Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Students head back to classrooms this month. Many arrive already convinced their future is hopeless.
In a Lancet Planetary Health study of 10,000 young people across ten countries, 75% said the future is frightening and 56% said they believe humanity is doomed. A 2025 PNAS study found one in five Americans aged 16 to 24 is afraid to have children because of the climate. That gloom has deepened over time. In Yale’s long-running survey, the share of Americans 18 to 34 who say global warming is already harming this country rose from 40% in 2012 to 64% in 2022.
What’s causing such a dramatic shift? It could be what’s missing in the classroom. Teenagers name teachers as their leading source on climate and energy. Seventy-one percent say they learned “a lot” or “some” from a teacher, ahead of parents at 67% and social media at 63%. Yet the median high school science teacher spends one or two hours a year on the subject, and three-quarters of teachers say they have never been trained to teach it.
he teaching gap shows. Nearly three-quarters of teens believe ocean plastic is a major contributor to climate change. (It’s not.) Energy illiteracy is even worse: fewer than a third of high schoolers can name the three sources that generate most American electricity. Energy literacy scores among high school seniors fell between 2017 and 2022.
What fills the gap is the phone. Researchers at the University at Buffalo, writing last fall in Climatic Change, found that heavier social media use correlates with what they call “climate doom,” the belief that warming will collapse social and economic order. When other researchers examined 100 climate videos on TikTok, only eight cited a reputable source.
A video feed full of ignorance and despair doesn’t make a good curriculum.
The consequences aren’t just emotional. They’re economic, too. After fifteen flat years, American electricity demand is climbing again, roughly 2% annually since 2020. Data centers on pace to double their share of peak demand inside two years. We are graduating energy-illiterate students at precisely the moment the country has to build.
For a teenager trying to figure out what to do with his life, that ignorance could be costly. We hear a lot these days about how artificial intelligence is closing the on-ramps into white-collar work. The head of one leading AI lab has warned that the technology could eliminate half of all entry-level white-collar jobs within five years, concentrated in the fields that used to hire new graduates. But that’s not the whole story. Electricians are growing at three times the rate of the average occupation, with roughly 73,500 openings a year. Nuclear technicians earn a median above $104,000, often without a four-year degree. Applied trades have added 2.5 million jobs since 2019, and the average utility worker is past 50 and nearing retirement.
Students need to know the full picture. That goes for job prospects as well as the climate. Natural gas displacing coal drove the largest share of the decline in American power-sector emissions, according to the Energy Information Administration. Technology companies have committed more than $50 billion to nuclear power, more than in any previous decade. Three Mile Island restarts next year. Most new reactors arrive in the 2030s. For a sixteen-year-old who wants to work in the nuclear industry, that timeline sounds like job security.
Kids deserve to know that their futures are far from hopeless. A little bit of energy education could work like an SSRI for doomsday depression.
Some groups are trying to fill the energy education gap. Generation Atomic runs a nuclear science program for grades 6 through 12. The American Conservation Coalition organizes young people around nuclear power and permitting reform. And Blue Energy Nation’s BENERGY course launches nationally this fall. It features six modules built for homeschool families but easily folded into any science, civics, or economics class. (Its assigned materials include some RealClearEnergy journalism.)
A mother in BENERGY’s pilot survey wrote that the course “backs its science with facts! And it’s not doom and gloom.” Another said it “sparked his curiosity in the topic and may have given him some ideas of future career ideas.”
Students shouldn’t be left to form a worldview based on TikTok videos. We should teach them where energy comes from, how it impacts their futures, and what it will need from them. Fear is a lousy career counselor. A generation convinced the future is already finished will not build the grid that future requires.
This article was originally published by RealClearEducation and made available via RealClearWire.
Universities have traditionally served as bastions of free inquiry and impartial research. This tradition is long past. The recent shift towards unabashed advocacy and activism, is championed by “From Publications to Public Actions: The Role of Universities in Facilitating Academic Advocacy and Activism in the Climate and Ecological Emergency,” and continues this disturbing trend. This paper, ostensibly published in the name of sustainability, reeks of ideological fervor rather than any kind of genuine pursuit of knowledge. Let’s dissect this document, piece by piece, and unveil the glaring absurdities and dangers inherent in this new academic dogma.
Universities have traditionally served as bastions of free inquiry and impartial research. This tradition is long past. The recent shift towards unabashed advocacy and activism, is championed by “From Publications to Public Actions: The Role of Universities in Facilitating Academic Advocacy and Activism in the Climate and Ecological Emergency,” and continues this disturbing trend. This paper, ostensibly published in the name of sustainability, reeks of ideological fervor rather than any kind of genuine pursuit of knowledge. Let’s dissect this document, piece by piece, and unveil the glaring absurdities and dangers inherent in this new academic dogma.
A Manufactured “Emergency”
The paper begins with a dire warning: “Planetary heating threatens the collapse of human civilization and ecosystems worldwide”. Such alarmist rhetoric, reminiscent of doomsday cults, sets the tone for what follows. The authors rely on the declarations of over 11,000 scientists to assert that the Earth faces a “climate emergency”. However, they conveniently overlook the nuances and complexities inherent in climate science. The use of the term “emergency” is a rhetorical tool designed to stifle debate and justify extreme measures. It is a classic case of crying wolf, where any dissent is labeled as denialism, and only the most radical solutions are deemed acceptable.
“An emergency is an urgent situation requiring immediate action, yet, despite thousands of Higher Education (HE) institutions around the world having issued their own ‘climate emergency declaration’ [UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), 2019] and the widespread recognition that universities play a key role in contributing to the public good, the HE sector is not rising to the collective challenge with the urgency commensurate with the warnings”.
The Call for Activism
In a stunning departure from traditional academic roles, the authors argue that universities should move “from publications to public actions”. They propose that academics should engage in advocacy and activism to affect “urgent and transformational change”. The paper outlines several actions that universities should adopt, including altering work allocation models to incorporate advocacy as part of academic duties, facilitating engaged research sabbaticals, and providing training to enhance the effectiveness of engagement. The paper’s agenda is clear: transform universities into breeding grounds for ideological warriors rather than centers of learning.
“We therefore suggest that academics should move from publications to public actions and engage in advocacy and activism to affect urgent and transformational change. We discuss the barriers to engagement in advocacy that academics face, and propose a number of actions that universities should adopt to help overcome them”.
The Illusion of Consensus
The authors lament that the higher education sector is not rising to the collective challenge with the urgency commensurate with scientific warnings. This criticism is rooted in the false assumption that there is a monolithic consensus within the scientific community regarding the climate crisis. In reality, science thrives on skepticism and debate, and the portrayal of a unanimous consensus is a dangerous oversimplification. The paper’s authors seem eager to silence any dissenting voices, branding them as betrayers of humanity. This approach not only undermines the scientific method but also fosters an environment of intellectual intolerance.
“So poor has been the collective response of the HE sector to the CEE that universities have been accused of failing–and even betraying–humanity”.
The Push for Civil Disobedience
One of the most concerning aspects of the paper is its endorsement of civil disobedience as a legitimate form of academic engagement. The authors argue that non-violent civil disobedience has been a driver of major 20th-century changes and should be embraced by academics to address the so-called climate emergency. This call for law-breaking under the guise of noble intentions is reckless and irresponsible. It places universities in a precarious position, encouraging faculty and students to engage in potentially illegal activities. The glorification of movements like Extinction Rebellion and School Strikes for Future further illustrates the paper’s bias towards radical activism.
“One powerful mechanism to rapidly influence policy is non-violent civil disobedience, which has been a driver of major 20th-century changes including universal suffrage, independence from empire, and civil rights for people of colour. In recent years, and particularly since 2018, a number of popular climate and environmental civil disobedience movements have sprung up around the world”.
The Flawed Premise of “Public Good”
The paper posits that universities should play a pivotal role in contributing to the public good, not just through research and education but also by engaging with the public and other audiences outside the sector. While this notion might seem noble on the surface, it is fundamentally flawed. The definition of “public good” is highly subjective and often politicized. By aligning themselves with specific political agendas, universities risk alienating a significant portion of the population they serve. The paper’s suggestion that universities should take an active role in promoting social justice issues, such as race and gender, further politicizes the academic environment.
“Universities have the potential to be ‘pivotal change agents’ in catalysing transitions towards sustainability (Giesenbauer and Müller-Christ, 2020), and over 200 universities have signed the SDG Accord, the HE sector’s ‘collective response’ to the UN Sustainable Development Goals”.
The Ideological Takeover of Academia
The paper’s authors advocate for the incorporation of advocacy into the work mandates of academic staff and propose that universities should reject the notion that political engagement should only be carried out in academics’ spare time, as private citizens. This blatant attempt to politicize academia is alarming. The role of universities should be to foster critical thinking and allow students to explore a diverse range of perspectives, not to indoctrinate them with a particular ideology. The authors’ call for universities to defend the right of academics to engage in protest and push back against emerging threats to academic freedom is ironic, given their own attempts to stifle intellectual diversity.
“Given the urgency of the CEE, we suggest that universities must expand their conception of how they contribute to the public good, and explicitly recognize engagement with advocacy as part of the work mandate of their academic staff”.
The Danger of Groupthink
The paper’s authors express concern over the lack of engagement by academics with environmental activist movements, attributing it to the fear of losing scientific credibility or attracting scorn from colleagues. This statement is a textbook example of groupthink. By promoting a homogeneous viewpoint and discouraging dissent, the authors are fostering an environment where critical inquiry is sacrificed at the altar of ideological conformity. The pressure on academics to conform to a particular narrative, lest they face professional ostracism, is a dangerous trend that threatens the integrity of higher education.
“We note that there is in fact no consensus in academia on what the ‘proper channels’ consist of, and that the theory of change for connecting research to action should itself be a topic of open research and experimentation”.
The Corporatization of Higher Education
Ironically, the paper criticizes the corporatization and marketization of higher education institutions, suggesting that these trends may limit universities’ willingness to promote forms of engagement that call into question the neoliberal agenda. This criticism is particularly rich coming from authors who seek to turn universities into propaganda machines for their own ideological pursuits. The corporatization of higher education is a genuine concern, but the solution is not to replace one form of dogma with another. True academic freedom requires a commitment to intellectual diversity and a rejection of all forms of ideological coercion.
“Nevertheless, while universities have an important role in facilitating greater engagement and advocacy by the whole academic community, their willingness to do so may be limited by the increasing corporatization and marketization of higher education institutions”.
The Hypocrisy of Academic Activism
The paper’s authors argue that those with the greatest knowledge and understanding of these crises have a moral obligation to provide leadership and engage in advocacy and activism. This self-righteous stance is not only patronizing but also hypocritical. It presupposes that only those who agree with the authors’ worldview possess the moral authority to speak on these issues. The idea that academics should use their positions to advance specific political agendas is antithetical to the principles of academic freedom and impartial inquiry.
“We suggest that the traditional academic roles of research and teaching are not sufficient to drive transformative change in a time of rapidly accelerating global crises, so those with the greatest knowledge and understanding of these crises have a moral obligation to provide leadership, and engage in advocacy and activism”.
Conclusion: A Call for Intellectual Integrity
The publication of “From Publications to Public Actions” continues and highlights the troubling shift in the role of universities. The authors’ unabashed call for activism and advocacy undermines the very foundations of higher education. Universities should be spaces for open dialogue, critical inquiry, and the free exchange of ideas. They should not be transformed into echo chambers for ideologically driven agendas. The academic community must resist this encroachment of political activism and recommit to the principles of intellectual integrity and impartiality.
In conclusion, the push for academic advocacy and activism, as outlined in this paper, is a dangerous and misguided attempt to politicize higher education.
While the true mission of universities should be to pursue knowledge and truth, free from the constraints of political dogma, one has to wonder if many if not most universities have deteriorated beyond salvaging. If the university system is to be saved, it will likely be done by emulating the actions being taken in Florida. noted below. Most of the higher education initiatives implemented to date are more about eliminating cultural Marxism practices. But cultural Marxism is the common thread woven through all related “Intersectional” academic issues, whether it is climate change, white supremacy, or that men can menstruate.
Legislative Actions and Policies
Defunding DEI Programs:
Florida has enacted laws that prohibit public colleges and universities from using state or federal funds to support diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This move is part of a broader effort to eliminate what state leaders consider politically motivated programs from academic institutions.
Stop WOKE Act:
The Stop WOKE Act, signed into law in 2022, restricts how race and gender can be taught in public universities. The law aims to prevent teachings that suggest systemic racism or sexism are inherent in American institutions. Although its implementation has been challenged and blocked by federal courts, it represents a significant attempt to free academic content from dogma.
HB 1285:
This legislation focuses on enhancing classical education and providing students with opportunities to explore military service. It also includes measures to protect against conflicts of interest in postsecondary institutions and supports the development of classical teaching certificates.
HB 999:
Aimed at furthering Governor DeSantis’s higher education reforms, this bill seeks to defund DEI initiatives, centralize hiring power with trustees, allow for post-tenure faculty review, and eliminate certain academic programs focused on race and gender.
Governance and Administrative Changes
Board Appointments:
Governor DeSantis has appointed critics of campus diversity initiatives to leadership positions at state universities, such as Florida Polytechnic University. These appointments are intended to steer these institutions away from DEI-focused policies and towards a more traditional academic framework.
Realignment of General Education:
The state has mandated that the Board of Governors and the State Board of Education review and realign general education core courses to ensure they provide historically accurate and foundational education while avoiding identity politics.
Promotion of Classical Education
Classical and Civic Education Centers:
Florida has invested in the creation and expansion of centers dedicated to classical and civic education, such as the Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida. These centers are intended to promote a curriculum grounded in Western civilization and civic responsibility.
Classical Teaching Certificates:
The state has introduced classical teaching certificates to bolster the teacher pipeline and ensure that educators are well-versed in classical education principles. This initiative is part of a broader effort to prioritize traditional academic subjects and methodologies.
Civil Discourse and Intellectual Freedom
Intellectual Freedom Assessments:
Florida has implemented annual assessments of intellectual freedom and viewpoint diversity among students, faculty, and administrators. These assessments are designed to measure and promote a culture of open inquiry and diverse perspectives within academic institutions.
Promotion of Civil Discourse:
Legislation has been introduced to elevate civil discourse and intellectual freedom in higher education. This includes ensuring that universities’ missions align with the values of liberty and the Western tradition, and that they provide education relevant to citizenship and workforce needs.
According to Mission Australia, climate anxiety is a leading cause of mental health issues in young people.
Youth Survey Shows Need for Action on Impact of Climate Change Concerns on Youth Mental Health
Published: 20 April 2023
Orygen and Mission Australia are calling for urgent action to address the impact of climate change concerns on the mental health of young people in Australia, following new research showing strong links between the two.
The 2022 Mission Australia Youth Survey shows 1 in 4 (26%) young people in Australia are ‘very’ or ‘extremely concerned’ about climate change, and nearly 2 in 5 (38%) of those respondents also experienced high psychological distress.
The survey of 18,800 people aged 15 to 19 showed that young people who reported being ‘very concerned’ or ‘extremely concerned’ about climate change were more likely to report:
high levels of concern about coping with stress
their mental health as ‘poor’ or ‘fair’
higher psychological distress
low subjective wellbeing
feeling more negative about the future
The 2022 Youth Survey found that half of respondents (51%) identified ‘the environment’ as one of the most important issues in Australia today. Some young people are more worried about climate change such as those who identified as female or gender diverse, and those experiencing financial difficulties.
In-depth statistical modelling shows that the link between climate concern and psychological distress as well as the negative future outlook were genuine and not impacted by common risk factors. This link was also stronger among young people who identified as gender diverse, Indigenous, or those living in regional/remote areas.
Orygen and Mission Australia say the results warrant an urgent response, recommending four key actions to address the issue:
Ensuring future government youth and mental health strategies include actions that address the relationship between climate change and mental health
Partnering with young people when designing actions to mitigate climate related mental health impacts
Providing training to professionals working with young people to identify and manage climate-related stress
Funding targeted research focused on the impacts of climate change on youth mental health
“The impact of climate change on mental health is an emerging, but significant issue that is likely to grow as climate change becomes more severe,” said Orygen Senior Biostatistician and Environmental Epidemiologist Dr Caroline Gao, who co-authored the report with colleagues from Orygen, University of Melbourne and Mission Australia.
The report suggests that while concerns about climate change may contribute to a young person’s psychological distress, it is also possible that pre-existing psychological distress increases the likelihood of worry and concerns, including about climate change.
“We believe urgent action is required to better support young people. We want to reduce the impact of climate change on psychological distress, foster hope and avoid despair, while still motivating positive climate actions.”
Dr Gao added, “Young people are particularly vulnerable to mental ill-health; the onset of almost half of all mental health disorders occurs before the age of 18. With the extreme climate occurrences that have occurred in Australia over the last three years, it is likely that climate concerns are contributing to the exacerbation of mental ill-health for some of our young people.”
Mission Australia’s Executive of Practice, Evidence and Impact Marion Bennett agrees, adding: “Young people in Australia are telling us that the threat of climate change and the increasing regularity and severity of extreme weather is harming their mental health and wellbeing.
“We can see in this report that young people who experienced financial difficulties in the past year are particularly concerned about climate change, which aligns with what Mission Australia frontline staff see among some vulnerable young people that we support through our community services and housing.
“Young people overwhelmingly want action on climate change, and Australia must act to reduce the harm young people are experiencing.
“We urge governments to update their youth and mental health strategies so there is increased access for all young people in Australia to mental health services, to raise awareness and to upskill professionals in the realm of climate-related distress. It’s also important that governments partner with young people to co-design solutions that will address their climate-related mental health concerns.”
Dr Gao added, “We are currently conducting a programme of research with our partner organisations to support a better understanding of the impact of climate change on young people’s mental health as well as evidence-based resources for professionals working with young people.”
Mission Australia is a Christian charity whose focus is outreach and assistance for the homeless and other people in distress.
Climate change anxiety and mental health issues are leading to other serious problems. According to Dr. Alex Wodak, a leading Aussie drug rehabilitation specialist (now retired), climate anxiety is a factor driving young people to destroy themselves with hard drugs.
…
First, the threshold step is redefining drugs as primarily a health and social issue rather than primarily a law enforcement issue. Second, drug treatment has to be expanded and improved until it reaches the same level as other health services. Third, all penalties for personal drug use and possession have to be scrapped.
Fourth, as much of the drug market as possible has to be regulated while recognising that part of the drug market is already regulated, such a methadone treatment, needle and syringe programs, medically supervised injecting centres. It will, of course, never be possible to regulate the entire drug market. We have regulated parts of the drug market before. Edible opium was taxed and regulated in Australia until 1906 and in the United States Coca-Cola contained cocaine until 1903.
Fifth, efforts to reduce the demand for powerful psychoactive drugs in Australia have had limited benefit and require a new focus. Unless and until young Australians feel optimistic about their future, demand for drugs will remain strong. Young people, understandably, want more certainty about their future prospects, including climate, education, jobs and housing affordability. Change will be slow and incremental, like all social policy reform.
As Herb Stein, as adviser to President Nixon said: Things that cannot go on forever don’t.
Drug prohibition cannot go on forever and will be replaced by libertarian paternalism. Thank you.
…Source: Wayback Machine (the original link from 2019 no longer works)
Of course the risk of kids turning to hard drugs and depravity to fund those drugs is only one possible consequence of youth climate anxiety. Youth climate anxiety is driving the mushrooming of radical groups like Extinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil, Rising Tide, an alphabet soup of youth driven radical environmental groups whose members regularly expose themselves to danger of injury or death by stopping trains, stopping traffic, vandalising buildings or artworks, or glueing themselves to roads.
I doubt politicians will listen to Mission Australia’s plea for intervention, given their ill considered education policies, which in some cases promote mandatory alarmist climate indoctrination, are likely the main cause of youth climate anxiety.
You must be logged in to post a comment.