Column: Teaching climate change in Arkansas schools

First, before we even consider teaching a subject such as Climate Change, we must accept that the subject is not a theory anymore. It is proven science. That simply means that the facts are so overwhelming that the vast majority (some estimates are well above 95%) of scholarly scientists have concluded that our atmosphere is warming, and that is no longer a theory but a scientific fact, and the results of a warmer atmosphere are going to be, if the warming continues, catastrophic. Climate Change easily passes that test. So very simply, I think it should be a mandatory course in High School. I believe the reasons are obvious, but why is there opposition?

Naturally, it stands to reason, if we accept these scientific studies, we should make Climate Change a part of the curriculum in our schools, and numerous states are doing just. California has even passed a bill that would mandate Climate Change be taught in all higher grade public schools. But California is not the only state where Climate Change is being taught in their schools. Right now, some 20 states are requiring some form of Climate Change or Environmental Awareness to be taught in their schools. Well, of course, Arkansas is not on the list. Because, for some reason, the subject of Climate Change has become a political issue, it is being denied, and called a Radical, Left-wing Democratic Hoax. Of course, there is no evidence to support that, and the rhetoric is just to yell that it is a hoax, and to actively seek to not only call it a hoax, but to do just the opposite and add to the problem by increasing the use of coal, oil, and other contributors to the Climate Change Problem.

However, there are a number of states that are already teaching that Climate Change is a real threat and are actively involved in including it in their school curriculum. No, it’s not just California. The following are the States that have specific requirements or programs that address Climate Change: Maryland, Kentucky, Indiana, New Jersey, Illinois, California, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Wisconsin, and Oregon. However, it’s an uphill battle, and it seems we tend to ignore the long-term effect. It is hard to see or why something as nebulous as a two or three percent increase in our atmosphere temperature could be a threat to future generations.

I understand that, but I think if we put it on an individual basis, we can understand it better. To do that let’s take a closer look. Let’s say you have a bad cough and have trouble breathing, and you are worried that you might have something seriously wrong, such as Cancer. You manage to get an appointment at a major Cancer Treatment Center, and they put you through an extensive battery of tests. Over 95% of the tests are conclusive. You have Cancer. You meet with your Doctor, and after you go over the tests with him, you ask:

“Doctor, what do you recommend I do?”

He starts by describing a detailed treatment … and you interrupt.

“Doctor has anyone else looked at my tests?” You question.

He quickly answers; “Yes; and after viewing all the test results, they are almost unanimous that you have cancer.”

Your Doctor begins to review the Cancer treatments, and you interrupt: “Doctor, I don’t believe I have cancer. What if I just ignore these tests?”

“My judgment is that you will die a lingering death in a few years,” replied your Physician.

I know you’re shaking your head and mumbling, “No one would be that stupid.” But when you ignore the opinions of the scientific community, and deny the vast body of scientific evidence, you are doing exactly as the above example. The only difference is the effect of an individual, and the effect on the Planet. Of course, all the Earth’s inhabitants won’t be killed, but the quality of life on our Planet will be severely affected, and yes thousands of people on the planet will die as a direct result of our inaction. But it’s not just our inaction. There are active politicians that are not just ignoring Climate Change, they are actively campaigning against the concept and are supporting doing just the opposite. They are actively opposing the restrictions on coal, they are supporting the actual increase in fossil fuel use, and they are calling Climate Change, a great hoax. Climate Change is supposed to be something the Radical Left is proposing, but hand-waving is about the only way the opposing politicians are doing, and that opposition harkens back a hundred years to when Evolution was being added to our school’s curriculum.

Well, we are at an Educational Crossroad again, and as folks, without any scientific support, scream against teaching Climate Change, and oppose everything that attempts to slow and reduce the long-term effects, are we going to succumb to that noisy rhetoric, will we stand up to support the scientific facts, or will we cower to the loud, unifactorial minority.

However, things are different now than when the unbelieving screamed against teaching Evolution in our Schools. Teaching “Evolution” was against just an Educational Stance, while not teaching about Climate Change will not only be an educational rejection. The teaching consequences of not teaching Climate Change will contribute to the deaths of thousands, if ignored and not checked.

––

Richard H. Mason, Master and Bachelor of Science; University of Arkansas