Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy wants schools to include climate science in their curricula.
Irish America magazine scored an interview with McCarthy, who grew up in a Boston area family with Irish roots. In one question, she was asked whether climate change should be part of the educational system.
“Very much so,” she replied. “I think part of the challenge of explaining climate change is that it requires a level of science and a level of forward thinking and you’ve got to teach that to kids.
“People didn’t have a sense of how dramatic climate change really is, and what it means for all of us. So that’s been a challenge. But what’s great about renewables is that when you put a solar panel on the roof of a school, you change the entire dynamic of education for the students. It’s hands-on,” she continued.
Among climate scientists and those who heed their consensus, McCarthy’s sentiment is noncontroversial. The basic conclusion—that the climate is changing and that human activity is largely driving it—is overwhelmingly supported by peer-reviewed research.
EPA spokesman Tom Reynolds said via Twitter that McCarthy supports teaching climate science in schools, just as she supports teaching reading and math.
But McCarthy’s comment comes amid a broader debate over the role of climate in the classroom, and a patchwork of existing science standards has created massive disparities in how global warming is taught in classrooms around the country.
A coalition that includes the National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science is seeking adoption of new standards that would require educators to inform students that human activity is the primary driver of global warming.
But the effort has faced pushback in conservative states like Wyoming, where state legislators voted to block adoption of the standards due to controversy over the climate-change provisions.
Elsewhere in the interview, McCarthy said that EPA’s proposed rule to slash carbon emissions from power plants has been a boost to international climate policy talks:
“I just met with Edward Davey, the U.K. secretary of state for energy and climate, and he told me that the tone and tenor of the international discussions has changed because of the U.S. proposal on clean power plants and plan to cut back on carbon emissions. It shows a strong level commitment from [the U.S.,] one of the largest greenhouse gases emitters, about making reductions that are necessary.” she said.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."