency transition team. More
generally, there's speculation and concern about what a Trump presidency will mean for scientifically informed policy, for science
funding and for science education. In an evaluation by Scientific American of four presidential candidates' responses to 20 questions
about science posed by ScienceDebate.org, Trump came in last, with 7 points out of a possible 100. (For comparison, Clinton earned
the highest score at 64). "The good thing about science," says Neil deGrasse Tyson, "is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
But the bad thing about science — at least when it comes to issues like climate change — is that it's true whether or not government
policies take it into account. In sum: The next four years aren't looking good for science (or for the natural world). Concerns are
especially acute when it comes to climate change and science education, where today's policies will have effects that extend well
beyond a single presidential term. To help me think about the implications of a Trump presidency for climate change education and
for science instruction more generally, I was fortunate to reach Ann Reid, executive director of the National Center for Science
Education (NCSE), a non-profit organization with the stated mission of defending "the integrity of science education against
ideological interference." Reid answered several questions about the future of science education in a conversation by email: The
National Center for Science Education initially focused on evolution education, but since 2012 climate-change education has also
been a core focus. Why do you think climate-change education is so important? Climate-change education is
important because climate change is important — certainly the most important environmental
challenge of our age. But the now-robust scientific consensus about its magnitude and potential consequences has emerged
relatively recently; few people over 30 learned anything about it when they were in school. So making sure that the next
generation understands what we know, how we know it, and what we can do about it, is
absolutely essential. What is NCSE's particular mission when it comes to climate change education? Historically, we focused
on evolution — an area of the science curriculum that faced (and continues to face) relentless interference by those who reject the
vast and varied evidence for evolution for religious reasons. We added climate change to our mission because we were seeing the
same kinds of tactics that had long been used against evolution being deployed against climate
change. Calls for teachers to "teach both sides," "teach the controversy," or "emphasize the strengths and weaknesses" of the
science. All of these approaches are insidious: superficially banal but substantively dangerous. There
are not two scientifically valid "sides," nor is there a scientific "controversy," nor are there
"weaknesses" in the evidence for either evolution or climate change that merit emphasis in the
high school classroom. What is especially disturbing is that even as these efforts to interfere with the
science curriculum have generally been blocked, they have, in a way, still succeeded, because they
have singled out these areas of science as somehow different from the rest of science. Even those
teachers who just want to teach the science are uneasy: Will there be pushback? Will parents or school board members complain?
In too many cases, this uneasiness leads to compromise. We know that some 60 percent of high school public biology teachers
somehow hedge, thin down, or avoid teaching evolution altogether. About one-quarter of middle- and high-school science teachers
confusingly emphasize both that "many scientists believe that recent increases in temperature are likely due to natural causes" and
"scientists agree that recent global warming is primarily being caused by human release of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels." This
kind of mixed message not only interferes with teaching climate change and evolution, but risks confusing students about the nature
of science itself. Students need to leave school understanding that scientific conclusions are based on evidence, not beliefs. What do
you see as the greatest current threats to the integrity of science education in general, and to climate change education in
particular? We are deeply concerned that the politicization of climate change will continue to have a chilling
effect in classrooms, where many teachers may be reluctant simply to teach the science, which is straightforward and
unambiguous. Rising levels of carbon dioxide trap heat. Humans are releasing a lot of carbon
dioxide. That's the crux of the scientific argument and it's not very complicated! Even though climate change is covered well in
the Next Generation Science Standards, and is likely to be included in much greater depth in new editions of textbooks, if teachers
are concerned about community disapproval, they may nevertheless avoid teaching the science, or inappropriately present it as
debatable. It is important to recognize that most science teachers have not received any formal instruction in climate change, a topic
that crosses disciplinary boundaries and has not traditionally been a required course for aspiring science teachers. In our survey,
teachers reported great enthusiasm for professional development on the topic; they need and deserve to get that training, along
with advice on how to deal with potential conflict and confusion.
S – Teacher Training
Most teachers hold severe misconceptions about climate change that spill over
to those of students – professional teacher development of climate science is
necessary
Hurst 6/7 (Nathan, assistant professor in the University of Missouri College of
Education, 6/7/2017, http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases/2017/0607-climate-
change-misconceptions-common-among-teachers-study-finds/)
COLUMBIA, Mo. – Recent studies have shown that misconceptions about climate change and the
scientific studies that have addressed climate change are pervasive among the U.S. public. Now, a
new study by Benjamin Herman, assistant professor in the Department of Learning, Teaching and Curriculum in the University of
Missouri College of Education, shows that many secondary school science teachers also possess several of
these same misconceptions. In the study, Herman surveyed 220 secondary science teachers in Florida
and Puerto Rico to determine their knowledge about climate change science. The survey asked
questions regarding things that do contribute to climate change, such as greenhouse gas emissions,
and things that do not significantly contribute, such as the depletion of the ozone layer and the
use of pesticides. The survey also asked whether controlled scientific experiments are required to
validate climate change. While the majority of the surveyed teachers accurately responded that fossil
fuel use, automobiles and industry emissions were major causes of climate change, they also exhibited
notable climate change misconceptions. For instance, nearly all of the Puerto Rico teachers and more than 70 percent
of Florida teachers believed incorrectly that ozone layer depletion and pesticide use were at least minor,
yet significant, causes of climate change. Additionally, Herman says that nearly 50 percent of Florida teachers and nearly 70
percent of Puerto Rico teachers think that climate change science must be studied through controlled
experiments to be valid. Herman says the teachers in his study exhibited climate change science misconceptions at a similar
rate to average Americans. He says these results are understandable given that teachers are often
overworked and not afforded professional development opportunities that would deepen their
climate change science knowledge. “Teachers want and need support to keep them abreast of
scientific discoveries and developments and how scientists come to their well-established claims
regarding climate change,” Herman said. “Climate change science involves many different types of
science methods stemming from disciplines, including physics, biology, atmospheric science and
earth science. Science teachers also need professional development directed at assisting them in
their efforts to accurately and effectively engage students on this important issue. Because of existing
misconceptions and misinformation regarding climate change, science teachers have a crucial
professional and ethical responsibility to accurately convey to their students how climate
change is studied and why scientists believe the climate is changing.”

Teachers key to end denialism – they’re the main channel that furthers “climate
controversy”
Luhn 16 (Robert, Director of Communications for National Center for Science Education,
“First Nationwide Survey of Climate Change Education”, 2/11/2016,
https://ncse.com/climate/first-nationwide-survey-climate-change-education) RC
How is climate change being taught in America's public schools? The answers may shock you. How is climate change being taught in American schools?
Is it being taught at all? And how are teachers addressing climate change denial in their classrooms, schools, and school districts? Until today's release
of NCSE's comprehensive nationwide survey, no one knew. The survey, conducted in concert with the respected nonpartisan Penn State University
Survey Research Center, grilled over 1500 middle and high school science teachers. The results may floor you. " At
least one in three
teachers bring climate change denial into the classroom, claiming that many scientists believe
climate change is not caused by humans" says NCSE programs and policy director Josh Rosenau.
"Worse, half of the surveyed teachers have allowed students to discuss the supposed
'controversy' over climate change without guiding students to the scientifically supported
conclusion." Scarier still: three out of five teachers were unaware of, or actively misinformed about,
the near total scientific consensus on climate change. Teachers who want to teach climate change accurately and
honestly don't have an easy time of it. "There are some great climate education resources out there" says NCSE's climate maven Dr. Minda Berbeco.
"But many teachers don't have time to find and evaluate these materials". How much climate change education
are kids ultimately getting? "Not as much as we had hoped, and not enough to provide students a solid grounding in the science. Often, it's only one or
two hours in the entire year!" says Dr. Eric Plutzer, professor of political science at Penn State, who designed and implemented the survey. "The good
news? Few teachers were pressured to avoid teaching about global warming and its causes." Still more cause for hope: "It's clear that the vast majority
of surveyed teachers are hungry for additional professional development" says Berbeco. "Even half the teachers who deny the scientific consensus on
climate change say they would take this training." "Teachers
didn't create the polarized culture war around climate
change" says Rosenau, "But they're the key to ending this battle."
S – NGS Standards
Previous standards prove national climate education reform teaches students
Busch and Osborne 13 (KC and Jonathan, Jonathan Osborne is the Kamalachari Professor of
Science Education at Stanford University with B.Sc Physics Bristol University, 1972 Post Graduate
Certificate in Education, Cambridge University, 1973 Masters in Astrophysics, Queen Mary
College, University of London, 1976 PhD (Education), King's College, University of London, 1996
and KC Busch holds a Ph.D. in science education from Stanford University and an M.A. from the
University of Texas in Austin. “Can We Get “There” from “Here”? An Argument for Improved
Climate Science Education Through Texas State Adoption of the Next Generation Science
Standards”, Stanford University, Volume 1 pp. 196-208;
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/45886/Busch.Osborne_Improved-
Climate-Science-Education_TxEdRev.pdf?sequence=1)-AK47
(USGCRP, 2009, p. 9-16). Since 2011, a 41-member writing team from 26 states has been developing and
refining a new set of national science standards for K-12 education. Two rounds of public feedback were
sought and then used in the revision process. This past spring, the working group released the final version of the
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) for adoption. The NGSS is organized somewhat differently than previous
national standards documents. The NGSS provides Performance Expectations, which are statements to be used for assessment of
student science learning. These Performance Expectations were drawn from and are correlated to the Disciplinary Core Ideas
developed by the National Research Council’s A Framework for K-12 Science Education. The Disciplinary Core Ideas are considered
the most essential ideas that a student should understand after they finish their K-12 science education. Taken together, the
Performance Expectations and the Disciplinary Core Ideas
outline what a student should know about science
when they graduate from high school. These changes invite the question, then, are states that
adopt these standards better poised to teach students about climate science? Thankfully, the answer is yes!
Not only will climate science be taught in greater quantity (more standards include climate as a
topic) but also with greater quality (more clearly and richly described climate science learning
outcomes). Climate is included in both the Performance Expectations (see Table 3) as well as within the Disciplinary Core Ideas
(see Table 4). Climate is mentioned six times in elementary, four times in middle, and three times in high school biology. In addition,
climate is included eleven times in high Improved Climate Science Education 200 school earth science; however this course is
generally not required for graduation. The standards are also more comprehensive and detailed in their language. Under the new
standards, the same fifth grade Texas student who would have been “differentiating between weather and climate,” will be
expected to “develop a model using an example to describe ways the geosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and/or atmosphere
interact [Examples could include the influence of the ocean on ecosystems, landform shape, and climate]” (Achieve, Inc., 2013).
Additionally, the NGSS are more closely aligned with the seven Principles of Climate Science Literacy. Most of the principles are
covered directly in the language of the standards. For example, the Next Generation standard above – “develop a model using an
example to describe ways the geosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, and/or atmosphere interact” – can be linked to principles two
and five, namely that the “climate is regulated by complex interactions among components of the Earth system” and that “our
understanding of the climate system is improved through observations, theoretical studies, and modeling.” Can We Get There?
Clearly the Next Generation Science Standards
provide more opportunity to teach and learn about climate
science in the K-12 setting than do existing state science standards, so is the “there” within our grasp? The
strongest impediment is that the adoption of the new standards is voluntary at the state level.
S - Curriculum Improvement
Spreading the consensus among the scientific community to secondary schools
about climate change is key to solve despite different political ideologies
Linden ’16 (Sander Van Der Linden Contributor, Dr. Sander van der Linden is a social-
psychologist based in Princeton University's Department of Psychology with joint appointments
in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public Affairs and the Andlinger Center for Energy and the
Environment., 2-18-2016, "Climate Change's Unseen Consensus," US News & World Report,
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/knowledge-bank/articles/2016-02-18/teachers-need-to-
communicate-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change) - byl
In the history of science, there have been few instances in which almost all experts in a particular field
were in complete agreement. Climate change is one of those instances. Nearly two decades of
research has converged on the following fact: Over 97 percent of climate scientists have independently
concluded that human-caused global warming is happening. In a new study published in Science magazine
last week, Eric Plutzer and colleagues report a finding that should alarm the nation: Only 30 percent of middle-school
and 45 percent of high-school science teachers in the U.S. are aware of the fact that nearly all
climate scientists are convinced that global warming is caused mostly by human activities.
Here's the kicker: The authors explain that although many science teachers themselves believe that
climate change is happening, because most are not aware of the scientific consensus on
human-caused climate change many opt to teach "both sides" of the so-called climate debate,
mistakenly giving students the impression that the basic facts are still contested, rather than
conveying the fact that there is a deep and well-established consensus among climate scientists.
A great deal of our own research, as well as that of many other researchers, has identified the importance of communicating
the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. In particular, we find that people's perception of the degree of scientific
consensus acts as an important "gateway belief." Many people's thoughts and feelings about climate
change – for example, that climate change is happening, human-caused and a serious threat
that requires better climate policy – are influenced by their understanding of the scientific
consensus. To put it simply, educating – or failing to educate – people about the scientific consensus on human-caused climate
change has important consequences for building public will to limit global warming, as America and 195 other nations pledged to do
last December. [SEE: Editorial Cartoons on Energy Policy] In their new study, Plutzer and colleagues report another
important finding: Political ideology plays an important role in how teachers present the evidence on
climate change. Importantly, our research has shown that one of the few facts that speaks to both conservatives and liberals in
a powerful way is information about the scientific consensus on human-caused climate change. In our experiments, we
repeatedly find that conservatives are especially receptive to information about the consensus. In our latest national
study (involving over 6,000 Americans), we actually found that communicating the scientific
consensus directly strengthens other important key beliefs that people hold about climate
change, among conservatives, moderates and liberals alike. This is not only true for climate science –
perceived expert consensus also plays an important role in shaping public attitudes toward other
scientific issues, such as vaccine safety. For example, conveying the high level of medical consensus on vaccine safety
helps to correct influential misperceptions, such as public belief in fraudulent reports of a link between vaccines and autism.
There is something unique and important about the notion of expert consensus that sets it apart
from other type of facts. For one, experts are a nonpartisan group, they come from all walks of life
– conservative, moderate, liberal – and their message is simply scientific, not political. In fact,
scientific consensus describes the level of agreement among the set of experts who are in the best position to know the science.
Second, group consensus is something we can all intuitively understand, and we use consensus as
a heuristic to inform our decision-making because we know from experience that relying on
expert consensus often leads to positive outcomes. For example, if nine out of 10 doctors told you that you need
urgent medical treatment, your beliefs about what to do are likely guided by your perception of the consensus (and for good
reason!). [READ: NASA
and NOAA Report That 2015 Was the Hottest Year on Record] At present,
only about one out of 10 Americans understand the level of scientific consensus on human-
caused climate change. Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes points out that vested interest groups have spent
millions of dollars on orchestrating disinformation campaigns with the explicit aim of undermining public understanding of the
scientific consensus. Before climate change, the same happened in the debate over the link between smoking and lung cancer.
Tobacco companies have long understood the psychological consequences of sowing doubt: As long as people think there
is disagreement among the experts, most won't act. American children are currently being presented with a false
debate. This needs to end: We urge secondary school science teachers to set the record straight by
educating their students about the overwhelming degree of scientific consensus on human-
caused climate change. Teaching this simple fact will help groom the next generation of American
leaders to make decisions based on sound science – decisions that are in the best interest of the United States,
other nations and our entire planet, including the crucial life support systems on which we all depend.

Two thirds of students don’t accurately learn about climate change – a climate
based curriculum is key to solve.
Goldenberg 16, (Suzanne, is the US environment correspondent of the Guardian and is based
in Washington DC. She has won several awards for her work in the Middle East, “Two-thirds of
US students are taught climate change badly, study finds” The Guardian, Feb 11, 2016,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/11/two-thirds-of-us-students-are-
taught-climate-change-badly-study-finds) -os
Nearly two-thirds of schoolchildren in the US are taught lessons on climate change that do not rise
to the level of a sound science education, according to new research on Thursday. The finding provide
new evidence on the source of the confusion and denial surrounding global warming in American public life. In the first national
survey of classroom science teachers, researchers found there was short shrift given to the teaching of climate change in public
middle and high schools in all 50 states. The survey of 1,500 teachers, published in Science on Thursday, found most
pupils
spend only an hour or two in the course of an academic year learning about climate change in
middle and high school – and much of what they are taught is confusing or simply wrong. Only
38% of American schoolchildren were taught lessons that adhere to the scientific consensus that
climate change is largely the result of the burning of fossil fuels, the researchers from Pennsylvania State
University and the National Centre for Science Education found. Some 30% of teachers spent less than an hour on
climate change during the last academic year, the researchers found. In higher grades, much of
that time was spent going over old material without introducing more advanced material. Some
7% attributed recent warming to natural causes – which is simply wrong – while 4% of teachers
avoided talking about the cause of climate change. Another 22% said their lessons mentioned
the scientific consensus – but also that there was significant disagreement among scientists, which is also incorrect. The
findings suggest that younger generations – those most likely to experience the havoc and stress of
climate change in their lifetimes – are not getting the education to best serve their needs. Eric
Plutzer, a political scientist at Penn State, and a co-author of the study, said: “We don’t think that is good preparation for citizens to
be effective in advocating for policies that are going to be critical to their own generation and their children and grandchildren.” The
lack of teaching and the mixed messages about climate change leave schoolchildren more
susceptible to disinformation about climate change spread by political or corporate interests
once they enter adulthood, the researchers said. The energy industry has spent millions funding climate
denial and supporting Republicans in Congress who deny global warming is occurring. Indeed, the
researchers found that many of the teachers themselves were confused about the causes of climate change. Only 30% of middle
school teachers and 45% of high school teachers said that human activity was the main driver of climate change, the researchers
found. Their
findings are in line with other studies which have found systemic failings in the
teaching of climate change. A Stanford University study of science textbooks used in California
public schools last year found misleading material. Unlike other, more informal surveys, the researchers did not
give much weight to the idea that the teachers faced political and parental pressure to avoid teaching the science. But politics
remained a factor in how teachers decided to teach the material, Plutzer said. “Politics intrude in the same form it takes in the public
debate, with teachers whether consciously or not aligning in much the same way as political groups do outside the classroom.”
However, the researchers said it would be unfair to heap the blame on teachers. Climate
science was not yet part of
the testable curriculum for many schools – which means there were fewer guidelines available
to teachers. That also meant that teachers were inclined to spend more time teaching other material
that students would encounter on standardized tests. Some of the teachers were also caught out by the rapid
advances in climate science. Fewer than half of teachers reported receiving any training in climate science at university, said Josh
Rosenau, policy director for the National Center for Science in Education and a co-author. “The scientific community has not made
sure that teachers are kept up to date with those advances,” he said, adding that there should be continuing
education programs on climate change for teachers.2

Curriculum based on sustainability is key to solving climate change in the future


Watson ’17, ( Allison Watson, honors student at the University of Tennessee, “Sustainability
Education in Primary and Secondary Schools: Great Needs and Possible Solutions” Trace:
Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange, May 2017,
http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3047&context=utk_chanhonoproj) - os
Overall, I think that these four lesson plans demonstrate that the topic of sustainability can be
incorporated into lessons without sacrificing the required content of the course. They also
emphasize the interdisciplinary nature of sustainability and that it can be incorporated into
lessons for almost any secondary level course. Conclusion To conclude, there is a great need for
sustainability in the U.S. and worldwide. From local research, I discovered that students have
little to no knowledge of sustainability. Today’s youth will be the ones that have to make the
decisions about sustainability in order to survive and thrive. Sustainability is an interdisciplinary
topic and should be taught with this in mind. Thus, one of the best ways to teach sustainability is
by incorporating it into many different primary and secondary level courses. Through integrative
and inspirational lesson, I believe that teachers have the power to teach students the principles
and skills necessary to preserve the planet for themselves and future generations.
S - Students/Citizens
Students key to solve climate
Murdock ’16 (Andy Murdock, Uc Newsroom, 5-26-2016, "Steyer: Students must lead on
climate solutions. Students: We’re on it.," University of California,
https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/philanthropist-tom-steyer-students-must-lead-
climate-solutions) - byl
To Steyer, climate change isn’t just one issue on a long list, it’s the foremost issue of the day – and one in which students must play a
central role. “Students
have long held the role in society of being the ones who are willing to
challenge the status quo,” Steyer said. “Young people today are much more informed, and they care a lot.” Steyer thinks
this passion will translate into action at the polls, where young voters have shown increasing apathy in recent elections. A big piece
of the puzzle has fallen into place: American businesses have rapidly gotten on board because it’s now clearly in their economic
interest. “One thing people may not know is that around 98 percent of new electricity generation in the U.S. in the first quarter of
2016 came from renewable energy,” Steyer said, citing data from the most recent U.S.
Energy Infrastructure report.
What’s missing, he said, is political leadership. Youth voters can help press the leaders of today into action,
and they can become the leaders of tomorrow. “If there are going to be technological and political solutions from the U.S., they’re
going to come from California,” Steyer said. “It’s essential that young people are a part of it.” Students leading the way Steyer didn’t
need to tell the audience at Carbon Slam that young
Americans are well-informed and care passionately
about solving climate change: The presenters were living proof. Organized by UC Santa Cruz professor Sue Carter,
Carbon Slam gave students from all 10 UC campuses the chance to pitch their research to a panel of expert judges on the topics of
climate change impact and climate change solutions. Each student had three minutes to convince the judges that their idea held the
greatest potential to have an impact on the fight against climate change. UCBerkeley's Alexis Shusterman won the climate
impacts portion of the competition and was the people’s choice winner for her work with BEACON (Berkeley Atmospheric CO2
Observation Network), which focuses on an inexpensive way to help cities and counties assess the
effectiveness of their policies. “Right now, there’s no way for policymakers to know which
policies are working and which are not,” Shusterman said. You can’t measure success unless you can measure the
problem. Shusterman’s work helps regions assess whether existing measures are working and take a targeted, local approach to
remaining problems. UC Berkeley graduate student Alexis Shusterman presenting at Carbon Slam Credit: University of California For
climate change solutions, the judges awarded the first place prize to Eric Walters from UC Davis, who is working on
developing biofuels using a novel fungal intermediary that could help bring the cost of
manufacturing down to a level competitive with petroleum-based fuels. The people’s choice award for
climate change solutions went to the team out of UC Santa Barbara. Shannon Walker, Heather Hochrein, Erin
Williamson and Kelsey Johnson developed an online marketplace called EV Match that connects people
with electric cars to people with available private charging stations – a sharing-economy tool that helps
solve the problem of insufficient charging stations for electric vehicle drivers. Empowering the next generation The Faculty
Climate Action Champions, who also presented at Carbon Slam, are not only pushing climate research forward,
they’re also taking on the challenge of training students in the broad skills that will be needed
to take on the challenges of climate change in the real world. UC Irvine’s Steve Allison is developing
partnerships with industry to help train climate leaders and give grad students options to make a difference outside of academia.
“Graduate students need practical training and preparation for diverse career options,” Allison said, noting that while only a small
fraction of graduate students land academic positions, their skill set makes them highly qualified for jobs in connected industries
that could have just as much impact.

Politicians and ordinary people together are key to resolve warming


Bacchi ’17 (Umberto Bacchi, 5-9-2017, "People, not politicians key to fighting climate change:
Obama," Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-obama-climatechange-people-
idUSKBN18524G) - byl
MILAN (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - The actions of ordinary people, not politicians, are key
to fighting global warming, former U.S. President Barack Obama said on Tuesday, as the current
administration is set to decide whether to pull out of a major climate agreement. Obama said
while politicians can help guide climate policies, it's businessmen seeking to cut on energy
consumption and waste or mothers taking action out of concern for the future of their children
that can make a real difference. "The energy to bring about change is going to come from what
people do every day," he told a food industry conference in Milan. "People have a tendency to
blame politicians when things don't work. But, as I always tell people: 'you get the politicians
you deserve'," he added, calling for more public engagement in politics.

Students are open to climate change, and effective educators solve stubborn
students
Palmer 12 (Lisa, Lisa Palmer is a freelance reporter in Maryland. Her work has appeared in
Scientific American, Nature Climate Change, Fortune, and The Yale Forum, among other outlets.
DailyClimate.org is a foundation-funded news service that covers climate change, The Daily
Climate, "Climate Education Graduates to the Next Level," Scientific American, 5-21-2012,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-education-graduates-to-next-level/) //JCL
BALTIMORE—Ninth grade science at the Academy for Career and College Education began the usual way last fall. Victoria
Matthew's students learned the difference between biotic and abiotic characteristics, then progressed to the basics of
scientific method. By Thanksgiving, they were ready for climate change. That's when Matthew braced herself.
"Initially, I thought I was going to get a lot of pushback from the kids, said Matthew, a teacher at the inner-
city charter school for grades six through 12. "But I didn't encounter any. I was surprised." Like teaching evolution,
efforts to improve climate science lessons have opened rifts in classrooms and school districts across the United States. Parents have
pressured teachers not to teach the subject. Teachers have watered down the science. Special interests – from the Heartland
Institute on the right to Facing the Future on the left – have vied to influence curriculum. Some states and districts have ignored the
topic altogether. Others insist on a "balanced" debate that pits a small minority of scientists who deny human-driven climate change
against the findings of nearly all earth and atmospheric scientists. But the landscape is changing rapidly and profoundly in public
schools. Earlier this month, the education-based nonprofit Achieve, Inc. released draft "next generation science standards" for
elementary, middle- and high-school classrooms. Developed from recommendations by the National Research Council, the
standards represent the first comprehensive revision of U.S. science curricula in 15 years. They highlight "cross-cutting" concepts
that touch various disciplines, giving students a "cumulative, coherent and usable understanding" of science and engineering.
Climate change plays a key role. Groups are stepping forward to buttress climate science in schools, pushing to ensure the topic is
well-represented in new national science standards. Science and education leaders are seeking ways to broaden climate science
from a narrow unit of earth science curriculum into an interdisciplinary subject taught across a variety of physical and social science
classes. The hope is that, if
educators can effectively teach the nuance and complexity of climate
change, the gains would bolster larger efforts to improve science education overall, aiding
literacy and critical thinking.
S – Fed Key
The climate education debate has divulged into a chaotic dissemination of
opinions versus evidence – federal government’s lack of involvement uniquely
impacts this
Franko 6/20 (Kantele Franko is a reporter for the US news, “Should Climate Change Be Taught
in Schools?”, US News, June 20, 2017, https://www.usnews.com/news/best-
states/ohio/articles/2017-06-20/debate-heats-up-over-teaching-climate-change-in-us-schools) -
-sk
The struggle over what American students learn about global warming is heating up as
conservative lawmakers, climate change doubters and others attempt to push rejected or
debunked theories into the classroom. An overwhelming majority of climate scientists say manmade emissions drive
global warming, but there's no such consensus among educators over how climate change and its causes should be taught. In this
June 1, 2017, file photo, President Donald Trump speaks about the U.S. role in the Paris climate change accord in the Rose Garden of
the White House in Washington. A new poll finds that less than a third of Americans support Trump’s decision to
withdraw from the Paris climate accord, with just 18 percent of respondents agreeing with his claim that pulling out
of the international agreement to reduce carbon emissions will help the U.S. economy. Poll: Most Want Paris Deal Several U.S.
states recently considered measures allowing or requiring teachers to present alternatives to
widely accepted viewpoints on such topics. For example, a stalled proposal in Iowa would have
required teaching "opposing points of view" on topics such as global warming, and proposed science
standards in Idaho would have students taught that human impact is driving global warming and that natural factors also contribute.
The debate is arriving on teachers' doorsteps nationwide, as thousands are being mailed the
book "Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming" from a Chicago-area advocacy group called The
Heartland Institute that challenges the assertion that there is consensus about a human-caused climate crisis. In a follow-up
statement, the institute's president said science instructors should "keep an open mind" and shouldn't teach "dogma pushed by
some environmental activist groups." The National Center for Science Education made rebuttal flyers
explaining that Heartland relies on debunked theories. The National Science Teachers Association dismissed the
mailing as propaganda and urged educators to recycle the books. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump's decision to
withdraw the United States from an international agreement aimed at curbing global warming is
reinforcing some teachers' sense of urgency about discussing humans' role in accelerating
climate change. "This isn't just something we're talking about because it's going to be on the test," said Jim Reding, a
high school teacher in Granville, Ohio, who said he wants his students to think critically and have civil,
reasoned conversations on the topic. "This is something that could have an impact on my life or my children's life
going forward." An NCSE survey released last year of 1,500 public middle- and high-school science teachers found about
three-quarters taught something about climate change during the 2014-15 school year. About a quarter give equal time
to "perspectives that raise doubt about the scientific consensus," the survey found. Approaches to
teaching climate science depend largely on state science standards and decisions by districts and
instructors, because the federal government doesn't dictate curriculum, said Glenn Branch, deputy
director of the science education center. Many schools teach climate change in some way, but teachers
vary in knowledge of the topic and how much they emphasize human impact, he said. Lawmakers in Alabama
and Indiana recently passed resolutions in support of giving teachers' latitude in how they help
students analyze and critique scientific theories. Bills to put similar allowances into law fizzled in Oklahoma, South
Dakota and Texas. Florida lawmakers approved making it easier for people to challenge textbooks as
inappropriate, and critics argued that bill could lead to schools removing books that discuss climate change. It's "permission, or
in some cases even an imperative, to talk about things which are not scientific in the science classroom," he said. "And we firmly
oppose that." But the South Dakota bill's primary sponsor, Republican Sen. Jeff Monroe, argued it's a matter of balance and critical
inquiry. He said he heard from educators seeking more latitude because they feel pressured under state standards to teach primarily
one view on scientific theories such as climate change. He said none would publicly speak about their feelings or testify when
lawmakers considered the measure because they feared backlash in their schools and communities. "All I want is for them to be able
to show the strengths and weaknesses of the theory, whatever they're talking about," and for state law to outline that allowance,
Monroe said. Joe Skahan, a science teacher in Lynn, Massachusetts, said he feels strongly about climate
change as a problem and ways to address it, but he lets students draw their own conclusions
based on what's observable. He devotes several weeks of lessons to climate science and might have students build
windmills to learn about renewable energy, discuss rising sea levels or evaluate benefits of energy-efficient lightbulbs. "It's up to
teachers to be confident and, you know, not afraid to keep strong to teach the science
regardless of what they're saying at the White House," Skahan said. Trump said he left the Paris climate accord
because it was unfair to the country. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos backed Trump's announcement and told reporters then,
during a visit to a charter school in Washington on June 2, that she believes the climate is changing, but she wouldn't answer a
reporter's question about whether human activity is causing that. The Republican president previously downplayed evidence of
human impact in climate change and once suggested global warming is an economically motivated "hoax" by the Chinese, though his
current beliefs are less clear. "The president believes that the climate is always changing — sometimes for the better and sometimes
for the worse. Pollutants are part of that equation," the White House said in a statement this month. Evans, of
the teachers
association, said he doesn't want students caught in political rhetoric but believes Trump is
sending the wrong message about climate change and "the value of science in public life."
Students should be presented with evidence, not opinion, and understand topics like climate
change by learning the science behind them, not merely accepting others' conclusions, he said.

States fail – under enforcement makes litigation more likely and it decreases
policy certainty
Emily Powers, Brooklyn Law School J.D., 2011, Note and Comment: Fracking and Federalism:
Support for an Adaptive Approach That Avoids the Tragedy of the Regulatory Commons, 19 J.L.
& Pol'y 913
First, it is important to note that New York’s regulations may not result in protection of some
baseline standards that EPA has established.259 For instance, concentrations of toxic pollutants
in flowback hydrofracking fluids have measured in excess of amounts that would be permissible
under the SDWA, and flowback fluids can be high in pollutants ruled hazardous under RCRA.260
Because New York State has not updated its wetland map after pivotal Supreme Court decisions
that altered federal jurisdiction over wetlands,261 there may be pollutant releases onto what
should be federally regulated land.262 New York’s ability to achieve water quality standards
under the CWA may be seriously overestimated in light of criticism that the State has not
accurately estimated the extent of cumulative impacts on water quality.263 Air emissions from
wellpad activities, if aggregated, might far exceed the minimum requirements that trigger the
CAA.264 These examples demonstrate that New York’s scheme might result in failure to meet
federal standards that would apply absent exemptions or do apply to the same or similar harms
caused by other industries and suggest that as a threshold matter, state primacy over
hydrofracking will create results inconsistent with existing law.
Furthermore, the New York scheme’s reliance on local implementation of emergency planning,
public health, waste disposal, and road regulation enhances the probability that unintended
harms may occur. The level of risk that localities are expected to bear is disproportionate to the
resources they have to handle that risk.265 As a result, the State’s regulatory regime is
effectively dependent on voluntary industry action.266 Local officials hope energy companies
will agree to provide necessary infrastructure—like roads—and emergency response support—
like basic firefighting equipment—even though the industry has incentives to downplay and
minimize concerns to the detriment of preparedness.267 Moreover, experiences of local
officials show that localities do not feel well equipped to handle even routine incidental, let
alone catastrophic, impacts from fracking and that they lack reliable information to help them
bargain with energy companies optimally.268
Lack of oversight and enforcement powers at state and local levels may lead to lax, inconsistent,
or insufficient compliance with existing state and local regulations.269 Even where officials are
dedicated to proactive prevention and oversight efforts, local staffs are inadequate to conduct
inspections that would ensure that companies—who may be unfamiliar with desired or
mandated local practices, given variation from town to town—are heeding regulations and
ordinances.270 If noncompliance is detected, local enforcement power does not appear
sufficient to induce adherence to laws.271 Furthermore, at the state level, an insufficient
number of wellpad inspectors can lead to severely reduced checks on drilling and production
activities, which may make it more likely that harm-generating errors will occur.272 If harm
does occur, lack of oversight may make identification of the responsible party difficult, given
the number of component processes that make up hydrofracking.273
S – Funding
Grant funding key to improve climate education
Stringer 16 (Kate, Journalist, “We can’t solve climate change without teaching it: Why more
classes are headed outside”, Yes! Magazine/ PRI Public Radio International, February 24, 2016
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-02-24/we-can-t-solve-climate-change-without-teaching-it-
why-more-classes-are-heading) -KW
Standing waist-deep in Connecticut’s West River, Nyasia Mercer’s mind is far from the cold, murky water lapping against her rubber
waders. The high-schooler is thinking of people. The ones who swim here. Fish here. The ones who unwittingly dump liquid waste
into nearby sewers. And how few of them know what swirls through their neighborhood waterway. “It’s sad,” Mercer says. “A lot of
these things could have been prevented if the community knew how. A lot don’t know how to advocate for themselves.” But self-
advocacy isn’t a problem for the students at Common Ground High School in New Haven, where Mercer is a senior. She and her
classmates spend their school days sometimes literally waist-deep in environmental justice issues. Common Ground, a charter
school with almost 200 students, integrates conservation, sustainability, and environmental studies into the curriculum and across
disciplines. And it’s not the only one. Some
schools across the United States are finding place-based
learning creates a valuable connection between students’ local environment and their
education, especially during a time of rapid climate change. Environmentally-themed schools have grown in
popularity since the early 1990s, fueled by increasing climate-change awareness, a push for smaller, STEM-based schools, and a
desire to connect an urban population of students to nature, says Brigitte Griswold, director of youth programs at The Nature
Conservancy. While climate change awareness has improved over the past two decades, US
middle- and high-school
classrooms spend an average of only one to two hours per school year covering it, according to a
survey of science teachers published in the February 2016 issue of Science. And misinformation
abounds: Thirty percent of teachers say climate change is likely caused by natural events; twelve percent don’t emphasize a human
cause. That’s why it’s
so important to have schools that incorporate environmental literacy across the
curriculum, Griswold says. Every subject area is tied in some way to the environment. “If we don’t have an
environmentally literate generation of young people trained, who will install the solar panels,
and retrofit buildings?” Griswold says. “The environment is something everyone could be involved in and should be
involved in.” Place-based learning isn’t solely for the elite. Half of Common Ground’s student body qualifies for free or reduced-price
lunch, and two-thirds are black or Hispanic. “What’s really important is that (students) have the tools they need to speak up for what
they know is important,” says Liz Cox, Common Ground’s director. “That they have the fundamental understanding of what it means
to live in a sustainable way.” One of the attractions of an environment-based curriculum is that
students find their work
has real-world outcomes. They’re no longer doing work just for the sake of doing it. Mercer and her classmates, for
example, collected data on water quality, which the school presented to the Environmental Protection Agency’s New England
Environmental Justice Council. She and her peers also put up signs near sewers adjacent to the river to warn community members
against polluting the waterway. Their projects blossomed. Mercer has found herself planting trees around Connecticut with the
Urban Resources Initiative, walking in a New York City 2014 climate march, and cleaning up metal and glass strewn across Jamaica
Bay after Hurricane Sandy. The Port Townsend School District in Washington State, similar economically to Common Ground, is
developing maritime-themed schooling to match its surroundings: the tip of the Olympic Peninsula, overlooking the Salish Sea.
Grant funding allows teachers, experts, and community partners to collaborate on curriculum
design for the district’s nearly 1,200 students. For example, last spring a science teacher interested in introducing
robots to his students contacted the Port Townsend Marine Science Center. Together they designed a lesson for the high school
seniors, which involved using remotely operated vehicles to collect data on sea anemones living at the bottom of a pier outside the
science center. For that project, students received lessons in both robotics and biology. “(Thepartnership) is important
because we inspire conservation of the Salish Sea and place-based learning fosters that
inspiration,” says Alison Riley, marketing and development coordinator at the science center.
“Our goal is that every child will be ocean literate. They grow up here. It should be a part of their
life.” The cross-disciplinary work continues inside the classroom, too. A math and engineering lesson on a hillside slope coincides
with a cliff-restoration project with the North Olympic Salmon Coalition. A social studies class investigates how the government,
activists, and the private sector interact on environmental issues. Even younger grades can participate. Port Townsend
first- and second-graders selected animals from the Salish Sea to study habitats. Students visited local beaches to see where their
animals lived. Students also like the way their work is viewed by adults in the community, says Sarah Rubenstein, project director of
Port Townsend’s Maritime Discovery Schools Initiative. Middle-schoolers told Rubenstein that they’re more likely to hear negative
stereotypes about their age group. So they’re excited, she says, that clearing invasive species or building bike racks gives adults a
positive perception of them. The district likes to use the word “stewardship” rather than “conservation” to describe its focused
curriculum, Rubenstein says.
Especially as graduates enter the workforce, schools want students to
understand how industry affects the environment. “The difference is important because
students leave seeing themselves as responsible owners of the local community but also on a
more global scale,” Rubenstein says. “They understand how their actions have a local impact but
also a global impact.” For example, high school seniors studying how climate change affects ocean
acidification wouldn’t solely focus on the local impact on shellfish but also the impact of rising
waters worldwide, Rubenstein says. And they won’t be the only ones studying it. Across the continent is Broadneck High
School in Maryland. Located at sea level, surrounded by three bodies of water—the Severn and Magothy Rivers and the Chesapeake
Bay—the school community is acutely aware of what could happen when climate change brings rising sea water. Every school in
Anne Arundel County operates under a different theme, and Broadneck’s location influenced its decision to focus on “environmental
literacy.” The school’s signature program facilitator, Michelle Weisgerber, helps teachers incorporate the theme into class lessons,
though not every lesson has to include environmental literacy. An English class studying Henry David Thoreau might go to a nearby
farm to connect Thoreau’s inspiration to his work. Or a political science class might study an article on fracking through both the Fox
News and CNN journalistic lenses and compare points of view. The school of 2,100 students also brings in guest speakers from local
energy suppliers, hosts environmental field trips, and has two optional classes dedicated to intensive environmental study.
Broadneck has gained national recognition for its environmental focus. Rep. Donna Edwards invited one of the school’s students to
participate in an upcoming environmental roundtable: “Environmental Challenges and the Impact on Maryland Communities.” “No
matter what career you do, the environment is going to have an impact on you and you’re going to have an impact on the
environment,” Weisgerber says. Back in Connecticut, Common Ground’s Mercer has spent four years trekking through rivers and
cleaning up hurricane-wrecked beaches. So it might seem strange—at first glance—that she plans to become a midwife. But Mercer
understands how her high school’s focus on environmental justice inspired her career choice. “What attracted me to the
environmental work is helping frontline communities that don’t have a voice,” Mercer says. “I see being a midwife as a way of
advocating for women’s health.” When students learn about their local environment, they have a stake in the vitality of it, school
leaders find. Trekking through the murky river together, they transform it.
S – Eco-Pedagogy
A pedagogy of complexity rather than reductionism is required for effective and
accurate EE
Valderrama-Hernández et al. 16 (Rocío Valderrama-Hernández *, L. Alcántara & D. Limón work for
the University of Seville, “The complexity of environmental education: teaching ideas and strategies from
teachers,”
file:///C:/Users/Callie/Documents/Debate/Essays/Education/The%20Complexity%20of%20Environmental
%20Education_%20Teaching%20Ideas%20and%20Strategies%20from%20Teachers.pdf, , 15 June 2016,)
According to the results it is evident that it is necessary to involve teachers in the development
of EE, overcoming obstacles detected and favoring immersion in a culture of complexity,
allowing an understanding of the EE from holistic and systemic looks. This necessary reflection
on the conceptions could demonstrate the importance of acquiring a complex vision and help
improve the foundation and teaching of environmental education, this opens new doors to
create new future research studies in the field of EE. However, although the possession by
teachers of a philosophical view and sociologically richer and reflective, closer to complex
thinking is much needed, should not lose sight that this does not guarantee that students are to
gain a better understanding of environmental education, similar to the known fact that
knowledge of the subject teachers to teach, although very importantly, ensures not at all a good
learning of it by students (Acevedo y Acevedo, 2012). In all this effect many and complex factors
undoubtedly may lose much of the coherence of epistemological discourse when passing the
theoretical plane (which is said to do) the development of classroom practice (what it really is
done). In this sense, we can show that a significant number of teachers involved remain
concepts with some approach to complex perspectives; however, in many cases, we find certain
contradictions between those responses that refer to more abstract aspects of EE, those others
that are more explicit and related to the activity in the classroom. We agree, then, with the
results of different studies (Solís, R., Martín del Pozo, R., Rivero, G. y Porlán, A., 2013); (García,
J.E. y Cano, M.I., 2006); (Rodríguez, F. 2011) and (Solís, C.y Valderrama, R., 2015), when it
becomes clear that there is no clear relationship between the conceptions of teachers and those
about teaching and learning from it. Some researchers have observed that the alleged
correspondence is blurred even more about teaching practice in the classroom. In this regard,
following García, J.E. y Cano, M.I. (2006), It is often given the paradox that there are educators
who reject the positivist world view in his understanding of the treatment of environmental
problems (they are located in the complex perspective), but they are positivists regarding the
learning model used, whereas they adopt psychoeducational models with associative style.
Therefore, in our research we check that the conceptual issue of EE seems to be associated with
the difficulties of their practice. In line with this, we highlight that our research we affirmed that
some authors as Barrón, A.; Navarrete, A. y FerrerBalas, D. (2010) they point out, exposing that
the obstacles that teachers continue with a low culture of EE include the absence of collective
reflection on these issues and the treatment of the problem of biased way and reductionist
(García, J.E., 2004). Thus, we can see that we continue to have present in many of our actions as
educators, clear reflections of the model of simplistic thinking prevailing in our environment.
Hence the importance of including the budgets of the paradigm of complexity in EE. It is
fundamental piece to understand what are the keys to our decisions and transform our ideas
and behaviours in the field of environmental education, a closer approach to the complex
worldview perspective. The insertion of the complexity in the treatment of EE requires
modification of content and methods, which affect all subjects across, and include concepts,
procedures and attitudes, open methodologies, participative and problematizing (Solís y
Valderrama-Hernández, 2015). It requires a new educational language and a different learning,
requiring cooperation from all disciplines, teamwork and teacher training. In short, betting on
reformulate environmental education from the paradigm of complexity involves rethinking
some forms of understanding. We need to define an open educational model, leaving aside any
reductionism and therefore is in continuous dialogue with the environment.

We need eco-pedagogy
Antunes and Gadotti, No Date Given (Angela Antunes is Executive Secretary of Paulo Freire
Institute, Doctor of Education from the University of Sao Paulo and author of many books
Moacir Gadotti is Professor at the University of Sao Paulo, the Director of the Paulo Freire
Institute, “Eco-pedagogy as the Appropriate Pedagogy to the Earth Charter Process,”
http://earthcharter.org/pdfs/TEC-ENG-PDF/ENG-Antunes.pdf, nd)
Several decades of debates about “our common future” left some “ecological footprints” not
only in the economic field, but also in the ethical, political, and educational ones, to guide us on
a possible path to face the challenges of the twentyfirst century. Sustainability has become the
dominant issue in the beginning of this century, with impact not only on our planet but also on
the ability to re-educate our thinking and all our senses, with further possibility to rekindle our
hope of a future with dignity for all. The Earth Charter is found among these footprints. The
sustainability values promoted by the Earth Charter have terrific educational potential: the
preservation of the environment depends on an ecological conscience and shaping this
conscience depends on education. It is here that eco-pedagogy, or Earth pedagogy, comes into
play. It is a pedagogy to promote learning as the “meaning of the things from everyday life,” as
stated by Francisco Gutierrez and Cruz Prado.1 We develop this sense as we go, experiencing
our context, and in this process we open new trails – we do not merely observe the journey. It is
then a democratic and understanding pedagogy, a pedagogy for everyday life. Education is
connected with space and time where relationships between the human being and the
environment actually take place. They happen primarily at the emotional level, much more than
at the conscious level. Thus, they happen much more in our subconscious; we do not realize
them, and many times we do not know how they happen. So, eco-education is necessary to
bring them to the conscious level. And eco-education requires a pedagogy. As emphasized by
Gaston Pineau,2 a series of references are associated with this: the Bacherladian experience;
studies on the imaginary; the trans-versatility, trans-disciplinarian, and inter-cultural approach;
as well as constructivism and alternative pedagogy. These days, we need an eco-pedagogy and
eco-education. We need an Earth pedagogy precisely because without this pedagogy to re-
educate men and women, we can no longer speak of Earth as a home, as a burrow for the
“animal-man”, as Paulo Freire said. Without a proliferation of sustainable education, Earth will
be perceived as nothing more than the space for our sustenance and for technical-technological
domination, the object of our research, essays, and sometimes of our contemplation. But, it will
not be a living space, a space giving us “solace” and requiring from us “care”.3 It is in the context
of the evolution of ecology itself that eco-pedagogy appeared – and is still in its infancy today –
having been initially called “pedagogy for sustainable development,” but which has now gone
beyond its initial purpose. Eco-pedagogy is in development either as a pedagogical movement4
or as a curriculum approach. Eco-pedagogy implies redirecting curricula to incorporate values
and principles defended by the Earth Charter. These principles should guide content, concepts,
and the preparation of didactic books. Jean Piaget taught us that curricula must reflect what is
important for students. We know this is correct, but incomplete. Curricular contents must also
be meaningful for students, and they will be only meaningful to students if their contents are
also meaningful to the health of the planet and to a context greater than that of the individual
student. Understood in this light, eco-pedagogy is not just another pedagogy among many other
pedagogies. It not only has meaning as an alternative global project concerned with nature
preservation (Natural Ecology) and the impact made by human societies on the natural
environment (Social Ecology), but also as a new model for sustainable civilization from the
ecological point of view (Integral Ecology), which implies making changes on economic, social,
and cultural structures. Therefore, it is connected to a utopian project – one to change current
human, social, and environmental relationships. Therein lies the deep meaning of eco-
pedagogy, or the Earth pedagogy as we call it.

Critical eco-pedagogy provides background on the impacts of neoliberal


education
Peter McLaren & Donna Houston 10 (Revolutionary Ecologies: Ecosocialism and Critical
Pedagogy , Educational Studies, 36:1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326993es3601_4)
non-Western societies and peoples have enacted ecologically sustaining practices within the
everyday lives of their communities. He turns the false dominion of the West on its head,
offering alternative ways of being that hold possibilities for the reconstruction of institutional
culture, the transformation of how we view technology and science, and thus the reformulation
of public policy. As critical educators and revolutionary activists across communities of
difference, we are encouraged to turn to the wisdom of our own historical survival, in serious
and sustained ways, in order to work toward the abandonment of colonizing values and
practices that for centuries have denigrated our cultural ways and attempted to disable our life-
sustaining capacities. Moreover, to contend effectively with issues of racism, sexism,
homophobia, disablism, and other forms of inequalities, a life-affirming ecological praxis is
paramount. That is, one that encompasses a refusal to adhere to political, economic, and
philosophical disconnections, which falsely separate humankind from those ecological dynamics
that shape local, global, regional, rural, and urban landscapes. Instead, static views of humanity
and the planet, which inadvertently serve the commodifying interests of capital and its
penchant to divide and conquer, are challenged and dismantled through an integral political
solidarity of heart, mind, body, and spirit. Accordingly, a critical ecopedagogy must then
encompass those philosophical principles that are at home with ambiguity, dissonance,
difference, and heterogeneity, as an ever-present phenomenon. Such an ethos supports a world
where crossspecies concerns are both commonplace and valued for their creative potential in
the making of a truly democratic, just, and peaceful world. At the heart of Kahn’s project is the
intention to move us beyond a capitalist orthodoxy of consumerism, careerism, and corporate
profiteering. As educators, we are invited to commit ourselves to a critical ecopedagogy that
courageously embraces a new paradigm for the living out of a transformative ecological praxis—
one that is shaped by the power of human emotions, the cultural rituals of diverse ways of
being, a deep respect for universal rights, and the integration of planetary consciousness. More
importantly, he points us toward re-envisioning ourselves as activists, committed to ending
oppression in all its manifestations, through embracing with revolutionary love and grace the
significance and necessity of all life forms
Reflexivity in environmental education is necessary
Hursh et al. 15 (David Hursh professor of Teaching and Curriculum in the Graduate School of
Education and Human Development at the University of Rochester, NY, Joseph Henderson is a
PhD student in Teaching and Curriculum at the Warner School of Education at the University of
Rochester, NY, David Greenwood Canada Research Chair in Environmental Education and
Associate Professor in Graduate Studies and Research in Education and Undergraduate Studies
in Education at Lakehead University, “Environmental education in a neoliberal climate,”
Environmental Education Research , Apr2015, Vol. 21 Issue 3, p299-318
,file:///C:/Users/Callie/Downloads/Environmental%20education%20in%20a%20neoliberal%20cli
mate%20-%20David%20Hursh,%20Joseph%20Henderson,%20and%20David%20Greenwood.pdf,
April 15)
As we stated at the beginning of this introduction, environmental education is inherently
political, whether we realize it or not. Moreover, as we have tried to show, environmental
educators must be aware of the ways in which neoliberal ideologies and practices underpin the
way in which we can think about, implement and develop environmental education. Education
then, such as economics and the environment, always remains open to problematization and
contestation at various levels: from the local level – school and communities – to the national
and global (McKenzie 2012) – but are those involved in these, including at their intersections,
also open too? This plea for reflexivity, we also acknowledge, is one thing to advance on paper.
It is another thing entirely to develop as ways of being and practicing education that make these
challenges possible and worthwhile, from within, not just beyond, the institutions and roles
imbued with, if not wrestling with, neoliberal ideologies (Ball 2012b).

The ecological footprint as an educational tool promotes students become


environmentally cognizant citizens
Gottlieb, Vigoda-Gadot, and Haim ’13 (Dr. Daniel Gottlieb is a clinical psychologist and
family therapist in Israel, Eran Vigoda-Gadot is professor of Public Administration &
Management, University of Haifa, Abraham Haim is Professor of Evo and Env Science, University
of Haifa, “Encouraging ecological behaviors among students by using the ecological footprint as
an educational tool,” Environmental Education Research, 19:6, 844-863, March 5, 2013,
https://files.slack.com/files-pri/T5Z8873EG-
F61BHLVPF/encouraging_ecological_behaviors_among_students_by_using_the_ecological_foot
print_as_an_educational_tool_a_quasi_
experimental_design_in_a_public_high.pdf)

In the last two decades, the western lifestyle and its accompanying resource consumption
emerged as major contributing factors to environmental deterioration and the depletion of
natural resources (Daly 1990; Hobson 2003; Rees and Wackernagel1996). Therefore, it has been
argued that the depletion of natural resources is no longer the exclusive domain of scientific
experts; it demands that all citizens act(Backstrand 2003). For the first time, citizens as
consumers were held responsible for modifying their lifestyle for the sake of preserving global
natural resources and of future generations (Barr 2007; Berglund and Matti 2006; Hobson 2003;
Spaarga-ren 2003; Steg and Vlek 2009; Stern 2000). The identification of individual consumption
as a cause of environmental problems is based on the ecological economics approach, which
argues for a close interrelationship between economic and natural processes (the flow of energy
and materials), in which human society occupies space in the biosphere. As industrial and
consumption activities become more dependent upon extraction of fossil energy and natural
resources, the greater is the risk of destroying life-supporting ecological systems essential for
the existence of the human race on Earth, such as forests, air, and water (Ropke 2004).
Therefore, it was argued that the agenda of sustainability is about values and behaviors that
take into account the limits of the natural environment in terms of supporting human being
(Daly 1990).Since the UN 1992 Agenda 21 was adopted by 178 governments as an action plan
for sustainability, education and capacity building have been increasingly rec-cognized as critical
means for promoting sustainability among local communities(Rowe 2007; UN 1993). In this
context, education for sustainability has an important role to play in educating students as
future citizens based on proactive, interdisciplinary, and transparent science that works in
tandem with the needs of society and the environment (Backstrand 2003; Rees 2003).
Environmentally literate citi-zens can make better decisions about what and how they consume
and dispose(Lester et al. 2006). Yet, many educators feel that they should not only teach
thescience, but also engage students and encourage positive responsiveness toward the
environment (Cross and Price 1999; Lester et al. 2006). Critics of conventional environmental
education (EE) propose that curricula focused solely on science with-out personal and social
connections may not be the most effective educational model for moving toward developing
action competence and pro-environmental behaviors (PEBs) (Uzzell 1999).Given the need to
implement an innovative scientific method and content in the field of education for
sustainability and engage students in pro-environmental concern and behaviors, we conducted
an educational intervention program based on the ecological footprint approach. As defined by
its developers Wackernagel and Rees(1996), the ecological footprint is the total area of
ecological land space required to supply the various needs of the population in a defined region
(such as a highschool) and to absorb all the waste that the population produces on an ongoing
basis. Although the ecological footprint has developed as an ecological indicator, as an
educational tool it has not been established in schools, though its easily communicable nature
suggests that it may be an effective mechanism for assisting students and their wider
communities to learn and act in order to achieve environmental sustainability (McNichol, Davis,
and O’Brien 2011).The aim of the current study is to explore whether the ecological footprint
might be an appropriate educational tool for encouraging PEBs among students. The studywas
conducted in a public high school in the city of Haifa during the course of the2008/2009 school
year. During that year, thefirst author inaugurated an educationalprogram based on the
ecological footprint approach in order to encourage PEBs of students.
A2: Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism seeks to produce climate denialism – Environmental education
disrupts that and becomes a form of political resistance.
Hursh et al. 15 (David Hursh professor of Teaching and Curriculum in the Graduate School of
Education and Human Development at the University of Rochester, NY, Joseph Henderson is a
PhD student in Teaching and Curriculum at the Warner School of Education at the University of
Rochester, NY, David Greenwood Canada Research Chair in Environmental Education and
Associate Professor in Graduate Studies and Research in Education and Undergraduate Studies
in Education at Lakehead University, “Environmental education in a neoliberal climate,”
Environmental Education Research , Apr2015, Vol. 21 Issue 3, p299-318
,file:///C:/Users/Callie/Downloads/Environmental%20education%20in%20a%20neoliberal%20cli
mate%20-%20David%20Hursh,%20Joseph%20Henderson,%20and%20David%20Greenwood.pdf)

Environmental education is political. In one sense, this is obvious. People disagree about environmental
issues, and this spills over into how we conceptualize and contest such matters as the goals,
methods, and curriculum of environmental education. A critical, timely and telling example,
according to Stage et al. (2013), can be found in the United States: Some states are refusing to
implement the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013) because the standards
include the requirement to teach about climate change. As Stevenson (2013) points out, as much as local
to international environmental educators have sought to achieve consensus regarding various
purposes, thematics, and features of environmental education, including through various
declarations and conferences at Belgrade and Tbilisi, tensions remain and are ongoing between
‘scholars in the field and policy makers inside and outside the field’ (151). The tensions exemplified in
our opening example often arise, notes Stevenson, because of differing and irreconcilable ‘educational
ideologies,’ underscoring the need, we suggest, for environmental educators and researchers to
understand the broader social and educational concerns that shape teaching, learning, and
inquiry. Environmental education is also political in a less obvious but perhaps more crucial sense. In this special issue of
Environmental Education Research, we focus on how over the last four decades environmental education has
been shaped by and interacts with the context of the dominant political and economic logic in
the West, namely that of neoliberalism. As we and the contributors to this collection variously show, neoliberal
ways of thinking about and acting in the world have become so prevalent, naturalized, and
internalized that we are often unaware of how neoliberalism constrains our thinking and
practice, such that it is difficult in both thought and deed to imagine a society proceeding on
different principles. How did it come to be this way?

We reverse the neoliberal tendency to focus on individuals and the market –


we’re a more scientific and political approach.
Hursh et al. 15 (David Hursh professor of Teaching and Curriculum in the Graduate School of
Education and Human Development at the University of Rochester, NY, Joseph Henderson is a
PhD student in Teaching and Curriculum at the Warner School of Education at the University of
Rochester, NY, David Greenwood Canada Research Chair in Environmental Education and
Associate Professor in Graduate Studies and Research in Education and Undergraduate Studies
in Education at Lakehead University, “Environmental education in a neoliberal climate,”
Environmental Education Research , Apr2015, Vol. 21 Issue 3, p299-318
,file:///C:/Users/Callie/Downloads/Environmental%20education%20in%20a%20neoliberal%20cli
mate%20-%20David%20Hursh,%20Joseph%20Henderson,%20and%20David%20Greenwood.pdf)

We note too that neoliberalism transforms not only the role of the state, but also the nature of
individuals in society. Under neoliberalism, individuals best operate within markets and within these
occupy what is akin to the subject position of Environmental Education Research 303 entrepreneurs, fulfilling their own needs and
pursuing their own goals in competition with others. In the same way, Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ (The Wealth of
Nations, [1776] 1976) argues that individual decisions made within markets result in manufacturers meeting the consumers’ needs, for
neoliberals, individuals should make entrepreneurial decisions within markets to ensure
economic growth that best serves the interests of society. But as Olssen, Codd, and McNeill (2004) fear: Every social
transaction is conceptualized as entrepreneurial, to be carried out purely for personal gain. The market introduces competition as the structuring
mechanism through which resources and status are allocated efficiently and fairly. The ‘invisible hand’ of the market is thought to be the most efficient
way of sorting out what competing individual gets what. (137–138) For Hayek, markets are much more efficient at allocating resources and goods than
individuals. In fact, Hayek goes as far as to describe the market as having knowledge that individuals could not possibly possess; as Mirowski (2013)
writes, Hayek believed that ‘the market really does know better than any one of us what is good for ourselves and society’ (54). Furthermore, because
markets are purportedly the most efficient way to make societal decisions, any resulting economic and political inequality is not only necessary but also
beneficial. Again, Mirowski (2013), writing on Hayek, observes that inequality is ‘a necessary functional characteristic of their ideal market system’ (79).
But in contrast to some other forms of economic liberalism, for
neoliberals, any economic, social, or political attempts
to alter the outcomes of markets are necessarily counterproductive, for these would violate the
‘natural order’ of the market. As Block and Somers (2014) observe, such ‘market fundamentalism’ rests upon
the idea of social naturalism, which is ‘a way of viewing the world built on the assumption that
the laws governing natural phenomenon also govern human society’ (102). The belief that
markets are actually nature’s preferred way of making decisions helps explain neoliberal
resistance to developing ‘interventionist policies’ in response to environmental issues, such as
climate change. As Sandbu (2014), a columnist for the Financial Times (London), recently explicated regarding climate change, ‘the
increased risk to the planet is exactly offset by the value of the extra growth,’ that is, if the
environmental harm exceeds the benefits to economic growth, markets will adjust to reduce the
environmental harm. There is no need for policies; markets can be left alone to solve everything.
Assuming such a positive outcome to the workings of markets seems increasingly untenable
given the empirical evidence that corporations have inadequately reduced pollution or carbon
emissions or have yet to fully acknowledge the limits of the industrial growth paradigm (see Klein’s
recent summary 2014). In fact, while neoliberals steadily advance their faith in markets and private
property within and beyond the corridors of government, including via the privatization of
public services that necessarily include education and natural resources, others have pointed
out that this results in money becoming the prime ‘mediator of our relationships with the non-
human world’ (Sullivan 2010, 25). In both vivid and contrasting terms to the prevailing discourse, we can also note the words of Pope Francis –
himself a strong critic of neoliberalism and currently writing an encyclical on climate change and the environment – who posits that the current
neoliberal variant of global capitalism has become an ecologically destructive form of idol worship: 304 D. Hursh et al. The
thirst for power
and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands
in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before
the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule. (Francis 2013, Evangelii Gaudium, 56) However, even
when the neoliberal agenda has been revealed for its flaws from a range of perspectives, neoliberals have largely retained their sway. They continue to
frame economic, educational, and environmental problems through assertions that the market (still) knows best, and, at the same time, intervene in
politics. This is why understanding
neoliberalism as a political rather than economic process alone helps
explain why neoliberal economics have continued to dominate Western economies despite the
2007 global financial collapse. Lest one forgets, the economic damage brought on by neoliberal tenets such as promoting deregulation
in home lending (among other financial actions) led many economists to conclude that neoliberalism was dead, at least for a time. Newsweek, a weekly
US news magazine, boldly stated on its cover and lead story that ‘we were all socialists now’ (Meacham 2009) – or at least Keynesians, able to
appreciate the valuable role that governments can play in protecting society from economic manipulation. Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize in
economics, went so far as to proclaim: Neoliberal market fundamentalism was always a political doctrine serving certain interests. It was never
supported by economic theory. Nor, it should be clear, is it supported by historical experience. Learning this lesson may be a silver lining in the cloud
now hanging over the global economy. (2008a, 2) Elsewhere, Stiglitz stated that ‘neoliberalism … is dead in most western countries … The US has lost its
role as the model for others’ (Stiglitz 2008b, 1). But, in fact, as Stiglitz and others have since pointed out, financiers and politicians allied themselves to
intervene in the markets, saving the banks and their executives, but not those mortgage holders who could no longer finance their homes (Crouch
2011; Johnson and Kwak 2010; Krugman 2008). Consequently, the stock market has rebounded, the banks have earned record profits, but most
working and unemployed people are worse off than before a recession brought on by neoliberal policies (Saez and Zucman 2014). For many, a return to
the social democratic liberalism of Keynesian policies, even though it would fall short of radically transforming capitalism, would be a welcome, albeit
inadequate improvement on the present (Mazzucato, 2013).