Are global warming and deforestation too scary for Sesame Street?

[sabelmouse]

Scaring kids might not be the best approach, but we shouldn't avoid talking about 'scary' subjects with children altogether

*
Comments (27)
* Buzz up!
* Digg it (3)

children's television program Sesame Street

A red muppet visits Oscar the Grouch, inside his garbage can, in a scene from the children's television program Sesame Street. Photograph: CTW/Getty Images

During the four decades since its inception, Sesame Street has introduced some pretty challenging subjects to its young audience – death, AIDS, adoption. It has even recently talked about the impact of the ongoing recession on family life.

But there's one topic that will not be raised, according to Rosemarie Truglio, vice president of research and education at Sesame Workshop, the New York-based charity that produces Sesame Street – and that's global warming. It's just "too scary" for kids, apparently.

At a press conference earlier this week to announce the launch of a two-year, environmental "curriculum" on the show called My World is Green and Growing, Truglio said:

Global warming and deforestation – those are really adult concepts, and it's just too scary for children … The place we're coming from is, 'Let's love and care for the Earth, because it's so beautiful, and we appreciate its awe and wonder, and we're going to respect it … When you love something, you want to take care of it.

As I wrote earlier this year, I've long been intrigued to know what the right age is to start introducing the difficult subject of climate change to children. Sesame Street is aimed at three- to five-year-olds and, personally, I think Truglio has got it about right. With children at such a tender age, it's probably best to start off by getting them interested in the natural world around them and to elicit a basic sense of respect, rather than wade in straight away with the heavy stuff about greenhouse gases and the like.

But I also think we need to be wary about believing that some subjects are just "too scary" to tell children about. My reasoning for not introducing climate change to children is more based on the fact that it is conceptually quite a complex subject to take in – for most adults, let alone three-year-olds.

And as Frank Carson says: "It's the way you tell 'em!"

Last month, more than 200 complaints were filed with the Advertising Standards Authority after the Department of Energy and Climate Change produced an Act on C02 advert which suggested that pets might drown as a result of climate change. Scaring people might not always be the best way to convince people of your argument – as many environmentalists are belatedly now recognising – but that shouldn't mean, therefore, that we avoid talking about "scary" subjects with children altogether.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/11...

[danman]

Global warming is not scary , it is a fact. What is scary is what it does to some's minds - we get folk who ignore the problem , and pretend that if it is not anthropogenic it isn't a threat. It reminds me of one folk tale in my country about a guy who had a stupid family and out of anger went to see the world promising not to return until he has seen 7 bigger idiots.
One of the thing they did which is relevant was that he found them all in the basement crying. He asks what? and response is: You see, an axe hangs here on the ladder. When your son will be greater he will surely come around , try to climb the ladder, and the axe will fall on his head. Poor child, so unluckily slain. So, he gets angry to their amazement takes the axe to the ground and leaves.


On the other hand, you get people, to whom the enviroment is starting to become a religion. They do a mix of mildly helpful and utterly unimportant things in order to prevent global warming, but it is not going anywhere.


What needs to be said to the children or anyone is: Look the climate is getting warmer, and in the following years the weather will most likely be much more messy and unpredictable. Also oceans are most likely going to rise, so many people will have to move inlands. We will need to find ways of dealing with it, just as people have dealt with the ice age. If we can slow it by technology , great! If we cannot then we must live with it

[Webz]

I don't think the "deal with it when it comes" philosophy is a very good one at all. Completely disregarding any other species apart from humans (and why do humans matter more than any other animal, let alone all animals?) there is such a thing as the carrying capacity of the environment, and that will most likely be universally reached if global warming happens to any large degree. There are countries that have reached their environments carrying capacity. They are third world countries.

Well, it's not that simple, but quality of life with no polar ice caps will likely drop very, very far down.

I'd much rather not burn the fossil fuels myself. :-/

And I don't know why radical environmentalists are looked down upon. I don't see a problem with thier "faith" when their "religion" is completely based on fact.

[danman]

Humans matter more because WE ARE humans. Every species in nature , humans including, care and should care only about their survival. Other , nonsentient species have purely instrumental value - i will protect cats for example since they are useful, but if i could make a negatively useful species (like mosquito) die out in some simple way I would gladly do it.
And honestly , with species dying all the time in nature (the catastrophy during the end of first mountain geological epoch before dinosaurs started as a species killed 90% of all species on planet) i could not care less if people make another few extinct.

Carrying capacity of the enviroment largely depends on technology - 500 years ago, europe was at the top of the carrying capacity, like 3rd world countries are now, and the population was maybe 50 times smaller.

Polar ice caps melting is just something we will have to adjust for. It is best to use alternative energies to fossil fuels, but reducing energy use is just stupid - it is luddite thinking and as such encourages decadence rather than increase , betterment of life , and progress. You can practically measure a civilisation's progress by how much energy it uses (althoug the best measure is how it can ALTER its enviroment). Therefore it is best not to whine and think how to live when it happens.



And i look down upon radical enviromentalists frankly because they do not put people first. Which i consider stupid and decadent.

[sabelmouse]

i think we have a very different interpretation of the word decadent.

as for putting people first. most cultures use the same excuses they use when killing/mistreating/ disregarding animals and the "environment" when they use/abuse/enslave/kill/invade other people, namely that they are lesser people somehow and less deserving, though sometimes it is masked as "we bring democracy/wealth" to those backward people.

i think it's extremely arrogant of us to think so be the reason religeous ie we are the pinacle of creation and god gave the world to us or atheist/scientific we are so much smarter, we are sentient beings ectr.

i have held the view since a very early age that if we think we are so great we ought to shape up and become better people who stop using and abusing the way we do.

[sabelmouse]

as it isa those are the people who'll get in first and possibly most

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/campaign/climate_change/gabura...

[danman]

Well we are just about the only species capable of abstract thought ..
And i do not see why should we hold any responsibility for other species - it is not like they do.

You still have not argued against those policies, just stated that people like me disregard animals, which is true.

And decadent means someone who does not promote progress, and wellbeing of people,
The enviromentalists, for example with their shouting at china and other states not to consume so much fossil fuels are exactly that - they are OK and they do not care that others live with a lower standard , they only care for the beloved enviroment.
Another was the rant against technology that you linked from another site - the person promotes backwardness, and has no idea what he talks about

[sabelmouse]

most environmentalists i know take the position that china ectr have the right to develop and that we, the developed wastrels of the world should cut down.

technology does not always promote forewardness.

it's silly to say that all technology makes things better and not using it makes things automatically worse.

which link?

as we are the only species with abstract thought we ought to be able to plan better and take more care, just my point. we use the argument to our advantage but we don't take responsibility.

if animals overgrase you can't blame them . humans, unless in a helpless position like a lot of por people in this world should stop doing it.

[sabelmouse]

the climate refugees alone might overwhelm the developed nation. and there will be no "paki go back where you came from.

[sabelmouse]

people always talk about the environment as if it is something seperate from us. it's not.

[sabelmouse]

Dear Friends,

Since October 24, when you helped lead thousands of events around the world calling for climate action, we've seen new political momentum behind the climate solutions that science demands. After meeting with dozens of delegates during the last round of UN climate negotations in Barcelona, I can tell you first-hand that your local climate leadership is making a real difference--and helping clear the political space for national leaders to take ever-bolder stances on the climate crisis.

Earlier this week, President Nasheed--the leader of a low-lying nation faced with the very real threat of imminent extinction due to rising seas--delivered a powerful speech at the opening of the "Climate Vulnerable Forum." In his speech, he calls for a survival pact in a plea so eloquent that you need to read it for yourself and sign the survival pact today.

The "Climate Vulnerable Forum" included many of the nations on the very front lines of the climate crisis, nations that are grappling with the impacts of the climate crisis here and now.

The focus of President Nasheed's speech was to bring attention to the dire consequences of ending the Copenhagen Climate Talks this December with a weak or non-binding agreement.

I'll let President Nasheed's words speak for themselves:

We are gathered here because we are the most vulnerable group of nations to climate change.

Some might prefer us to suffer in silence but today we have decided to speak...we will not die quietly.

Members of the G8 rich countries have pledged to halt temperature rises to two degrees Celsius. Yet they have refused to commit to the carbon targets, which would deliver even this modest goal.

At two degrees we would lose the coral reefs. At two degrees we would melt Greenland. At two degrees my country would not survive.

As a president I cannot accept this. As a person I cannot accept this.

I refuse to believe that it is too late, and that we cannot do any about it. Copenhagen is our date with destiny. Let us go there with a better plan.

Nasheed called on all nations to push for carbon neutrality in order to ensure the survival of his country and all the most vulnerable people around the world:

After all, it is not carbon we want, but development. It is not coal we want, but electricity. It is not oil we want, but transport. Low-carbon technologies now exist, to deliver all the goods and services we need. Let us make the goal of using them.

Finally, he made the distinction between what might be considered a good deal in Copenhagen, and one that would ensure the end of his people:

At the moment every country arrives at the negotiations seeking to keep their own emissions as high as possible. They never make commitments, unless someone else does first.

This is the logic of the madhouse, a recipe for collective suicide.

We don't want a global suicide pact. And we will not sign a global suicide pact, in Copenhagen or anywhere. So today, I invite some of the most vulnerable nations in the world, to join a global survival pact instead.

These are bold words, bolder than most people understand.

Here's the backstory: President Nasheed and other leaders of some of the world's most vulnerable countries are already being pressured to back down from their commitments to strong action. For example, when African countries stood up at the UN Climate Talks in Barcelona last week and demanded rich countries commit to strong climate targets, European capitol's placed immense pressure on them to back off, so much so that the chair of the African negotiating bloc was forced to leave the negotiations.

Leaders like Nasheed need our support. Your actions on October 24th opened the door for bolder leadership. And the deliveries of photos from Oct 24 events to over 110 countries in Barcelona (and cities all over the world) are helping turn grassroots action into political momentum.

Now, with just a month to go before Copenhagen, we must stand together. All of us, from presidents and politicians to scientists and citizens, must seize this moment and take this movement for survival to the next level.

Please join us.

Onwards,

Teresa Niño and the 350.org Team

P.S. Please help increase the volume of this important call to action--share it with your friends on Facebook with literally two clicks. Sharing the call on twitter is even easier--please take mere seconds out of your day to grow this movement.

P.P.S. We're still committed to offline, grassroots organizing, and we're gearing up for some historic events on the weekend of December 12th. Plans are still evolving, but for now clear out that weekend--it's the midway point of the Copenhagen climate conference, and at that critical time we'll need all hands on deck to make this movement soar.

You should join us on Facebook by becoming a fan of our page at facebook.com/350org and follow us on twitter by visiting twitter.com/350

To join our list (maybe a friend forwarded you this e-mail) visit www.350.org/signup

350.org needs your help! To support our work, donate securely online at 350.org/donate

You are subscribed to this list as [e-mail]. Click here to unsubscribe

350.org is an international grassroots campaign that aims to mobilize a global climate movement united by a common call to action. By spreading an understanding of the science and a shared vision for a fair policy, we will ensure that the world creates bold and equitable solutions to the climate crisis. 350.org is an independent and not-for-profit project.

What is 350? 350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. Scientists measure carbon dioxide in "parts per million" (ppm), so 350ppm is the number humanity needs to get below as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change. To get there, we need a different kind of PPM-a "people powered movement" that is made of of people like you in every corner of the planet.

[Morgan Kerrick]

Global warming is by far not the scariest thing that children are exposed to today. Children cannot be sheltered from the hard truth. Global warming will happen and is happening right now, and it needs to be dealt with before the consequences become really dire. We wouldn't want to hammer that into our children, or we'd get radical environmentalists, which is not what the planet needs, but we need to make that known to them in a way that they can handle it at their young age. I agree with danman. Tell the children about global warming and that it's a bad thing, and they'll grow up believing that and will want to change it. Maybe if world issues were addressed more on children's shows in a manner that children can absorb them, we would get things done. You can't use the excuse "it's too scary".

[Johnna Joy Moonshoes Murch]

Global Warming may be "scary" but its not too scary to tell kids about. I don't think we're giving kids nearly enough credit by thinking that, and I also think it would be better if we teach them about it earlier rather than later. I don't know. Thats just my opinion ...