Bonus Joules and the Knowledge Economy
|
|||||||||||
|
Negawatts
and Junk Joules Click on any cartoon Chapter Five - Land of the Other- Negawatts and Junk Joules
Bonus Joules and the Knowledge Economy: All images on this site are copyright 2001 and you are free to use them with care. Blog by Dave McArthur 26 January 2008 White,
rich and raring for a horrific world war. What’s with my fellow
Anglo-Americans? Insane or just ignorant?
If it’s the latter then here is a remedy. Then
again maybe we are just ignorant and it is our education system that is
hopeless. With this possibility in mind I recently had a closer look at
New Zealand’s new national education curriculum and found it is indeed
fundamentally flawed. And as it is basically a clone of other
Anglo-American curricula they too will be putting us at major risk. For
further proof of this we have only to look at the footprint of the walk
of the average Anglo-American around the globe. The following figures
are only indicative but even using conservative calculations they form a
severe indictment of our education systems. Let
us assume that worldwide there are 4.7 biologically productive acres
available per person and this does not include the needs of all
the plants and animals. Or
if you like it in hectares
per capita: By
comparison people in the regions home to the majority of humanity use
less than two hectares per person. For instance And that is precisely what is beginning to occur here in New
Zealand, despite our abundant resources per capita, and what is
happening in other Anglo-American countries. For generations now our
schools and the media have taught our children in a thousand subtle ways
that mineral oil and gas are energy and can be consumed without limit. Science reveals a very different
story – mineral oil and gas are just fuels. They are not bounteous
like energy and their combustion involves mining our atmosphere. And
so our Anglo-American education systems have produced national economies
based on fallacy, not science. Check out our mineral oil
consumption figures: Last
year our Prime Minister, Hon Helen Clark, proudly announced her
plans to make New Zealand the first “carbon neutral” nation
on this planet. Any person who is the product of a quality education
system knows the concept is nonsense. It is plain dangerous. We are
Carbon Beings. Our every action affects the balances and flows of carbon
and, for instance, when we burn a barrel of mineral oil there is a high
likelihood that it will never be replaced again for the life of our
planet. There is nothing neutral about consuming a carbon-based resource
that when burned contains the equivalent of about 25000 man-hours of
labour in each 42 gallon barrel. Fuel and motor vehicles lift retail sales " Seasonally adjusted total retail
sales increased 2.0 percent in November 2007, Statistics New Zealand
said today. Most of the increase was due to automotive fuel retailing
and motor vehicle retailing… Automotive fuel retailing sales increased
9.0 percent, the largest monthly increase for this industry since the
series began in May 1995. Motor vehicle retailing sales increased 4.3
percent." Well
John is correct. The Labour-led Government has promoted inflation by
failing to address the underlying cause – our addictive uses of
mineral oil and gas. In fact it has actively stoked the addictive
behaviour. New Zealanders are now forking out billions of dollars in
unnecessary interest charges, just so some of us can flit around the globe in
jets and drive in cars to
the supermarket to buy some milk. However
there is not the slightest evidence that John Key understands the root
cause of inflation. He does not seem capable of comprehending that
mineral oil was trading at about $US10 a barrel in 2000. It is now
trading at $US100. Similarly steel prices have risen ten fold this
century. Interest rates would be equally high under his
administration. His party’s policy is summed up in this shrill and
uncomprehending Chamber of Commerce release today: Inflationary
Pressures put the Heat on Business
“The government must assist the Reserve Bank in addressing inflationary pressures by curtailing the growth in its expenditure. This is also necessary to make room for the proposed tax cuts. “We are also concerned about
the proposed climate change related emissions trading scheme and the
impact that this will have on energy prices further out,” Mr Finny
concluded." "Merrill Lynch & Co Inc reported about $US16 billion in mortgage-related write-downs and adjustments on Thursday in the worst quarter of the company's history.". Also
the Saudis and the Chinese are more or less having to take over the
American Federal Reserve Bank system to prevent it completely
collapsing. Only
the Green Party in our Parliament seems to have a clue what is going on. " Green Media Release 17th January 2008 "New Zealand's current oil-dependent economy is extremely vulnerable to world oil prices, and until the Government acts to insulate us from the ever-increasing price of oil, kiwi families will pay for this short-sightedness not only at the petrol pump, but also through their mortgages and rents," says Dr Norman, the Green Party's spokesperson on economics. The Green Party also seems our only party capable of making the link between our addictive uses of mineral resources like oil and rocketing costs of food for most New Zealanders. The latest figures show food price increases are outstripping the wage increases of lower paid New Zealanders many fold. For the year to December 2007,
food prices
rose 5.4 percent. All subgroups recorded upward contributions,
with the most significant upward contribution coming from higher prices
for the grocery food subgroup (up 7.8 percent). At the same time the Green Party profoundly confuses the issues. For the last fifteen years or so it has been at the forefront in promoting the concept that humans can conserve energy. This isan impossible notion that completely denies the Conservation Principle of Energy and plays into the hands of the "energy sector" spin merchants. Also as I
detailed in my Green
Party Alert article,
the Party has historically endorsed a very
flawed “environmental education” programme called Enviroschools
that actively works to destroy science in our children and make our
communities unsustainable. Which
brings me to the more sustainable educational curriculum I am proposing.
Its funny how life goes. For seven years I have campaigned to wake up
people to the fundamental flaws in Enviroschools. I was resigned
to the fact that my critical analysis of it was rejected as the
inarticulate mutterings of some negative, carping, bitter, old codger with
a chip on his shoulder. By 2007 Enviroschools looked like it
would be an unstoppable juggernaut in our schools system. It was now
funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars through a wide range
of Government and local council agencies – an unprecedented amount for
such an education resource. It was already becoming the default
“science curriculum” in many areas. The last thing I expected to get
was an email in August 2007 saying Enviroschools was under review
and asking if I would help with the review. So
for the next several weeks I slept, dreamed, reflected, explored and
wrote about all the key issues I sensed are involved. This, of course,
was during the hours I was not working at my job as a school janitor.
Every day I posted off my diary so the reviewers could follow a clear
trail of my thinking. I came to some startling conclusions, some as a
result of serendipity. For instance it so happened in July someone had posted me a
draft of the revised New Zealand national education Curriculum. This was
completely out of the blue and they asked
if the draft could be improved. For the last forty years I have accepted the fact that I am pretty much an academic failure, However this seeming fact concerned me less and less over the years as I built up a large and unique range of experience. This includes labouring for decades as a Bulk-gen electricity meter reader, as a postie, on construction and transport sites, in factories, in schools etc. I now live with a rugged confidence in my knowledge of how life works. I looked at the draft curriculum and immediately was
struck by the probability that any failure is less in me and more in the
education curriculum. I could suddenly see clearly how its design
destroys science, disempowers most people and denies our roles as
stewards of this Earth. I
realised that if the revision of Enviroschools made it a
sustainable force in our schools and communities then it would have to
teach that the general education system is seriously screwed up. This
would put all good caring teachers in one hell of a position. So I
decided to write a sustainable central curriculum and you guessed it: if
implemented it makes the whole concept of Environmental Education
redundant. Of
course this will most unwelcome news to all the career merchants in our
burgeoning Environmental Education industry. It could even prove a
little inconvenient to those Environmental Educators who are passionate
about science, as they may have to review their employment situation in
some cases. One thing is clear – any attempts to adapt Enviroschools
to the revised New Zealand Curriculum framework will render the resource
unsustainable and put our kids at further unnecessary risk. There
is another group who will resist the idea that Environmental Education
is redundant and a liability. That is the media and PR consultancies acting for
the large corporations in the Bulk-gen electricity, fossil fuel,
construction and fast-food sectors. They make very effective use of
their sponsorship of “environmental education” and “well-being”
programmes to effect powerful control over syllabuses in schools and
communities. Too often Environmental Educators are their most potent conduit
and able teachers are left frustrated and helpless as they watch
wonderful ideas born of science destroyed by “environmental education
programmes” supported by the wider media. For instance its is now
common in New Zealand and other Anglo-American schools for children to
learn that energy is mineral oil, power is Bulk-gen electricity and the
atmosphere is a greenhouse. I have simply entitled my proposal A
New Zealand Curriculum. To call it the Sustainable Curriculum or
the Alternative Curriculum seems unhelpful. I don’t know if it can be
considered a Universal Curriculum or Compassionate Curriculum. I
outline its general framework using the same format as the New Zealand
Curriculum (NZC) for ease of comparison. On first glimpse it might no
look radical but dig deeper and you will find that unlike our official
curriculum this one makes it clear that without compassion there is no
science and without science there is no art or language or civics or any
of the skills that enable civilisation to exist. It
is hopeful because it suggests that we are all born scientists to some
degree and that science is a state of being. The
NZC also teaches that science is just a way of thinking, an intellectual
technique, an academic practice. By comparison a curriculum based on
compassion reminds our children that they are beings with and in
science. Science is an active state of being to be lived in every moment
of our lives. A corollary of this vision is that anyone that describes
his or her profession as “scientist” is seen to be lacking
science/democracy. It is helpful to treat their utterances with the
special caution you give a snake oil merchant at a fairground. And
the curriculum I propose reminds our children that concepts such as
copyright actively destroy science and put civilisation at great risk.
This of course questions the very basis of our Anglo-American culture
– some people cannot imagine a world in which ideas are freely
exchanged. In their lack of imagination are the seeds of destruction of
civilisation and the reasons why the Industrial Revolution of the last
three hundred years has resulted in massive world wars. The one they
promote now could well result in maybe 6 billion people perishing in
miserable ways because of a lack of science. The
curriculum based in compassion also questions other common beliefs such
as concepts that we can trade away our responsibilities for our actions.
It suggests concepts such as carbon neutrality and offsetting are
non-science and are a recipe for disaster too. The
NZC promotes the idea that Maths is not a language and that language is
exclusive to human beings. It is little wonder that educators wring
their hands in despair and wonder why children find Mathematics
gobbledygook and have little connection to the sentience pervading life
on our planet. Similarly
the NZC sees drama, music, dance etc as separate learning activities to
health and physical education. In
the proposed curriculum the maintenance of personal and community
well-being is viewed as an art. This vision maintains hope for it
provides assurance that everyone is capable of art in his or her lives.
They can experience this in simple acts such as breathing mindfully,
washing their hands with care and throwing a ball with accuracy and
ease. Such acts can express beauty in drama, music and dance. Put
another way, a person cannot enjoy their fullest potential without the
maintenance of general wellbeing. Examples abound of people with great
skills in music or dance or visual graphics who prematurely ceased to be
able to use them because of personal or community ill health. As
you can see, the Conservation Principle of Energy is given pride of
place in the framework, as is the Uncertainty Principle of Energy. It
seems appropriate to include my proposed Sustainability
Principle of Energy
here too for
education is all about the wise use of symbols. It is great to see the
Conservation Principle is given mention in the new NZC. However it is
not framed as essential to our lives in that it is buried in a substrand
(the Physical World) of a learning area (Science). And Science is imagined
as just one of eight learning areas rather than the state of being that
enables all learning. This works to reduce the hope our children know. The
maintenance of hope features in other ways too in my proposed curriculum. Conserving
the potential of symbols ensure our childen know and enjoy
options. Conserving symbols provides them with a powerful source of hope and I
provide examples of uses of key symbols such as science, love, energy
and power that work to sustain us better. If these uses are adopted then
many texts
and resources will be removed from serving the central curriculum of our
schools and universities. They will instead become objects of History and Media Studies
interest. All
this is very much first draft. New Zealand schools close from Christmas
till early February for long summer vacation and so I have used my spare
time to pull together this alternative framework. However my work as
school janitor-caretaker does not cease just because the schools are
closed. Now is the time to strip and polish all the lino, clear and wash
classrooms, have the carpets dry-cleaned and catch up on odd jobs. After
three or four hours of this work my body is calling for a rest and more
fuel. And
I watch the distant stream of cars going up our steep, winding valley
road. Most of them are carrying just one person and they are probably just
going for a joy ride around our beautiful coast or to see friends – or
even just to fill up their car tank with more of our dwindling mineral
oil resources. Not one of
them is mindful of the fact that they use the equivalent of maybe 1000
people’s labour to push them and their car over these hills for a half
an hour or so. Why
are they not mindful? Most of them have never been taught this
elementary truth. Indeed most of them have learned in our schools that
mineral oil = energy and is thus as bountiful as the universe. Also
inherent in this equation is the notion that the atmosphere is limitless
and is there for the burning. These
folk honestly believe that those 1000 “servants” I mentioned are
theirs to use as of right. In fact most of them begrudge the fact that
they have to pay $6 or so at the petrol pump for the equivalent of 1000
person-hours of labour – most of which they will waste in heat and
friction as they get their heavy vehicle heaved around. Which
brings me to why I give the big bad “I” mark to New Zealand’s new
curriculum and to its Anglo-American education sources. As mentioned,
they all destroy science, reduce awareness of the great Principles of
Energy and in general diminish our personal sense of stewards. One fatal
result is the profound ignorance of the above car drivers. These folk
are literate and numerate and can scan the headlines about “Subprime
Mortgage causing credit squeezes”. They can read their supermarket
bill printout with its rising prices and calculate how much their
purchasing power has dropped. But they can make little or no links
between the inflation they are experiencing and their proliferate use of
mineral oil. Less still can they comprehend how their burning of it
might be impacting on atmospheric balances. Our
current education system produces a people unable to comprehend that in
1999 they were paying under $US10 to have the equivalent of 25000
servants working hard for them for an hour. That is 0.04 cents per
person hour of labour. As mentioned they are educated to believe those
cheap “servants” are their birthright while they themselves were
worth $US20 an hour or more. This is intoxicating stuff and clearly
President Clinton and Co were giddy on it when they repealed the Glass
Steagall Act in 1999 With servant labour so cheap, there seemed little
reason to put limits on what banks could do when credit could be
considered boundless? I
had intimately experienced the evolution and collapse of OnEnergy in New
Zealand in 2001. I was also very aware of how and why Enron collapsed in
the USA and how the corporation was able to abuse the negawatt concept
by manipulating demand on the Californian and other Bulk-gen electricity
systems. The “smartest guys in
the room” can teach us a lot about what energy efficiency is
not.
|
|
|||||||||