Ban Climate Change events on school days

Attendance at school is compulsory and whizzing off to a climate change event should not be an alternative to the normal curriculum, therefore children of school age should not be allowed to attend such events. All childrens' events should be run at the week-end - this would provide a test of intent as it would mean that virtue signalling would have to take place during Nintendo/xbox time as opposed to presenting itself as a skive. In addition, attendees should commit to cutting their online time as a further demonstration of their intent to be involved in this wayward movement, as opposed to simply using it as an extra instagrammable event.

Why the contribution is important

It will help to manage the attainment gap.

by Voiceofreason on August 27, 2020 at 07:56PM

Current Rating

Average rating: 1.7
Based on: 4 votes


  • Posted by MJMcD0ugall September 07, 2020 at 13:48

    Climate change issues are part of education.
  • Posted by Voiceofreason September 08, 2020 at 08:43

    "Climate change issues are part of education." - only if they are presented in a balanced fashion, as opposed to a parroted mantra like a fake religion. Have a read at Bjorn Lomberg's new book - "False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet".

    Oh, I forgot, it's not part of the accepted canon therefore it must be banned - when's extinction rebellion's first book-burning going to take place?
  • Posted by Yvonne_CEC September 09, 2020 at 12:22

    From listening to young people at the Edinburgh Youth Summit earlier this year, this is not the view of young people. Do any more young people have an opinion on this?

    There is overwhelming evidence arguing the need to act urgently on climate change, e.g. see
  • Posted by Voiceofreason September 10, 2020 at 21:02

    "From listening to young people at the Edinburgh Youth Summit earlier this year, this is not the view of young people."

    So what? They have little relevant life experience and haven't learned to think in a critical fashion.

    The "need" to do something now is only a political imperative. Scientists were asked " how do we reduce emissions to a stupidly low level", in response, they came up with the 2030 nonsense.

    It's like asking "how do we reduce road deaths to 0" - e.g. a pointlessly unattainable goal - the answer might be, reduce speed limits to 3mph - that might work but at what cost ?

    The real question is what happens if we do nothing?

    The answer is - "less than you might think" and in any event the negative effects are minimal compared against the irreparable economic damage of taking us back to the age of wicker.
Log in or register to add comments and rate ideas