Educationally Taxing

This is the People's Countryside Environmental Debate Podcast. Every episode we conversate around two listener questions, and where possible, spin the conversation around to the environment in some way, regardless of the topic covered. 

In today’s episode we begin with an educational question from Unity in Paddock Wood, Kent, England - “What do you think about bringing climate change into the mainstream UK curriculum in schools? 10 years ago children's favourite word was minion, now it's climate change. Do we risk scaring children by catastrophizing? Is it better to teach older school children solutions and tools? Are we making the younger ones anxious? Do we risk promoting political activism if we educate about climate change in the wrong way? If we teach that we have no agency for change we risk just making children grow up angry, instead of driving actual change”.

Alex feels that the subject of climate change really would be best added to the subject of geography. He recalls being taught about earthquakes, pollution, and overpopulation, so there’s already catastrophising in schools. He recalls his time in secondary school, and concludes that climate change really should be there as a subject.

William brings this whole conversation around to whether this is once again an avoidance of our own mortality issue? That the subject of death around children can be an even more taboo subject than sex for example.  

Stuart recalls a conversation with a teacher after listening to a past episode  about climate change in the curriculum.  And they were absolutely convinced that climate change had infiltrated every single lesson, but it was so subtle that nobody noticed it.

We then move onto this taxing question from Brice in Crieff, Scotland - “Should we be taxing on wealth and assets and not just income? The super rich are buying up everything and enslaving people to be in debt to them. Can we do anything until wealth is more fairly distributed, like after the second world war in the UK?”

Alex thinks that  we should tax the rich which he feels everyone can agree with, but the way our societies are run, with corrupt governments, they're money hungry and therefore the rich live in the best conditions because of that. So there's not really much we can do.  Who is going to tax the rich? The government, who are corrupt?

Stuart raises the point that he doesn’t necessarily think the super rich are intentionally enslaving us, but the by-product of process does. 

William brings up the idea of a universal income, where everyone can afford  the basics in their life, food, shelter etc. He goes onto say that he feels that is maybe idealistic, and that we humans are greedy buggers, and we don’t want anyone to have a slice of our pie.

Stuart comes up with an environmental action: We need to be more realistic with environmentalism and not think about utopian ideals. We need balance and measure.

William’s action with an environmental twist: He encourages you to  get off that aspiration train, and that in itself will definitely have a positive impact on the environment.

Alex’s environmental action:  We always talk about the tool and the master quite a lot. Money is a tool, not a master. It doesn't shape your life. It's what you use to live. It's not everything in life. So just think of it that way. It's a tool so use it as one.

What do you make of this discussion? Do you have a question that you'd like us to discuss? Send us an email ⁠[e-mail]

Sign the Petition - Improve The Oxfordshire Countryside Accessibility For All Disabilities And Abilities: Petition Link

This podcast's overall themes are nature, philosophy, climate, the human condition, sustainability, and social justice. 

Help us to spread the impact of the podcast by sharing this link with 5 friends Podfollow Link , support our work through Patreon Patreon Link. Find out all about the podcast via this one simple link: Linktree Link