How The BBC Cheerleads For Kids Climate Strike
By Paul Homewood
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47584093
A lot of words have been written about the schools’ climate strikes, so I don’t intend to revisit them. But here’s a few of my observations:
1) There have been two strikes so far, Feb and March 15th. If they stick to Fridays, the next will be due either on April 12th, which is a school holiday in many areas, or a week later, which is Good Friday. Either way I doubt whether many kids will turn up!
2) While there has been some reporting in the rest of the media, the coverage on the BBC has been grotesquely over the top:
They have treated the strikes as if they were some world shattering event, rather than the bit of juvenile showing off which they really are.
3) In most towns, the numbers of pupils on strike last week appears to have been tiny.
This is evident from photos and video from the BBC coverage, such as in Huntingdon below, where there about 30 kids protesting. There are about 3000 children of school age in Huntingdon, so some 2970 kids did not go on strike.
And in Norwich, 200 turned up out of a school age population of 20000.
I suspect these sort of ratios are commonplace across Britain. It is also apparent that many of the protestors are not children, but older students.
It is obvious that the BBC has been acting as a cheerleader for the strikes, with local camera crews up and down the country on hand to make them appear something they are not.
Look closely and you will see that most of the BBC’s pictures and videos are deliberately framed to disguise how tiny most of the protests are.
4) Winner of the Dopey Banner competition must go to this lass:
Does she actually think she is working for our benefit? Or that we give two hoots whether she stops or not?
It is a symptom of the sense of entitlement some kids have nowadays that she thinks she is doing us a favour by going to school.
I’ve got a suggestion for her. Stop doing your schoolwork and don’t bother going back to lessons. But don’t come back snivelling when you can’t get a job or a place at Uni when you’ve finally grown up.
5) The chants and slogans reveal how little understanding the children actually have about climate change issues. They mindlessly repeat apocalyptic warnings about sea level rise, twelve years to save the planet and the other nonsense that their minds have been fed with.
But nowhere is there any recognition of what is going on in the real world. Nor any sense of a historical perspective. For instance, have any of them even heard of the Medieval Warming Period or Little Ice Age?
Sadly the main fault here must lie with their teachers, who seem to be more interested in pumping impressionable minds with left wing propaganda than facts.
6) There is the same lack of knowledge and downright naivety about the politics of climate change.
The children all seem to think that the government can wave a magic wand and make the bogeyman vanish. They simply chant slogans about getting rid of fossil fuels, without the slightest idea of what that would mean for their lives.
None of the kids seem to be aware that the UK only accounts for 1% of global emissions of CO2. Or that in the last decade, while Britain’s emissions have fallen by 170 Mt to 398 Mt, the rest of the world’s have increased by 3536 Mt.
7) Perhaps the most striking aspect is the underlying attitude of sense of entitlement and a chip on the shoulder.
Let me give one example.
These four protestors were at the Birmingham rally. They go on to say:
Anybody who has lived on this planet for longer than us, they have been irresponsible in their actions and their attitude towards the climate
What, even their older brother? And of course these four have been perfect citizens! Their hypocrisy stinks.
Many of the protestors claim that their generation has somehow been let down, and that the rest of us have selfishly destroyed the world for them.
What arrogance!
The world they are now growing up in is arguably the healthiest, best fed, most well off and comfortable ever. And that applies globally.
Would they prefer to have been born in the 1950s, when the air was thick with pollution, most houses had nothing more than coal fires, no central heating and outside loos, and we had to walk or cycle miles to school?
And that generation was grateful that it did not grow up in earlier decades, with mass unemployment, kids working down mines and being sent off to war when they were old enough.
And, by the way children, they had bad weather in those days too!
Rant over! But if anybody still needs convincing that the climate of the past was not idyllic, take a look at the Xmas 1947 edition of the local steelworks magazine:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Good rant!! Ever looked at the accommodation in Colleges/Universities hardly any recycling takes place. I take in two students under the Rent A Room scheme and each year have to educate them about recycling – no Mum & Dad to clean up after them
It’s BBC’s woke Yoof policy innit? Really trendy.
The joke is, most of them haven’t even lived through any significant climate change. All they hear is that it’s sure to be bad in future because failing climate models and propagandists say so – unless we ‘do something’. Absurd.
It is most unfortunate that I and many others haven’t been out to confront these juveniles to find out what information on climate they have been pumped with at school. Are there no parents out there who can tell us?
Rowland,
My two have only left school over the last 2 years. The answer to your question is easy – school children are just fed the same BBC/Guardian etc rubbish as is reported on this site. The two target subjects for indoctrination are science and geography and the infection has been completed successfully. The course texts contain some real whoppers, so easily disproven. Neither in the coursework nor in the exams is there any allowance for debate nor any understanding that there is a debate to be had. The curriculum is settled.
My daughters’ (private, high-performing) school – hardly a hotbed for left wing ideology – is illustrative. When they called for external speakers on topical, perhaps, divisive issues a year or two back, I offered to give a speech on climate change (from a skeptical perspective). I was extremely careful with the wording in my offer and made sure that I ticked all the boxes in the original request for speakers and speeches. It would be true to say that the master-in-charge threw up his hands in horror at the mere suggestion. He made it clear that he thought it wholly inappropriate.
I went away feeling that, if the brainwashing is like this in a school such as this, children probably have little or no chance of being properly educated on this subject anywhere. No wonder they seek to join these vacuous marches – they have been provided with no means of knowing any better.
Teaching geography until 2014,even to A level, left little room for objective assessment of global warming. It was very clear from the syllabus and mark scheme what answers would receive top marks. At A level I tried to give a wider view but told my pupils what the ‘party line’ was in order to gain the best results.
Teachers should be prosecuted for encouraging the kids to skip school. The parents would be.
The kids cannot possibly understand the truth, they are just being brain washed by their political and Guardian reading teachers who also do not understand.
Make the Head Teacher (or whatever the technical term is nowadays) absolutely responsible for prosecuting parents for truancy.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/family-holidays/term-time-holiday-fines-1000-pounds-per-child/
Joe, it is the Head Teachers that are condoning and encouraging the truancy.
They are the ones who should be prosecuted.
Fine them both and give the money to the elderly who struggle to afford to heat their homes due to global warming taxes.
And the Welsh Government is proposing to give 16 year olds the “right” to vote in Welsh Government elections!
That’s because the WAG is held by Labour, but Labour support in Wales is diminishing inexorably and will soon arrive at the tipping point where they lose the WAG and many Westminster seats. Ergo, 16 year olds must be allowed to vote, as they will probably vote Labour.
Personally I have always thought the voting age should be 25. I see that some psychologists now support my arguments in thinking that.
Would that they were born in the ’30s. Being evacuated would have focused their minds – but I guess they don’t do modern history either.
My grandfather and his brother weren’t irresponsible, hey died for this country!
As a teacher in the first ten years of my working life I saw History and Geography supplanted by ‘issues driven’ studies. The old disciplines had value. The syllabus had some rigor and made sense. The new ‘social studies’ became a platform for propaganda.
At the same time it became evident that the academic work that teachers did in order to qualify was devalued. Following the lesson guide became the new way. A teachers personal interests and enthusiasms were devalued. Teachers became functionaries, doing exactly what they were told to do. The work-books were produced by the ‘department’. That wasn’t the ‘department in the school. It was central. Many teachers left in disgust.
Would you give an engineer four years of training and then tell him to avoid any creative endeavors, just follow the book, stick to the tables and when in doubt slip down the table to enforce more rigorous specs to increase the safety margin. Adhere to the standards is the catch cry. No place worse for creating a plethora of standards than Australia. I think it springs from the somewhat difficult convict past. Got to keep the bastards in line. Now our suburbs are full of roundabouts and a plethora of ‘traffic quietening devices’. A speed limit of 110 km per hour is enforced regardless of road conditions and its enforced with an increasingly sophisticated technology, state wide. Next step perhaps—-every car to be equipped with a GPS device and a camera identifying the driver. Big brother is watching you.The Chinese have the technology.
Paul, you do a great job. Please keep up the good work.
I’m minded to copy your excellent post and read it to my four grandchildren (and their rather misguided parents for that matter).
I have a Riley saloon car first registered in March 1948. Traditionally Rileys, being upmarket, always used leather for seat covering. In early 1948 leather was in short supply, presumably on account of snowed in farms. Economy of use of leather was needed and so it was only used for the outer edges of the seat covering, as a sort of border. The rest was (is) Bedford cord – a good hard wearing material, but not leather.
Their arrogance and ignorance is not much greater than that of their teachers, politicians and the media who follow like sheep or lemmings the vocal purveyors of “settled science” with their apocalyptic model-driven forecasts. They protest climate change inaction but have no idea what that entails…what it might cost nor how long it might take. The emphasis is on the perceived problem and not on a viable solution.
So much for the BBC’s charter to inform, educate and whatever else the useless b*ggers are supposed to do.
I wonder if these ill-informed, exploited kids know the first thing about the eye-watering amounts of money squandered on ‘green’ projects. Surely, they should be protesting that money should be spent on schools and unis – that would be far better for their future prospects.
I spent my early years in a council house high up on the edge of the Peak District near to Sheffield. With ice on the inside of the windows in winter you learnt to get dressed very quickly. Then a walk to school through snow drifts wearing shorts. Hopefully there would be a coal fire in the living room after I’d walked home. Sheffield was permanently under a cloud of pollution and was usually invisible from the surrounding hills. My father would always return from work (bus or motorbike) with his shirt collar black from the pollution.
Youngsters today have it very good and have no idea what conditions were like in the past.
Phil, first 7 years in a 2 room Nissan Hut after being bombed out of our home just South East of London.
Then in to a new council house with, wait for it, partial central heating and an indoor toilet.
The bedroom windows still had ice on them but it warmed up quicker once the fire with the back boiler was lit.
No cars, no phone, no Television, but most things were recycled in glass or came in paper bags.
Thick Sulphuric Smogs, walk to school or the shops whatever the weather, which was just as variable and violent as today.
These youngsters don’t have a clue.
I lived in the southern suburbs of London – looking out over the old Croydon Airport – in the 60s and we had ice on the inside of the windows as well. We had a coal fire but then had gas fires fitted. No central heating in that house.
You were lucky – just ice on the window, we had ice on the mirror on the dressing table opposite!
Wait a minute, is it getting warmer now? What could that be caused by?
Winter of 62/63 in Guernsey (so 70 miles south of Portland, UK) and the glass of water on the mantelpiece in our bedroom turned to ice!
Winter of 62/63 in Guernsey (so 70 miles south of Portland, UK) and the glass of water on the mantelpiece in our bedroom turned to ice!
Similarly on Portsea Island growing up in the forties and fifties although we rarely had snow, ice formed readily on the inside of the windows by bedtime and we shivered mightily before sleep came, then awakened to rime patterned windows and icy clothes , short trousered until the age of eleven and shivered again walking over a mile to a schoolroom heated by a small stove which vented most away through a black pipe through the ceiling.
The meagre coal fire at home was the focal point of existence then and the family took turn about to share in it’s fitful output. Those bagging more than their share were shamefully identified by a red tracery of veins and arteries on their legs, whilst coats and hats were worn indoors on numerous occasions.
Portsmouth was not immune to smog and pollution despite the prevailing wind coming off the English Channel and our shirt collars were grimed with black as too were our necks, depending on the distance between that day and Friday night which was for most the day of the weekly bath.
And these snotty children berate their parents and more distant relatives for climate sins and Brexit, seemingly unaware that their freedom so to do stems from those in the Great War and again in WW2 who fought and died for democracy and freedom, both of which they seem happy to legislate and even give away to home grown charlatans and foreign powers in their unthinking mix of hedonism and irrational naivety.
Paul, you said “I’ve got a suggestion for her. Stop doing your schoolwork and don’t bother going back to lessons. But don’t come back snivelling when you can’t get a job or a place at Uni when you’ve finally grown up.”
But she will be eligible as an MP on that performance though, or is it compulsory to have a PPE?
There is hope. Not all children are mindless jerks. What we must also remember is that there are more children NOT attending the protest’s than are.
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
I have been meaning to post this for a week or so, I think it fits in well with Paul’s rant.
View web version
The Boston Globe
Arguable – with Jeff Jacoby
Monday, March 11, 2019
Apocalypse not
On its opinion page the other day, The Wall Street Journal reprinted without comment an ample excerpt from an Associated Press dispatch dated June 29, 1989. The story was headlined “U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked,” and while most 30-year-old news accounts are unmistakably archaic, this one wouldn’t seem out of place if it ran in the paper tomorrow with nothing changed but a date or two:
UNITED NATIONS — A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.
Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of “eco-refugees,” threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.
He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.
As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told the Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.
Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study. . . .
Sound familiar? Of course it does. It sounds like any of a thousand-and-one predictions of climate change, mass death, global starvation, and other varieties of impending doom that have been forecast by environmental alarmists for the past half-century or more.
From Paul Ehrlich declaring that the 1970s would bring famines in which “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now,” to Al Gore warning in 2008 that the entire Arctic polar ice cap “may well be completely gone in five years,” to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asserting in January that “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change,” fearmongers keep telling us that the end of human existence as we know it is only a few years away. These apocalyptic forecasts are invariably terrifying, earnest, and adamant. They are always said to be grounded in scientific clarity. They are unfailingly held out as a mandate for immediate and sweeping change at which no reasonable person would balk.
And none of them has ever come to pass.
As a college student in the 1970s, I had to read lengthy excerpts from the 1972 jeremiad, The Limits to Growth , which warned that life on earth and industrial development were on an inevitable collision course, and that it was only a matter of time until the planet ran out of mineral resources, food, and breathable air. To be fair, the authors did hedge their scary scenarios with acknowledgements of “mankind’s ingenuity and social flexibility,” and they suggested that the most alarming outcomes were still a century away. Plainly, though, they would have regarded it as inconceivable that 50 years later, despite an increase in global population and industrialization, human beings worldwide would be enjoying greater wealth, better nutrition, improved health, and longer lives. Yet that is just what has happened.
Even in the 1970s there was much alarmist talk of climate change — but the change most often forecast was global cooling. “There are specialists who say that a new ice age is on the way,” reported The New York Times on May 21, 1975. That Times article, as George F. Will showed in a citation-studded 2009 column , was no outlier:
Although some disputed that the “cooling trend” could result in “a return to another ice age” (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” involving “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation” (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The “continued rapid cooling of the Earth” (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that “a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery” (International Wildlife, July 1975). “The world’s climatologists are agreed” that we must “prepare for the next ice age” (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of “ominous signs” that “the Earth’s climate seems to be cooling down,” meteorologists were “almost unanimous” that “the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century,” perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, “The Cooling World ,” April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was “cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool,” glaciers had “begun to advance” and “growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter” (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).
Today, of course, the panic-mongering over climate change swings in the other direction. Where once we were told that the “rapid advance of some glaciers” would make much of Alaska, Iceland, and Canada uninhabitable, the worry now is that two-thirds of the Himalayan glaciers will melt, with devastating effects on life in India, China, and Pakistan. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past,” reported The Independent in 2000. The story quoted a climate scientist’s lament that within a few years, “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
What has been true of climate doomsaying has been true of every other kind as well. Ecologists were convinced that the growth in numbers of people would trigger a “population bomb” of mass starvation and a worldwide “die-off.” Would-be Cassandras warned fervently that resource depletion, especially “peak oil,” would force a drastic rollback of modern industry and transportation.
Let’s accept for the sake of argument that all these dreadful prophecies are made with utter sincerity. Let’s disregard the fact that they always seem to be accompanied by calls for vastly expanded government power and reduced individual freedom. Let’s assume it is only by coincidence that most of this “apocalypse now” rhetoric comes from the political left, with its affinity for top-down, command-and-control solutions.
Even so, shouldn’t there come a point at which the alarmists acknowledge their nearly unbroken record of faulty predictions? Shouldn’t an Ehrlich or a Gore feel obliged to concede that the deadline by which they said mankind would fall off the cliff has come and gone, and make a good-faith effort to explain why human society continues, stronger, richer, healthier, and safer than ever? Shouldn’t the mainstream media and the educational establishment reconsider the wisdom of repeating every ominous and cataclysmic environmental prognosis as if its truth cannot possibly be doubted?
If a financial adviser or TV meteorologist or sports analyst proved as consistently wrong as climate alarmists have proved, everyone would take their latest prediction with more than a grain or two of salt. Doesn’t it make sense to do the same when confronted with yet another terrifying environmental forecast? Yes, it is always possible that all those false alarms are being followed, this time, by a real one. But maybe, just maybe, a touch of skepticism would be prudent .
Spot on on all counts.
Well said!
I grew up in Birmingham in the fifties and sixties. The air was very polluted especially in the winter when thick, yellowish, smelly smogs would descend. We children walked to school in this, unable to see further than two, or three feet in front of us.
All the big older buildings in town were black with soot from coal fires.
We lived in a large house which was freezing in the winter, all but one room which my mother managed to keep warm with a stove. When we woke in the morning the frost was on the inside of the windows! I used to warm my vest by a one bar electric heater.
We had simple, good, home cooked food. Eating out and take aways were virtually unheard of. We wore our clothes until we grew out of them, they were then passed down to the younger children if possible.
All my schoolfriends and our neighbours lived similar lives.
Did I come from an impoverished working class family? No, my father was a GP and we lived in one of the wealthier parts of Birmingham.
Schools have staff training days, the kids are on holiday anyway, so the concept of a strike may be fake news.
It strikes me that one of the failings of teaching is not giving children the skills necessary to examine information critically and distinguish between fact and fiction, and to understand where facts stop and opinion takes over and to realise that appeals to authority should be treated with scepticism.
This would be of immense benefit not only in helping them to understand climate change and to put it into historical perspective, but also to allow them to more safely negotiate the world of social media.
You’re suffering under a misconception. What you’re describing is a feature of modern Western education. The kids are just being programmed to follow instructions handed down from above and to not think too much about it. All part of the plan.
http://invisibleserfscollar.com/
The BBC like easy ‘copy’ which the kids and their teachers – preferring a Friday off to having to turn out on a Saturday — were happy to provide. .
Failing that, expensive copy particularly about tragedy: last night’s news included a feed from New Zealand when the reporter – Clive Myrie — was asked to report on the “latest developments”. I wonder what more there was expected from Clive M. on this 3 day old ghastly episode. In the absence of real news intrusive vox pops verging on pornography had to satisfy.
Frankly, I’m really jealous that I didn’t have some excuse like this to skip school in the 50’s and early 60’s. All we got was snow days, classes turned into study halls so we could listen (and later watch) afternoon college basketball tournament games and fall days off if your family needed you for farm work. Free Friday’s off to save the planet(or whatever was big 60 years ago) would have been great. We would have gotten 90+% of the school gone for the day.
With almost weekly updates, my local rag has been full of itself on the issue. They even go to the extent of posting a link to the local organisers facebook page.
https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/17477181.young-activists-join-call-to-recognise-climate-emergency/
https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/17477181.young-activists-join-call-to-recognise-climate-emergency/
https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/17487174.students-ensure-council-recognises-climate-emergency/
https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/17491729.student-strikes-to-continue-in-hereford/
https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/17504643.students-skip-school-to-protest-against-climate-change/
There have been a few comments in support of the action, but needless to say when challenged there is little in the way of response, other than the usual name calling. As I pointed out to one respondent though, ‘reasoned argument (with supporting evidence) is not trolling.’
In other news…
Bill Giles (for those abroad, he’s an ex BBC weather presenter) has a ‘Viewpoint’ piece in this week’s edition of the Radio Times. It contains this gem…
“Where the sceptics go wrong is they confuse weather and climate.”
Really!?
The website report on this allowed for (short) questions about climate change to be entered. Having put forward a number of questions that might be construed as sceptical of the ‘science’ I await answers, but I am not holding my breath.
The BBC report as stated here in depth LOOK at the Hong Kong foto on the BBC link below. WHY ALL WHITE FACES in a Hong Kong demo? Could it be that the English School full of brat children of the rich have a left of centre science contaminator imported from the UK? Also The concerned PC BBC invites us to ask them questions about Climate Change. Ask a question! I did. Annoyingly they only allow 140 characters which is all that a Millennial numpty needs I suppose. I asked them to show the empirical data to support the cause of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Make your questions scientific and direct as possible!
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-47581585
“Veteran weatherman Bill Giles says that BBC forecasts should include a report on climate change”
Any guesses as to how impartial these would be?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6824325/BBC-forecasts-include-report-climate-change-according-former-weatherman.html
Isn’t this the same as the islamic “Trojan Horse Iissue”? Kids being indoctrinated with unfounded alarmism not facts which make them not fit into society. I for one would go straight to each school and interrogate the supposed science teacher.
For “Climate Change” read “Christianity”. Same formulae – brainwash the children, deny facts, live for the promised tomorrow, worship the high priests, persecute the heretics and control the media (including books). Not much hope though, look how long it lasted.
Apparently your smartphones contribute billions to the planet’s CO2 so if you truly want to do something STOP USING YOU SMART PHONES and GIVE THEM UP. Let’s see how serious you children really are about “saving the planet” ? Or will you now join the rest of us who know your “religion” stinks?
What is reassuring about school kids is that any self respecting youngster is a communist ot left leaning, but once they experience the real world for a few years theit view’s bear little or no resemblance to their former beliefs.
What is reassuring about school kids is that any self respecting youngster is a communist ot left leaning, but once they experience the real world for a few years their view’s bear little or no resemblance to their former beliefs.
It was ever thus:
This has been quoted many times, over many years, but the Roman and early Christian writer, Tertullian, (c.155 – c. 240 ) wrote:
‘Most convincing as evidence of populousness, we have become a burden to the Earth. The fruits of nature hardly suffice to sustain us, and there is a general pressure of scarcity giving rise to complaints. Need we be astonished that plague and famine, warfare and earthquake, come to be regarded as remedies, serving to prune the superfluity of population?’
Ben Pile took modern day Tertullians, Paul and Anne Ehrlich to task in this excellent post from 2013: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2013/01/malthuss-zombie.html
However you look at it the protests were pointless. Even accepting, for the sake of argument, that CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change and that doom awaits, Greta Thunberg’s pitch is that nothing has been done to combat climate change when the reality, as we all know, is that most European countries have spent or wasted massive sums in an attempt to reduce emissions. Indeed her pitch might fairly be described as ‘a convenient untruth’.
But of course the protests were all in precisely those countries that have done the most to reduce emissions. No protests in China or India which already have much higher emissions than western countries but have dispensation under the Paris Agreement, as ‘developing countries’, to continue increasing emissions well into the future.
The BBC’s main purpose is to offer support to the teachers who do the indoctrination. If they can persuade more teachers to sign up, it multiplies the numbers by 30 per class, or perhaps more if the teachers specialise in a subject that they teach to a large proportion of a school.
Parents need to start complaining about indoctrination by the communist NUT in their schools. It’s not just Climate change but all leftist causes.
The sad thing is there has been a noticeable decline in the teaching of science and other numerate subjects.
This would really do something to address any world or community problems
When leftist regimes find general resistance to their dictates among the population they inevitably resort to indoctrinating the younger elements of the population.
We have seen this with Russia, China, N. Korea, and a whole load of South American socialist republics. Then as the older generation dies off (by whatever means) the remaining young sheeple are caught in the iron grip of the socialist regime’s whim. Most of these indoctrinated populous do not the thought processes, political tools, or imagination to think of a way out of this rule by the elites and have to suffer the consequences. Only later when the whole sorry mess unravels through lack of funds will reality finally (often violently) assert itself.
But that is often the way of the left — get in to power by splitting the generations, spend everyone’s money, then exit pointing the finger of blame on the innocent, while leaving a huge mess for others to try and clean up.
The UK has been close to this before remember ?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/7732661/Labours-warning-to-new-Government-theres-no-money-left.html
“The former chief secretary to the Treasury, Liam Byrne, left a note in a desk stating, ”I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left,” his successor has claimed.”