Educating children is a responsibility we all share. That’s why schools are public, to make sure we pass along to the next generation our system of self-government based on individual freedom, personal responsibility, and the rule of law. It is our job to educate children, not the other way around.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t occasional pearls of wisdom from children, as with the little girl willing to say the emperor had no clothes. The Huffington Post last year opined about things we can learn from children, such as “have fun, be curious, express yourself sincerely, love fearlessly, and don’t be afraid to ask questions.” In truth, these are things we teach children, not learn from them. Good parents teach universal life truths: always do your best; if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything; keep your elbows off the table; you can do anything you put your mind to; treat others how you wish to be treated.
In turn, children teach us to remember what is most important in life. And global warming. That’s what we are expected to conclude from a landmark legal case known as the “children’s lawsuit,” which seeks to end the use of oil, gas, and coal. The plaintiffs charge the U.S. government with actions and inactions that endanger life itself, because it has failed to ban our use of energy. It was filed on behalf of 21 kids from 10 to 19, but not by the kids themselves, of course. None of them are licensed to practice law in Oregon, where the suit was filed, much less before the Supreme Court, where it was recently discussed. The Supreme Court has denied a government motion to dismiss the case, so it is headed to trial this fall.
The suit was actually filed by an environmental industry group called “Our Children’s Trust,” whose members, staff, and board include no children at all. Still, the group presumes to speak for the nation’s children. With an annual budget exceeding $1.5 million, the well-heeled group is funded by many of the usual sources: the Rockefeller Brothers, Patagonia, Bauman Foundation, Wallace Global Foundation, and others whose names regularly appear on the donor lists of national environmental organizations.
This organization has, as you may have guessed, absolutely nothing to do with children, other than using that image because it tugs at the heartstrings. The organization was founded by an activist attorney pushing 50, whose deputy is in his 60s. They employ a number of staff attorneys, community organizers, and fund-raisers, none of whom are children. They are a highly educated lot, most with law degrees, and with undergraduate training in international affairs, political science, geography, conflict resolution, philosophy, and even French. The Climate Policy Strategist is not a lawyer at all, and the Community Engagement Manager is a former mental health counselor who once backpacked across South America. The staff includes former employees of Greenpeace, EarthJustice, Food and Water Watch, and other groups specializing in similar activism. The “Our Children’s Trust” Board of Directors includes a film-maker, a clinical social worker, a West Virginia law professor, and a wealthy pharmaceutical software executive. It is an impressive list of people, but notice what is missing. Science. Not one person connected to the organization has any background whatsoever in meteorology or climate science, no training in any branch of science. Their lawsuit demands that government decisions be “science-based,” but what is their basis for assuming that is not already the case? In fact, this has everything to do with politics, power, and especially money – not science.
In case you are wondering about the 21 kids, one is the 16-year old granddaughter of Dr. James Hanson, the former NASA official known affectionately by environmentalists as the “father of global warming.” Another is a 19-year old Oregon girl who has had to abandon camping trips because of wildfires, a 15-year old boy from Boulder, who has been a climate activist since he was 6, and an 18-year old farm boy in Kellogg, whose allergies are worse when the weather is warm. An 18-year old from Roseburg says he actually witnessed “drastic snow retreat” on Mt. Hood, which adversely affected his use and enjoyment of the area. Others include an 11-year old whose family had to cancel a raft trip because of drought and low water, and a 10 year old who loves to swim, but says she was afraid to go outside in 2015 because it was so hot. A 14 year old Navaho girl has been touted as a climate expert since she first wrote to President Obama as an elementary school student, and a 13 year old boy from Beaverton says 2015 was the hottest year he can ever remember in his entire life. All of them claim an inability to continue living the good life unless we stop using energy and throw thousands of older people out of work. There is no evidence that they understand the role energy plays in their own lives, much less in their planned future. Perhaps their brainwashing is so thorough that they envision future prosperity without energy. Or maybe they simply haven’t yet learned where things come from.
Either way, if the activists in this organization, and the donors who fund them, want to make their case about energy policy, and debate it in the political arena, that is their right. But shame on them for using children as their shield. Climate science is very complex, and politics perhaps equally so. These children ought to be left alone to grow up, go to school, and gain some life experiences that might eventually qualify them to educate others.
An edited version of this column appeared in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel August 3, 2018.
Comments on this entry are closed.