Right: The organisers of the Australian school student strikes were criticised by government ministers, including Prime Minister Scott Morrison, who urged more learning and less activism.
 Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said. |
Arguments against school students taking strike action over climate change
1. The students' action will be ignored by politicians
Those opposed to schoolchildren conducting political strikes argue that politicians will largely ignore them.
Schoolchildren are not yet voters and so are not in a position directly to influence politicians. They cannot make their displeasure felt at the ballot box by voting against candidates who adopt views with which they disagree. Critics note that the young voters' lack of influence has been demonstrated by recent decisions taken in the federal Parliament.
On the 26th of November, at 5pm the Australian Senate passed a motion in support of the student strikers. On the same date, fifteen minutes later, the Senate passed a motion moved by the National Party in support of expanding Australia's coal production .
The Coal-Fired Power Station motion passed by the Senate included the statements that 'the International Energy Agency estimates the growth in demand for coal in the Asia Pacific will increase by 492 million tonnes of coal equivalent by 2040; Australia's net exports of coal would grow by around 20% to around 430 million tonnes of coal equivalent by 2040; [and] the production and export of Australian high quality coal is good for jobs in regional Australia and the broader economy.'
Critics of the children's actions note that the subsequent Senate vote supporting expanded coal production in Australia demonstrates that the students' strike has had no significant impact on politicians.The Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has shown particular disregard of and hostility toward the actions of the striking children. Mr Morrison stated, ' We do not support our schools being turned into parliaments.'
Even some of those who have supported the schoolchildren's strike action have noted how little impact their views appear to have had upon Prime Minister Scott Morrison.
Australian Youth Climate Coalition spokesperson, Laura Sykes, stated 'It was shocking see our prime minister condemning students as young as eight, who are sacrificing a day of schooling to stand up for a safe climate future...When young people try to have a voice in politics, Scott Morrison is shutting them down, yet he's happy to listen to the coal lobby and big corporations who continue to profit from making climate change worse.'
The leader of the Greens, Adam Brandt, similarly noted the disregard with which the Prime Minister had greeted the students' demands. Senator Brandt stated, 'The PM is unbelievably out of touch with young people, not only in Australia but around the world. These students want a leader to protect their future, but they got a hectoring, ungenerous and condescending rebuke...'
Some commentators have suggested that the average age of politicians and their focus on what they believe will immediately win them votes cause them to ignore the political and environmental views of schoolchildren. In an opinion piece published in Vox on July 14, 2017, 16-year-old American student Sydney Sauer, stated, ' The people who lead our country won't be alive 60 years from now to reap the consequences of their actions. It's much easier to improve areas that they can measure and use for re-election, like unemployment and health care. Environmental issues, on the other hand, pose a measure of success that they won't be able to experience or quantify. And because of this, when forced to choose between funding an oil pipeline and cutting back on fossil fuels, the majority of our current leaders would choose the environmentally detrimental option for the sake of jobs and industry.'
2. The students' demands are vague and ill-informed
It has been claimed that the demands of the student strikers were general and imprecise and so could not be acted upon by any government. It is also argued that these demands indicate that the students do not appreciate the complexity of the issues about which they are protesting.
Sixteen-year-old student, Annalise Tran, has criticised those students who took strike action, claiming, 'These climate-change protests were declared by young people passionate about their future, but their agenda is misguided. From what I have researched, their main motive is to persuade the government to do more. But what does "doing more" mean? The demand is so vague and unspecific that the government has nothing to act upon.'
Ms Tran has further stated, 'Some people will argue that protest is an effective way to create change, as seen throughout history. But those protests were in reaction to specific cases of injustice. In the United States, the 1955 arrest of Rosa Parks led to a mass boycott of buses that resulted in a Supreme Court finding that racial segregation on buses was unconstitutional. In Australia, people rallied for the specific cause marriage equality - not the broad issue of discrimination - and to good effect.
These climate-change protesters can't stir change without articulating the specific change they have in mind. The government is not going to listen to an unclear demand, or fob it off with an empty assurance that it will "do more".'
It has further been argued that these young people are acting in ignorance, making demands which even if they were met would have little impact on global warming and would damage the Australian economy.
In an opinion piece published in The Daily Telegraph on December 2, 2018, Peta Credlin stated, 'If our schoolchildren learnt more economics, they'd know that coal and gas are among our biggest exports and that it doesn't make sense to regard them as evil here at home while exporting them for use overseas. If there was more economics and less activism, they'd also know that if we don't have exports, we can't pay for all the imported consumer goods like the smart phones that so many of them seem to spend their lives on.'
In an opinion piece published in The Daily Telegraph on December 1, 2018, Satya Marar similarly stated, 'One wonders just how many of these kids, who've skipped classes that form part of their taxpayer-funded education to wave signs with their friends, understand that Australia only accounts for 1.8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions- meaning that it would make no material impact whatsoever on climate change if we were literally wiped out tomorrow.'
Marar has further asked, ' How many of them understand that heavy-handed government intervention in the name of climate policy that they're lobbying for - such as generous corporate handouts for wind and solar, have contributed to high-priced and unreliable electricity in Australia.'
Critics of the students' actions have acknowledged their passion while at the same time condemned them for being naive and ill-informed. Marar has stated, 'Passionately fighting for something you believe in is a trait that will serve any child throughout their life. But just as important is the notion of responsibility, including the need to fully appreciate exactly what one is protesting for and what the ultimate implications are.'
3. The students are being manipulated by teachers and others
Opponents of school students taking action to force politicians to be more proactive on climate change argue that many of these young people have had their opinions shaped by teachers and others. Critics argue that the students are simply being manipulated by adults, such as teachers, who are using them to promote political agendas they do not understand.
On December 2, 2018, The Daily Telegraph published the following comment by Peta Credlin: '[W]hat we don't need, and should never have, is this brainwashing by teachers who are not committed to their real job of shaping big minds and brave spirits, preferring instead to churn out graduates with shallow intellects and the character of lemmings...
If our school students learnt more philosophy, they'd know that the beginning of wisdom is to observe, and to question and not ...to allow themselves to be used, by leftie teachers, as human shields in a political fight against the Morrison government.'
In a letter to the editor published in the Bendigo Advertiser on December 4, 2018, Helen Leach presented a similar, if more moderate view. Leach argued, 'The student rallies in Melbourne and regional centres calling for climate change action should alarm parents all over Victoria: not that students shouldn't be politically aware or even active - if they genuinely understand the issue.
My concern is that Victorian students are being subjected to the political and ideological ideas of their politically active teachers without parents knowing what is being taught - from climate change theories to gender fluid theories to sexual and reproductive education at very young ages.'
New South Wales Parents' Council president Rose Cantali has stated that teachers should not project their political opinions onto young minds. Ms Cantali argued, 'I think children are very sensitive about teachers' opinions. They're easily influenced by their teachers because the teachers are seen to be ones who have a lot of power and impart knowledge. As president of the New South Wales Parents' Council, I would be concerned because the ideologies are not in-keeping with my own.'
Some critics argue that the Australian curriculum endorses a radical environmentalist agenda that opposes the use of non-renewable resources. Tony Thomas, in an opinion piece published in Quadrant Online, on November 23, 2018, stated, ' The curricula specifies that kids be exposed to a "diversity of views and values". But the only viewpoints and values I have found during much exploration of school resource material involve Left-half diversity, starting with anarchic anti-capitalism. Citing Al Gore is standard fare. How many teachers would put their jobs on the line by citing contrarian environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg or ex- Czech president and sceptic Vaclav Klaus? Pushing "sustainability" is mandatory in teaching.'
4. The students are jeopardising their education
Opponents of the students taking strike action to demand politicians reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions argue that these young people belong in school, gaining a formal education. They further argue that by absenting themselves from school students are risking their opportunity to acquire skills which will enable them to find a place in the workforce.
In a debate within the federal Parliament, Prime Minister Scott Morrison stated, 'We are committed to all of these things [reducing greenhouse gases and developing renewable energy], but I will tell you what we are also committed to - kids should go to school.' The Prime Minister went on to state, 'Each day I send my kids to school and I know other members' kids should also go to school but we do not support our schools being turned into parliaments.'
The Prime Minister further stated, 'What we want is more learning in schools and less activism in schools.'
Those who hold views similar to the Prime Minister's appear to believe that debating environmental issues and then taking action about them is a misuse of young people's opportunities for formal education and threatens their chances of establishing a secure economic future for themselves and the country..
Resources Minister, Matthew Canavan, stated, 'Taking off school and protesting? You don't learn anything from that. The best thing you'll learn about going to a protest is how to join the dole queue. Because that's what your future life will look like, up in a line asking for a handout, not actually taking charge for your life and getting a real job.'
Mr Canavan additionally argued that children should be in school learning about how to build mines, do geology and how to drill for oil and gas, 'which is one of the most remarkable science exploits in the world'. The Minister concluded, 'These are the type of things that excite young children and we should be great at as a nation.'
A New South Wales Education Department spokesperson stated, 'While the (department) understands some students are passionate about this topic, all students who are enrolled at school are expected to attend that school whenever instruction is provided.'
The Education Department spokesperson further stated, ' Any student not in classes on a school day will be marked absent and may be subject to the school's disciplinary code.'
5. There are more effective and legal actions the students could take to reduce climate change
Opponents of school students striking to urge governments to address climate change argue that there are more effective actions the young people could take.
Sixteen-year-old student, Annalise Tran, has criticised those students who took strike action, claiming, 'Rather than demanding the government "do something", the student protesters should look at their own actions and reflect on how they can make a tangible, practical difference.
The climate change threat confronts our generation because of the culture of waste and consumerism in which we have been raised and in which we continue to live. The only people who can change this culture is us - our generation.'
Ms Tran goes on to suggest, ' We are the ones who can bring about mass change. To change this culture, we should stop treating the things we have as disposable. (Think about the number of pens we lose - and then think about the resources that go into making them, and how they don't decompose.)
We should stop buying so many things that we will inevitably throw out (fast-fashion shoppers, I'm talking about you). We should stop buying things with packaging. We should lobby the companies that package them to stop wasting resources.'
Ms Tran concludes, 'We should make recycling of soft plastics common. We should stop littering. There is much our generation can change by modifying our behaviour. If we get enough people to do this - even the numbers taking part in these protests - we will start to see the change that the government is not able to make... We can make a difference despite our age. The best way to do this is by showing older generations how we - by our own actions - can change and shape our world.'
Commentators have further noted that striking is not an action that Australian schoolchildren are legally sanctioned to take. Ugur Nedim, an accredited criminal law specialist and the principal of Sydney Criminal Lawyers, has noted, 'Participating in an "unlawful assembly" is an offence under section 545C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) which carries a maximum penalty of six months in prison and/or a $550 fine.
Section 545C states, "Whosoever knowingly joins an unlawful assembly or continues in it shall be taken to be a member of that assembly, and shall, on conviction before the Local Court, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding 5 penalty units, or both."
For any protest, rally or demonstration to be lawful, it must comply with the provisions of Part 4 (comprising sections 22 to 27) of the Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW) which prescribes a range of requirements which must be fulfilled before an assembly can be considered "lawful".'
Nedim concludes, 'Evidently, protesting in New South Wales is not as simple as gathering like-minded individuals who are concerned about the existing state of political or social affairs, creating a few placards and taking to public parks or streets.
Rather, police in NSW wield enormous power when it comes to determining which public assemblies are allowed to proceed, and which are not.'
This warning is offered with specific reference to the limitations which can be imposed on student protests.