In the wake of the leaked documents from the Heartland Institute about removing climate change from the subject you teach kids about in school's curriculum , Shell's climate change advisor David Hone took the opportunity to give his view on this issue.
David points out that climate change has now entered into a variety of subjects from biology, chemistry, geography and economics - something he appears to express dismay about. However a large majority of the world's scientists believe that climate change is the main problem of our time and something that touches a range of subjects and not just those mentioned. If anything should we not be discussing if we should not increase the subjects it is being taught in? But I will leave this for another day and another debate as it could be a whole separate argument.
This leads onto his main conclusion that he believes that climate change is taught to early in school and should come much later on , and instead teach as David puts it underlying science.
But that points to my question of what underlying science is? We have in the last ten or so years, as climate change has become a more and more pressing issue, seen climate science being more covered in the subject of science and so it should be. It's becoming the most defining subject of our time and as we enter a future of trying to de-carbonize our economies, and the students of today will be the employees of tomorrow, it's vital they get a grasp of the whole science of climate change as early as possible as it will for sure define and shape their working career. This is as important as it ever has been.
One of the most shocking statements in David's blog is when he refers to of the fact that the two sides of climate change should be taught evenly. By stating that I can only assume that he refers to the skeptics and nonsceptics. Even though he is a climate change adviser for Shell he sure comes across in not believing in it. Now 98% of the world's scientists are certain climate change is happening, that is a staggering high number and it's probably the most certainty you will ever get in science as nothing in science is ever certain. But to refer to only two percent, of the worlds scientists, many of whom are not really trusted, would not be to adhere to science in the first place.
I believe the true issue in David's mind is that the more he can slow down action against climate change the better, as that is what he is employed to do in his position as climate change adviser to Shell. This company has had countless of options to switch to a more sustainable business model, but despite their staggering greenwash they have consistently neglected to take these on-board, and are neglecting to invest and in the booming renewable sector. Instead they are, as we speak, on their way to the fragile Alaskan Arctic to perform oil test drilling, which has prompted Greenpeace to re-focus their Arctic campaign on Shell.Suggest a correction