Regarding Megan Doherty's article ("Is climate education in primary schools doing more harm than good?", Opinion, May 24), this is a question I can answer with confidence. No, it is not.
Doherty's article discusses research conducted by the Institute of Public Affairs. Why wouldn't the IPA want young people to be informed about climate change? Could it be because they're funded, in large part, by mining, logging, and oil? As an educator, I'm not comfortable taking advice from them.
While the IPA's advice is questionable at best, it's true that young people are increasingly worried about climate change. Teachers, social media, and the lovely David Attenborough are not to blame; climate change itself is. It's a reality that we all face, not just the polar bears. Hiding this reality from children won't help them.
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child is based on four principles, one of which is that children's opinions matter. They deserve to be informed about the state of the world, in age-appropriate ways, so that their opinions can be formed and heard.
Contrary to Doherty's description of kindergarten, education is about far more than "colouring in". To truly empower children, we must tell them the truth.
Finally, how do you teach children emotional regulation and resilience if they're never allowed to be upset about anything? How can they be supported through their worries, if adults shelter them from every difficult reality?
My grandson recently found himself in a difficult situation following an exercise class when he tried to buy himself a snack at Bean Origin at Belconnen. He was under the impression that he had adequate funds, but for some unknown reason his mother's credit card didn't work. He tried twice unsuccessfully and then an unknown Good Samaritan came and paid for his snack.
I would love to thank that kind person so much, but I don't know who you are. I hope you read this letter. My grandson has been forever influenced by your kindness. Thank you.
I am deeply concerned to hear suggestions that dingoes in the ACT will be aerially culled.
Dingoes are native animals that play an important ecological role in regulating ecosystems. It seems contradictory for the ACT government to use aerial shooting, on top of traps and baiting, while also expressing a commitment to recognising dingoes as controlled native animals.
As a supposedly environmentally progressive jurisdiction, the ACT should be leading with science-based and ethical wildlife management.
Non-lethal approaches - such as improved fencing, guardian animals, better livestock management and targeted responses to problem animals - should be genuinely explored before resorting to lethal control of a native apex predator.
Aerial culling risks unintended ecological consequences and raises significant animal welfare concerns. We can support farmers while also recognising the important place dingoes hold in Australia's environment.
The ACT has an opportunity to pursue a more balanced and forward-thinking approach.
Increasingly of late I find myself thinking of Don Watson's "weasel words" phrase. Examples are "we understand that this is difficult" or "we will not tolerate xyz..."
Intoned with a serious demeanour as if the speaker really means it, but if they did, something constructive would be done about whatever is difficult and laws and regulations would be enforced about whatever is not to be tolerated.
Instead, nothing happens. These public figures would do well to remember that old aphorism, "by their deeds shall you know them", because the public will assess you, your organisation and political party by what you do, not by whatever weasel words you say.
