The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Idaho Lawmakers Strike Climate Change Language From New Science Standards
The Idaho House Education Committee voted 12-4 Wednesday on a motion to strip references to human-caused climate change in the state's proposed new science education standards.
The motion, proposed by Rep. Scott Syme, R-Caldwell, strikes a section* from the Idaho Content Standards that includes the language: "energy and fuels are derived from natural resources and their uses affect the environment." Several paragraphs of "Supporting Content"** that delves further into climate science were deleted as well.
Boise Republican Rep. Patrick McDonald, the committee's vice chairman, joined the panel's three Democrats that opposed the motion to scrub climate-related passages from the standards.
"I want to support these standards as written," McDonald said, referring to the work that local teachers put in developing the standards. "What I don't want to do is not support them. There has been a lot work involved in putting these things together."
Idaho is the only state in the nation where legislators have removed references to the established science of climate change and the impact of human activity on the environment from the K-12 science curricula. That decision sparked an ardent effort from teachers, parents and students across Idaho who want to revise public school education standards to include climate science.
At a two-day hearing before the Idaho House Education Committee last week, 29 people testified in favor of revisions. Roughly 1,000 public comments were also submitted in favor of the revisions.
"We're here today not just for those students in classrooms across our state but for tomorrow's nurses, farmers, lawmakers, bankers and citizens who deserve the very best science and science education—not some water-downed censored version," said Dick Jordan, a retired high school science teacher at the hearing. "We cannot ignore science even if it makes us uncomfortable."
But many Republican lawmakers contend that the science on climate change is not settled. As the New York Times pointed out, only 24 percent of Idaho Republicans agree in human-caused climate change, the lowest percentage in the country.
Rep. Julie VanOrden (R-Pingree), who chairs the Idaho House Education Committee, dismissed arguments about the topic during the hearings last week.
"We are not having a hearing on climate change," VanOrden said continually. "We're here to address the changes made in the standards, not climate change."
Rep. Syme also argued that the revised standards would force students to come to a particular conclusion rather than draw their own, ThinkProgress reported.
"When we heard all the testimony, it was clear that all the students want to do inquiry and all the teachers want to move to this inquiry based type of learning and I think that is just spectacular," he said Wednesday. "My problem with the one paragraph was that it lead to conclusions. When you have conclusions in standards, it stifles inquiry."
(Syme has even said previously that he does not care if students think the Earth is flat as long as it was the student's own conclusion.)
Of course, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists say that burning fossil fuels emits greenhouse gases that drives the rise in global temperatures.
The new science education standards do not force Idaho's teachers to omit climate science from their lesson plans. However, as the Times noted, "science educators said they were concerned for teachers in districts where climate change was considered more controversial."
The vote now goes to the Senate Education Committee, where members can undo the House panel's decision.
*Here's the section that House Ed. members removed:
ESS3-4-1 Obtain and combine information to describe that energy and fuels are derived from natural resources and their uses affect the environment. Further explanation: Examples of renewable energy resources could include wind energy, water behind dams, and sunlight; non-renewable energy resources are fossil fuels and atomic energy. Examples of environmental effects could include negative biological impacts of wind turbines, erosion due to deforestation, loss of habitat due to dams, loss of habitat due to surface mining, and air pollution from burning of fossil fuels."
**And here is some of the "Supporting Content" that the committee also voted to remove:
"ESS3.A: Natural Resources: Energy and fuels that humans use are derived from natural sources, and their use affects the environment in multiple ways. Some resources are renewable over time, and others are not. (ESS3-4-1)
ESS3.B: Natural Hazards: A variety of hazards result from natural processes (e.g., earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions). Humans cannot eliminate the hazards but can take steps to reduce their impacts. (ESS3-4-2)
ETS1.B: Designing Solutions to Engineering Problems: Testing a solution involves investigating how well it performs under a range of likely conditions. (ESS3-4-2)"
- 4 Lessons Psychology Teaches Us About Inspiring Climate Action ›
- A Six-Step Guide to Combat the Fossil Fuel Industry's Climate Lies ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Tracy L. Barnett
Sources reviewed this article for accuracy.
For Sicangu Lakota water protector Cheryl Angel, Standing Rock helped her define what she stands against: an economy rooted in extraction of resources and exploitation of people and planet. It wasn't until she'd had some distance that the vision of what she stands for came into focus.
Last week, the Peruvian Palm Oil Producers' Association (JUNPALMA) promised to enter into an agreement for sustainable and deforestation-free palm oil production. The promise was secured by the U.S. based National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in collaboration with the local government, growers and the independent conservation organization Sociedad Peruana de Ecodesarrollo.
The rallying cry to build it again and to build it better than before is inspiring after a natural disaster, but it may not be the best course of action, according to new research published in the journal Science.
"Faced with global warming, rising sea levels, and the climate-related extremes they intensify, the question is no longer whether some communities will retreat—moving people and assets out of harm's way—but why, where, when, and how they will retreat," the study begins.
The researchers suggest that it is time to rethink retreat, which is often seen as a last resort and a sign of weakness. Instead, it should be seen as the smart option and an opportunity to build new communities.
"We propose a reconceptualization of retreat as a suite of adaptation options that are both strategic and managed," the paper states. "Strategy integrates retreat into long-term development goals and identifies why retreat should occur and, in doing so, influences where and when."
The billions of dollars spent to rebuild the Jersey Shore and to create dunes to protect from future storms after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 may be a waste if sea level rise inundates the entire coastline.
"There's a definite rhetoric of, 'We're going to build it back better. We're going to win. We're going to beat this. Something technological is going to come and it's going to save us,'" said A.R. Siders, an assistant professor with the disaster research center at the University of Delaware and lead author of the paper, to the New York Times. "It's like, let's step back and think for a minute. You're in a fight with the ocean. You're fighting to hold the ocean in place. Maybe that's not the battle we want to pick."
Rethinking retreat could make it a strategic, efficient, and equitable way to adapt to the climate crisis, the study says.
Dr. Siders pointed out that it has happened before. She noted that in the 1970s, the small town of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin moved itself out of the flood plain after one too many floods. The community found and reoriented the business district to take advantage of highway traffic and powered it entirely with solar energy, as the New York Times reported.
That's an important lesson now that rising sea levels pose a catastrophic risk around the world. Nearly 75 percent of the world's cities are along shorelines. In the U.S. alone coastline communities make up nearly 40 percent of the population— more than 123 million people, which is why Siders and her research team are so forthright about the urgency and the complexities of their findings, according to Harvard Magazine.
Some of those complexities include, coordinating moves across city, state or even international lines; cultural and social considerations like the importance of burial grounds or ancestral lands; reparations for losses or damage to historic practices; long-term social and psychological consequences; financial incentives that often contradict environmental imperatives; and the critical importance of managing retreat in a way that protects vulnerable and poor populations and that doesn't exacerbate past injustices, as Harvard Magazine reported.
If communities could practice strategic retreats, the study says, doing so would not only reduce the need for people to choose among bad options, but also improve their circumstances.
"It's a lot to think about," said Siders to Harvard Magazine. "And there are going to be hard choices. It will hurt—I mean, we have to get from here to some new future state, and that transition is going to be hard.…But the longer we put off making these decisions, the worse it will get, and the harder the decisions will become."
To help the transition, the paper recommends improved access to climate-hazard maps so communities can make informed choices about risk. And, the maps need to be improved and updated regularly, the paper said as the New York Times reported.
"It's not that everywhere should retreat," said Dr. Siders to the New York Times. "It's that retreat should be an option. It should be a real viable option on the table that some places will need to use."
Leaked documents show that Jair Bolsonaro's government intends to use the Brazilian president's hate speech to isolate minorities living in the Amazon region. The PowerPoint slides, which democraciaAbierta has seen, also reveal plans to implement predatory projects that could have a devastating environmental impact.