For quite some time now I’ve been meaning to do an article on why creationism should not be taught in science class, but I think A.C. Grayling covers it very well in this video. I guess the only thing I would add (although he does already touch on this point toward the end of the video) is that the only thing that should be taught in science class is, well, science, and that creationism simply does not fit the true definition of science. That is, not trying to make the facts fit a preconceived notion (as in the case of the Biblical creation story), but rather, looking at the facts objectively, and seeing what conclusions it leads us to, then testing our conclusions through objective, repeatable experiments.

Oh yes: calling creationism “intelligent design” doesn’t make it any more scientific or respectable.

Oh yes—apparently there’s something called Valentine’s Day on the 14th as well. It appears to be some kind of cynical commercial exercise to force us to spend money on stuff that none of us need.

The case against carbon trading—but is it a fair assessment?

It seems the debate over carbon trading just won’t stay out of the headlines at the moment. The opposition party in Australia—in their usual blatant political opportunism—have decided this week to unveil an alternative climate change policy to carbon trading. However, in spite of calling carbon trading “a great big fat tax”, they have yet to specify how their own policy will be funded—and even worse, it will basically mean business as usual for big polluters anyway. So it’s basically a climate change policy for those who don’t believe in climate change, and for those who think profits for big business should always take precedence over everything else. They want to appear as though they are doing something without actually doing anything useful, while incurring costs to the consumer and pretending it won’t cost them anything. This is hardly surprising, given their present leadership.

It appears as though the vast majority of people who oppose carbon trading also oppose action on climate change, period. But as I explained in my previous Let’s Give the Planet the Benefit of the Doubt post, this is both a logically and morally indefensible position. Once again, even if you don’t think the evidence proves that human induced climate change is real, that does NOT disprove it either—if you deny the possibility of climate change, you are simply sticking your head in the sand. And in any case, we need to move to renewable energy resources anyway, as our fossil fuel reserves will eventually run out (very soon in the case of oil), and we do know for a fact that they pollute the environment (even if you don’t think this leads to climate change). Anyone who opposes moving to renewable energy resources is just selfishly looking after their own hip-pocket, pure and simple.

Still, there are some who very strongly support action on climate change, but nevertheless oppose carbon trading as the way to do it. A good example is the video above by Annie Leonard, creator of the famous Story Of Stuff video. She clearly raises a lot of issues that require serious consideration, but as with most criticism of carbon trading, the problem isn’t really carbon trading itself, but how it is implemented. With the right systems and controls, it could in theory still work very well, and could provide a way for the third world to profit directly from our efforts to reduce carbon emissions. Annie thinks we should give some of the proceeds of direct taxes on carbon emissions to the third world, but let’s face it—taxes very seldom go directly to the places they are supposed to. And besides, it really does seem as though aid has done little if anything to help the third world, and may even have harmed them. The people of the third world need a way to make a living for themselves to get out of poverty, and properly implemented carbon trading provides a great opportunity for them to do that.

I also wonder if this video really is a fair assessment of the subject. For one thing, her implication that Enron and Goldman Sachs executives will control the carbon global trading market is seriously misleading. It leads me to wonder if any of the other statements in the video could be misleading as well—if you are knowledgeable on the facts and figures of this subject, I would greatly appreciate it if you could clarify some of the issues it raises. I do absolutely agree with her on one thing though: the current government subsidies of fossil fuels are beyond absurd, and could go a very long way toward covering the costs of our (undoubtedly essential) move toward renewable energy resources.