Why it is important that the department of education removes climate change from the geography syllabus for under 14s

The department of education can not afford for all parents and all children to be educated on climate change.

If all children were to be educated that there is a high possibility that our level of development, even now, is causing escalating damage to the planets ecosystem, that the damage even to date had caused many people especially in hot countries suffering worse starvation and droughts, then our now educated children may become life long environmentalists. Their voting may be effected for life. 

The education of an 8 year old is very different from that of a 14 year old.

At the age of 14 children are expected to select their nine GCSEs with the core subjects being Maths English and the sciences, the rest are optional. This means that many students man never be actively educated on climate change before being presented the the lure of commerce.

At 14 geography in preparation for GCSEs the children are expected to retain a mountain of information scientific rather than moralistic level of education and two the select few who choose geography the loss of support to our core industries will be reduced and the focus can revert to less more experimental topics as soil types.

Climate change is a very emotive issue and if there is one thing 9 year old are good at is being emotive. Not only that but 9 year olds have not yet turned 13. The golden age where the young adult casts aside their parents and goes it alone on homework.

The 8 year old is still engaging with their parents willingly and their parent still think they are a bit cute, unable to fend for themselves.

Their homework is our homework. Climate change homework will not only serve as a cruel reminder of the suffering not only on children but on the parents who are struggling to support their own helpless nine year old. And in that setting our 9 year old will ask us what we are going to do about it?

By educating the under 14's you no loner educate one third of the voters of the future. You educate everyone with a child, through the eyes of a child.

Though the eyes of a child we are presented with simple right and wrong even if we are only 80% sure. Many will finally accept that that our consumption is unsustainable and that even the great market economy must be made to work within the environments constraints and humanity to do the best it can with that. That the rules of land ownership and it's exploitation need to change.

It is therefore absolutely essential for the industrial gamesters that fund the main party leaders that climate change education is minimized.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/18/climate-change-schools-backlash

Sustainable GDP. The missing metric

We hear a lot about GDP and growth.

GDP is very useful because it provides us with a total figure from which to take percentages and ascertain the overall health of the country.

GDP / Defect
GDP / National debt
Proportional of GDP from banking / farming etc.
GDP / Working hours (Productivity)

The GDP figure on its own  tells us nothing the level of public debt, private debt, how much it is dependent on consumption of finite resources, quality of life or rich poor divide. Yet increasing GDP is how most senior politicians measure growth and success?

Lets pretend that we found 2 billion barrels of crude just off the coast of Brighton.

A new industry is born in the area, much to the displeasure of many, but none can fail to see the prosperity it brings.

Extracting 1.1 million barrels a day for 5 years. Each year £200b of GDP is off the back of this finite resource. We have an immediate 9% increase in our GDP without taking on any financial debt to achieve it. The government, with what might equate to an over all £100b tax take on each of these years does reduce the deficit a bit but mostly spends the money on nice things and quango's.

The party in power are labeled a success.

Year 6. GDP down by 9%. A boom region full of young families who over paid for their homes on debt dies over night. The government spends two yeas getting used to not having its oil allowance and gets into more debt than it was before the boom.

How can we stop this happening?

We need another metric. Whenever we talk about GDP it must not include unsustainable consumption.

When we use a resource that does not regenerate the GDP that can be attributed to it should be calculated.

The same should be done with the use of reserve resources.

The same should be true of the use of resources beyond their regeneration rate, for example wood and fish stocks in our present day.

Using GDP as the master figure encourages the dog like instinct of eat quick or miss out and allows no insight to the sustainable economy which must one day be able to support our governance and provide a good quality of life on its own.

By encouraging a the use of a global economic model around sustainable GDP where debt and industry levels are related to that, we can begin to learn how to live within those constraints gradually so that in 10-20 years time we are able to do so.

This figure will allow us to allocate a monetary debt figure to consumption. And from this we can allow the market economy to fix the addiction.

An example would be year incremental yearly % of consumption on renewable and recycling technology or infrastructure. Year 1 5%. Year 2.10%

This seems pretty obvious but it ignores part of the big picture.We are not one nation. Either we all do it or the selfish leader has an advantage.

But I believe the advantage is over rated. With more investment in renewable, better working practices, better telecoms we have less people travelling long distances to do similar jobs, we can thrive without consuming resources. We must! 

The market economy is a good way to encourage innovation. But a market economy needs rules that keep it working for the good of the public now and in the future. Not for the families of those who have authority over resources.

A macro model that grows sustainable GDP can do that.