How to teach kids about climate without scaring them stiff

We need a much more grown-up approach to teaching climate change.

Alex Standish


This summer, as part of the School Strike for Climate, school pupils across the UK have continued to take to the streets to demand the British government declares a climate emergency, and implements a Green New Deal to achieve ‘climate justice’. The most recent ‘strike’ took place last Friday.

What are we to make of this? What are we to make of children demanding that adults take action on climate change and the environment? On the one hand, we can applaud their engagement with a political issue and their desire to make a difference to the future state of the world. On the other, listening to the students’ sense of confusion and panic, there is clearly something wrong with the way climate change is being presented – both in and out of school.

Let’s begin with the presentation of climate change in schools. The purpose of a school curriculum is primarily to educate. That is not to say climate change should not be addressed through the national curriculum. It already is, in fact, in subjects like science, technology and geography. And pupils should learn about the challenges society faces today. But there is a vast difference between educating children about climate change and trying to manipulate their behaviour towards more carbon-neutral actions, something that then UK education secretary Alan Johnson called for in 2007 when he said ‘children must think differently’ about climate change. That’s the problem: too many have confused education with indoctrination.

And what of the fear and panic generated outside of school? Again, it is not difficult to see where it comes from: the longstanding presentation of climate change in catastrophic terms. As far as back as 1982, the UN was saying ‘the world faces ecological disaster as final as nuclear war within a couple of decades unless governments act now’. The 2018 report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed ‘We have 12 years to limit climate-change catastrophe’. There is a long tradition of climate catastrophism.

Such reports are designed to create headlines and prompt action. Former US vice-president Al Gore revealed as much when, in 2009, he told a surprised Hans Rosling, the late professor of international health at the Karolinska Institute, that ‘we need to create fear’ around the issue of climate change. Hence Gore’s 2006 propagandising ‘documentary’ An Inconvenient Truth, which was sent to all UK schools at the behest of then environment minister David Miliband.

So, at a time when climate catastrophism, and the pessimism and misanthropy that underpin it, have never been more mainstream, within and without school, is it any wonder pupils seem panicked about the future?

It is about time, then, that adults started educating students about their world, not scaring them. Here are five suggestions as to how we might engage young people in a grown-up discussion about climate change and the future.

1) Accuracy rather than scaremongering

There are plenty of excellent teaching resources on global warming available, many of which present accurate data and explore both natural and anthropogenic climate change. Children need to understand that climate change is the norm, but today humans are modifying the climate, making it difficult to isolate variables.

It is also important to teach anthropogenic global warming as something observable, insofar as it has already happened. Indeed, it led to a global sea-level rise of around 16 to 21 centimetres and a temperature increase of approximately 0.8 degrees celsius since 1900. In showing this, children can see that global warming is real and lived, rather than something catastrophic that is going to happen in the future. We should also show them the scientific predictions for the future, but caution them about the limitations and uncertainty of extrapolating too far ahead.

2) A sense of perspective

Climate change should be introduced over different time frames, from millions of years to the past couple of hundred years. Pupils need to learn about the natural cycling of climate, and its different causes. They need to know that 400million years ago the UK was positioned near the equator and had a tropical climate. They need to understand that the Greenhouse Effect is also natural, and that without it the planet would be frozen and uninhabitable. This way, pupils have a sense of perspective from which to examine how humans have modified the climate.

3) Balance

As with the media, schools need to teach pupils about positive changes in the world, and not to be overly focused on disasters and environmental problems. For instance, most children (and many adults) are unaware that the global poverty rate has halved over the past couple of decades. Rosling’s Factfulness is a very good resource for showing long-term global trends, from ‘bad things decreasing’, like oil spills, HIV infections, infant mortality, ozone depletion and smoke particles, to ‘good things increasing’, such as women’s suffrage, immunisation rates and literacy.

Growing up in a society in which the prevailing language is of sustainability and crisis can give children the impression that the future is something to be feared. Young people need a sense of long-term progress against which they can gauge the true significance of the problems the world faces today. And they need to learn that the safety and relative prosperity enjoyed by the majority of children in the UK is an outcome of economic and political gains made since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

4) Stop treating children as a political project

Guilt-tripping children into shrinking their carbon footprints is not a solution to global warming, and neither is it educational. Global warming needs to be addressed in the adult realm of politics. Schools should be places where children learn about the world and discuss contemporary issues like climate change, but without the responsibilities of citizenship. This is because they are children, lack experience and are only just gaining knowledge. Schools should provide them with the forums to test their ideas, to disagree and to work through their thinking so that they can make mistakes without political consequences. This is preparation for inheriting the responsibilities of adult citizenship.

5) Discuss how society can make progress and lower carbon emissions

The problem with the environmentalist narrative is that often it seeks to take society backwards, encouraging ‘re-wilding’ or stopping people driving. Systematic lowering of carbon emissions will only come from widespread and national changes to our energy and transportation infrastructure. This demands technical innovation and massive investment of resources, as well as time. Where protesters might have a point is that society needs to invest more in research and development in order to generate abundant, low-carbon energy supplies. As individuals we can make a significant contribution to democratic discussions about how society should address global warming, but making minor lifestyle changes will have a negligible impact until we can transition to a low-carbon economy. In the meantime, we need to show pupils examples of how people are adapting to global warming and will need to continue to do so in coming decades.

There is no quick, technical fix to the teaching of climate change. Schools need to recognise and address the misanthropic and alarmist context that is currently framing the way global warming is being presented to children. When children are scared, the responsible approach of adults should be to reassure them that things will be okay, even if they themselves are worried about the future. The world has faced plenty of frightening situations in the past – world war, nuclear weapons, flu epidemics and extreme poverty across the developing world. This doesn’t mean that we don’t tell children the truth about the extent of the problems. We should. But, at the same time, we can point to past problems that humanity has overcome. What society is currently failing to offer children is belief in humanity – that we have the capacity to make the world a safer and better place.

Alex Standish is a senior lecturer in geography education at University College London. He is the co-editor, with Alka Sehgal Cuthbert, of What Should Schools Teach? Disciplines, Subject and the Pursuit of Truth.

Picture by: Getty.

To enquire about republishing spiked’s content, a right to reply or to request a correction, please contact the managing editor, Viv Regan.


Christopher Tyson

25th July 2019 at 7:49 am

Esteemed journalist: Why are we having this hot weather?
Climate scientist: Climate change is the cause of the hot weather.
There you have it climate change is caused by climate change. So why are bananas curved? Bananas are curved because they are banana shaped. This is philosophically offensive, but what is really going on. What has happened is that the term ‘climate change’ has become short hand for man made climate change. We know that temperature have varied over the ages, for many reasons, we also know that accurate records are a fairly recent development. But the idea that ‘climate change’ can be used interchangeably with climate change as in changes of climate, natural or otherwise, is a misleading sleight of hand. They are very down on what they call ‘climate change deniers’ but this cuts both ways, they need to be precise about what they are talking about. Einstein said that things should be made as simple as possible but not more so, climate scientists may be over simplifying and this could be for short term political reasons and has serious consequences because it can lead to social and political responses that are not appropriate.

Jerry Owen

25th July 2019 at 8:18 am

I read an article in the Guardian earlier telling me there was no doubt about AGW, the science they gave …. none , just that it’s now a consensus. Interestingly they talked about the little ice age, even more interestingly they omitted to talk about the medieval warm period and what caused that !

Winston Stanley

24th July 2019 at 7:59 pm

“… Children need to understand that climate change is the norm, but today humans are modifying the climate, making it difficult to isolate variables.

“It is also important to teach anthropogenic global warming as something observable, insofar as it has already happened. Indeed, it led to a global sea-level rise of around 16 to 21 centimetres and a temperature increase of approximately 0.8 degrees celsius since 1900…”

Those two statements seemed uneasily juxtaposed. If the variables are difficult to isolate then how can we be so sure that AGW has affected the climate, let alone quantify the effects with anything like precision?

There are naysayers to the possibility of a low carbon energy infrastructure. They say that people tend to be too optimistic about the efficiency and feasibility of “green energy” and that previous claims have not yet been realised. It would be nice to assume that we can reconcile a modern industrial lifestyle with a low carbon economy but that needs to be substantiated.

And there is the issue that the levels of carbon produced by UK are miniscule compared with larger, developing economies like China and India. If AGW is true than UK has already largely done the damage over the last two centuries that it is likely to do. No UK action now can reverse that, or alter the course of China, India and others.

So, climate change activism in UK may be little more than moral posturing. And getting school kids involved in that posturing may be silly. Schools used to get kids dressed up as angels in nativity plays, at least there was no expectation that the young tearaways would not immediately forget the entire spectacle. Let us not drag kids into a pseudo-religious scenario where they think that their role in the adult world is to dress up as angels in a nativity play.

Jerry Owen

24th July 2019 at 1:05 pm

I have a record two posts awaiting moderation !

Alan Burdon

24th July 2019 at 12:56 pm

Hitting the link to the CSSR paper on sea-level rise leads to an illustration of how incredibly complex this issue is. Just one facet of the effects of climate change is almost impossible to define due to the huge variability of outcomes stemming from the number of factors involved in producing those outcomes. Complexity heaped upon complexity.
The writers glibly summarise their research as quoted in this article, but the reality cannot be uttered in those simple terms. It is impossible to prove that sea-level rises during the past century are human induced and the practical effects are yet to be experienced. The string of low-lying Pacific islands that should have disappeared below the waves by now according to forecasts in the 90s are, according to the University of Auckland, showing more land above the sea than at any time in the past forty years. The east coast of Australia has seen a nett rise of 16mm per century at the Fort Dennison gauge in Sydney harbour since the 1860s. This is well within the trend of post-glacial rise, as is the 0.8 degree temperature rise quoted in the article above.
No mathematical models can deal with the complexity of the climate and we have yet to determine every factor involved in how it changes.
As to the catastrophists; I fall back on Charles Mackay, from his Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1840).
“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one”.

Jonathan Gill

24th July 2019 at 12:30 pm

It’s a good article. One thing I’d take issue with is the idea that “re-wilding” is a step backwards. There is increasing evidence to show that allowing areas of land to be set aside could be hugely beneficial, not only to wildlife but also in economic terms to farmers – like crop rotation on a long term scale.

Jerry Owen

24th July 2019 at 12:06 pm

A polite request, but is it possible for Spiked to ‘moderate’ posts a bit quicker as I posted one at 8.30 am and it still hasn’t appeared ?

christopher barnard

24th July 2019 at 10:19 am

Perhaps we could educate middle class kids like these protestors that practising what you preach may be a better method of persuasion than the ‘do as I say, not as I do approach currently favoured by moderately affluent eco-alarmists.

Albert Richardson

24th July 2019 at 9:24 am

PS Education should teach critical thinking: how to think, not what to think, and subject generally accepted theories to critical assessment.

Jerry Owen

24th July 2019 at 8:42 am

I have written a longer post to rebuke this article but it will take some hours to be moderated as they always are.
A short one ..Placards waved about by the ER zealots ‘ Beware C02 is in the air’ and above .. ‘make love not C02’ apart form the complete discord between the two activities ( CND haven’t gone away you know ) without C02 in the air we would all be dead, indeed planet earth would be dead.

William Murphy

24th July 2019 at 9:24 am

I love the slogan: “Make love not CO2″…surely wouldn’t you be panting out even more CO2 while you were making love?

Jerry Owen

24th July 2019 at 9:45 am

Hopefully !

Jerry Owen

24th July 2019 at 8:36 am

An article written with the same understanding of climate change as Thunberg and Attenborough, ie totally uninformed. I am getting fed up with Spiked’s continuing policy of articles on AGW written by uninformed writers.
CO2 is at a historically ( geologically speaking ) low level at 440 PPM we need more C02 not less.
The proportion of C02 is barely measurable as you can see, of that proportion we cannot even measure what (if any ) is a result of human activity. A good blast or two from a volcano can produce C02 that would render any accurate levels of C02 attributable to any particular source. C02 is produced by the oceans mainly when they warm, the Sun / cloud cover controls temperature on Earth. Further, geological records show that the earth produces C02 after warming not before.
So the release of C02 form the oceans is a result of warming that happened in the past ( we go through warming / cooling periods dictated by the suns activity ). The earth is a vast sphere and it tales hundreds and thousands of years for the results of older events to show their influences ( like a Rolls Royce turbine propeller stopping on a plane ).
We are in fact still coming out of the last ice age in parts. This island was under four miles of ice in recent geological history. We are also about to go into a Grand Solar Minimum which means it’s going to get cold on our planet.
Our fight should be to make sure we can survive a cold period in short we are looking the wrong way.
I urge people to look up Dr Patrick Moore founder of Greenpeace on You Tube for common sense on this issue.

How did the medieval warm period happen ( M Mann tried to hide this in his infamous lie of a hockey stick ) ?. If that wasn’t human activity the proving the alleged warming now is even harder to explain.
Every scare story put out by the warmists has been proven to be wrong, our ice caps should have melted, yet the antartic is growing according to NASA.
We are fighting a non existent threat.

Michael Daggitt

25th July 2019 at 10:51 am

Super post, Jerry, so many nails on heads. Was this one of your 2 posts awaiting moderation?

Justin Bieber

24th July 2019 at 6:44 am

The whole point to the climate scare is to get a new generation of enraged useful idiots to call on the government to interfere and make the changes wanted by the elite all along – everything is going to plan

Jerry Owen

24th July 2019 at 8:43 am

What better way for the introduction of ‘global governance’ than a manufactured ‘global crisis’.

Simon Morgan

24th July 2019 at 6:29 am

Just teach them there is absolutely nothing wrong with the climate, and we’re trying to fix something that ain’t broke. And, even sillier, we’re trying to fix it by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases that we only produce 3% of.

Jerry Owen

24th July 2019 at 8:46 am

As the erudite Mark Steyn has stated humans like warmer weather we are happier , more productive, our energy bills are smaller. Even , and that’s a huge even (in my book it isn’t ‘even’ ) if we contributed to warming .. so what ?

John Savage

24th July 2019 at 6:03 am

Please get your facts straight.
“It is also important to teach anthropogenic global warming as something observable, insofar as it has already happened. Indeed, it led to a global sea-level rise of around 16 to 21 centimetres and a temperature increase of approximately 0.8 degrees celsius since 1900”
In as much as the climate has changed in the past 119 years the amount due to human activity cannot be determined and to suggest the rise in sea level and any temperature rise is down to us is just wrong.

Stephen J

24th July 2019 at 6:35 am

Yes John I read that too, indeed I would suggest that “anthropogenic climate change” is really nothing to do with destroying the planet, and everything to do with mismanagement of resources whilst under the assault of a rapidly expanding world human population.

In a word… chaos.

For instance, there is a bloke from Zimbabwe called Allan Savory and he has demonstrated with a series of practical experiments in animal husbandry, that one of the most glaring examples of what we call “global warming”, namely desertification, is actually a complete misunderstanding of what they think they have seen.

I strongly suggest that people spend less time whipping up disaster scenarios and more time making dispassionate experiments like Savory’s.

There are a number of films and lectures on his experiments, but the above is a good primer.

Simon Morgan

24th July 2019 at 7:09 am

Well said.

Albert Richardson

24th July 2019 at 9:19 am

I agree with you on this point, but I still very much like the article as a whole because it demonstrates that even if you accept that the anthropogenic global warming concern is real and justified (and most of the population has been bullied into accepting this) the way it is approached by propagandising and terrifying children is deeply wrong, unscientific and immoral.

Jerry Owen

24th July 2019 at 10:09 am

I have a photo that unfortunately I have no link for to link here. It is of a brick pier photographed both in 1912 and the present date from exactly the same position.
The tide line shows that the sea level has risen by 0.0 cm’s in the last 107 years.

Stephen J

24th July 2019 at 10:24 am

Indeed Jerry and this is also demonstrated in the Durkin film, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.

An island, possibly from memory Bali, is just above sea level, and on one of its beaches is a tree. whose roots have steadily become more exposed during the last 100 years…

Whether the whole island is rising (heave), or sea level is falling?

Who can say?

Michael Daggitt

24th July 2019 at 12:35 pm

Well said, John, you have saved me typing a similar response. I do though appreciate the author’s precaution message when teaching children.

The fact that observed global average temperatures have only risen 0.8* since 1900 (and let’s not forget the influence on temps in the immediate post Little Ice Age period) shows that the earth’s temperature is remarkably stable.

Another unexplained fact is that since circa 2000 at least 25% of man’s total CO2 emissions have been added to the atmosphere yet there has not been a corresponding or dramatic increase to global average surface temperatures.

Jerry Owen

24th July 2019 at 2:51 pm

The earth goes through severe ice ages whereby virtually the whole planet is covered in ice , then it goes through warming periods wherby the planet is very warm , in those warming periods we have mini ice ages of varying degrees. The planet despite the huge swings that take millions of years is remarkably stable.
Those that try to tell us that any ‘climate change’ in the last 100 years is due to man need to back it up with science. The C02 scam is just that.. a scam.

Aberrant Apostrophe

25th July 2019 at 12:08 am

My belief, as a retired observational physicist working peripherally in climate science, is that the underlying physics, chemistry and biology in climate models is still pretty rudimentary and has to rely on huge assumptions on how the hundreds of complex processes behave at different scales and interact with each other. The anthropogenic CO2 problem is a case in point, where some radiative transfer physicists point out that a lot of IR radiation that should be absorbed and re-radiated back down to the surface, thereby heating it, actually escapes in as-yet unmeasured regions of the far-IR spectrum. Basically, there is still a lot we don’t know about the Earth – especially its interactions with the Sun and Solar System in general – and the fact that most climate models employ very similar physical, chemical and biological modelling does not exactly inspire confidence that just because they come up with similar predictions doesn’t mean they are all correct, since they could all be wrong in the same way.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register now.