My Environmental/Energy Due Diligence.  Teaching students how to define terms precisely is one of the primary tasks of the educator. For example: ecology* is a science while environmentalism* is an ‘ism’ – i.e. an ideology, a set of beliefs of how human beings should live in their environs. Ecology literally means knowledge of our house (our house in this instance being nature itself) as economy means management of our house (our house in this instance being commercial human society). Environmentalism is a value-laden philosophy and social movement concerned with how human beings treat their environs (natural and social). The ideology of environmentalism can either be based on the science of ecology (knowledge) or it can stray into theology (a dogmatic belief system).

Environmentalists might be divided into two major categories: 1. Human Centered (anthropocentric*) – a point of view which centers on the value of human beings and advocates for a clean environment because it is good for human beings. 2. Nature Centered (biocentric*) – A point of view which centers on the value of non-human species, processes and ecosystems the proponents of which sometimes denigrate policies based on a primary concern for human beings. 

You could have your advanced students research the philosophical foundations of both approaches and create debating groups representing each view. You could then add these questions: 1) Are these two approaches mutually exclusive? Human beings are both product and part of nature, and one branch of biocentrism* adopts a scientific position that conscious life is the very foundation of nature. 2) In a democracy which argument for quality environmental policy would be most effective? Would the average citizen be most persuaded by arguments relating to the health of his children or to the welfare of endangered species?

 As well, you can consider two axioms for classroom discussion about global warming based on the science of ecology: 1) Global warming has been a natural phenomenon for the past 20,000 years (New York was covered by an ice sheet a half a mile thick as recently as 10,000 years ago). 2) Human activity since the industrial revolution has significantly increased the pace of global warming well beyond what any natural cycle could account for and might trigger a cascading effect that could be catastrophic for human life. 

Since it is a natural phenomenon, “stopping global warming” and “saving the planet” are unscientific catchphrases. The globe will warm or cool as it pleases (we are in for another “ice age” in about 10,000 years no matter what we do) and the planet will be here for billions of years after the human species has disappeared and will eventually be destroyed by our expanding sun. More accurate but less sexy slogans would be to “minimize the human contribution to the present natural cycle of global warming” in order to slow its rate and “save ourselves”. 

It is not the planet that needs saving or even life on this planet – rather, it is us, the human species, that needs saving. The planetary eco-system has survived mass extinctions in the past (95% of species wiped out; 65% of species wiped out etc.).  Evolution will certainly rise above our puny efforts to lay waste the eco-system.  The real question is will the human species survive its own criminal negligence regarding the environment? 

  Despite general public perception, the “last” Ice Age did not “come to an end” 10,000 years ago!  We are in an intermediate period of the current Ice Age called the Holocene which is considered to be an interglacial period of the current Ice Age. Interglacial periods are intervals of warmer global temperatures which separate glacial periods within an ice age; periods when global ice sheets melt, raising ocean levels. 

  The planet’s oceans have risen 40 to 130 meters in the past 20,000 years. Your students could be asked - “How, if oceans are connected, can one account for this differential – shouldn’t the rise be uniform across the planet?” Their answers should indicate tectonic plate movement pushes some land masses upward (the Himalayas, Alps and Rockies are “growing” every year). The vast weight of glaciers has pressed the land mass down, while their retreat liberates the land mass which then rises significantly. These and other factors (such as the thermal expansion of water, which varies according to clime) contribute to the differential. 

Classroom Discussions and Projects.  The stage has been set for fruitful classroom discussions and research projects. Why are predictions of sea-levels rising an additional one to two meters by the end of this century supposed to be so terrible if they have already risen from 40-130 meters over the past 20,000 years?  Is the increase in the rate of rising levels the variable that is of concern and if so why? 

      Will saving the environment for healthy human habitation be a crushing burden on our economy?  If history is any judge, the opposite will be the case. It will create a more robust economic foundation of human civilization and greater economic opportunity for more individuals. The economics of environmentalism is a subject worthy of many student research projects.

The space program could serve as an analogy.  At that time no economist would have recommended it on purely economic grounds.  Its great expense was considered justified for security and political reasons alone.  Yet much of modern economy has derived from it – cell phones, satellite communications, internet, computers, computer based design and manufacture etc.  Might we not expect that a massive national or international project to completely liberate the planet from dependence on fossil fuels by 2050 to have much the same results?

We would create economic sectors and products (and thus opportunity and growth) that we cannot even imagine. Professor William Halal of George Washington University claims green technology is already “a $500 billion dollar market and expected to reach $10 trillion by 2020”ⁱ! Your students could review the economic history of innovation and national projects instituted for non-economic reasons: interstate highway system, internet, space etc.  Informed positions on policy suggestions are a necessity for the 21^st century citizen.

Your students should know responsible policy making is complicated. Some believe there are more immediate dangers to human civilization than global warming – dangers which human technology can eliminate? For example: Asteroids & Comets, La Palma Mega-Tsunami*, and The Yellowstone Super Volcano*. Students could be tasked to research these alleged dangers as well as proposed solutions and take positions regarding policy priorities. Given limited budgets what should get priority – global warming or these issues, and why? 

Bad ways of arguing. Ben Franklin once said you never win an argument, you only make an enemy. When many environmentalists engage global warming deniers (usually politically conservative) in debate, they often adopt a tone of condescension that is guaranteed to arouse resentment. Since conservatives believe the only proper function of government is to protect the person and property of the individual and provide for the common defense, environmentalists might note that pollution damages property and health while dependence on oil compromises the common defense.

Your students could debate the issue from both perspectives. Have them research the economic costs of pollution (damage to property, health costs etc.) as well as the claim that American energy policy is financing the enemy in the war on terror. When the real property, health and defense costs of conventional energy are considered, we may find alternative energy is already competitive with conventional energy.

Can we drill our way out of a shortage of energy?  The answer is a resounding NO! It beggars the imagination as to how serious people can still chant the mantra “drill baby, drill”.  Even if global warming deniers are right we have only two decades to significantly implement alternative energy solutions if we wish to sustain our modern way of life!!! It is the declining AVAILABILITY of oil and coal that is shockingⁱⁱ. “Drill baby, drill” is an empirically bad argument.

Minority contrarian views to the “scientific consensus” about global warming should be treated with respect, because reference to “scientific consensus” is also a bad way of arguing.  It is a reliance on “authority” rather than reason. The job of educators in a democratic society is to cultivate skepticism about, not respect for authority.

Especially since the historical record of the “scientific consensus” has not been brilliant. The “scientific consensus” has been wrong regarding Galileo, Harvey, Pasteur, Semmelweis, Jonas Salk and others. Almost all scientific progress has been made by individuals going against “scientific consensus”. This does not mean that the “scientific consensus” is always wrong.  Indeed on this issue I believe it is right.  It is simply a poor, anti-educational way to argue.

      Risk management as a function of policy making should be brought into the mix.  Denying a 5% chance that global warming doomsayers are right is also very bad arguing from a purely scientific perspective. If this probability occurs and would spell catastrophe for humanity, what should be done – Should society take steps to neutralize it or not? Your students can research corporate risk management practices as they might apply to environmental issues.  

Utopian thinking as an educational device  Our primary job is to help children envision themselves in a more positive alternative future they can help make; to stimulate ambitions to (in the words of Tom Paine) “reinvent the world”. Here utopian thinking and futurist scenarios have a vital educational role to play.

Let us envision a possible energy/environment reality by 2099 (within the life time of many students, given present life expectancy trends). You might use the following as a platform for discussion and research. EVERYTHING MENTIONED EXISTS OR IS SCIENTIFICALLY PLAUSIBLE AND TECHNOLOGICALLY DOABLE. 

Scenario: Planet Earth 2099

      In 2099 human civilization has become a closed system – i.e. 100% recycling of all human waste and zero externalization into the commons. The depolymerization* of all organic waste (sewage, garbage etc.) has become the major source of liquid fuel (replacing oil). This recycles existing CO2 instead of adding CO2 from fossil fuels. Algae growth (which consumes CO2 as a feedstock) tops off liquid fuel short falls and along with massive global reforestation creates CO2 sinks*. Global atmospheric CO2 has been reduced to pre-industrial revolution levels, significantly slowing global warming.

      Energy productivity has become the dominant theme. New lighting technologies, smart materials and super light composites*, together with 100% recycling, enables humanity to maintain a rich consumerist civilization at declining cost to both economy and environment. The Cradle to Cradle* philosophy of McDonough and Braungart* are triumphant.

     ​ 2099 lighting technologies have surpassed CFLs* and LEDS*.  Buildings are built from smart materials* that heat when it is cold and cool when it is hot, as well as turn sunlight into electricity. Most homes, hotels and hospitals have mini-depolymerization units that convert sewage and garbage into fuel. Many buildings have become completely independent self-sustaining energy units.

      Airplanes, vehicles and trains are built from super light composites such as Carbon nanotubes (CNTs)* that were prohibitively expensive years ago but which industrial engineers have learned how to produce cheaply. The savings in fuel when Jumbo Jets weigh 50 tons instead of 400 tons is tremendous.  The same is true of cars, trucks, trains, elevators, ships etc. – in short anything that consumes energy in order to move. Since liquid fuel is now an algae or waste derivative which is infinitely renewable, humanity has solved its energy problem.

      The possibilities of space have also become a reality in 2099.  Most mineral extraction now comes from the asteroid belt or the moon and this has enabled our precious planet to begin to heal its scars. Space elevators* lift up toxic waste to be disposed of in that great incinerator in the sky called the sun and bring down raw materials and finished products. Energy for this solar system economy* is provided by space-solar energy* generators capable of operating 24/7.

Our home, this earth, has now become a engaging, empowering, and enlightened bedroom community instead of the gigantic waste dump we had turned it into in the past. We have assumed the stewardship that has always been our shared obligation, our contribution to Earth’s wellbeing.