Child Climate Cops? Way, Way Over the Top.
by Mark Ontkush, Boston, Massachusetts, USA on 09.30.08
This just in from the you-couldn't-make-this-stuff-up-if-you-tried department. A new website designed by npower, a British electric company, is recruiting children using games, badges and cartoons to enlist as "Climate Cops"; their duties are to actively keep records on their parents and neighbors for violations of "energy crimes" against the planet. Children then use the results of their spying to build a "Climate Crime Case File" on the perps, which they then "report back to your family to make sure they don't commit those crimes again (or else)!" The site also warns children that they "may need to keep a watchful eye" to prevent future violations. Did I mention I'm not making this up? It gets worse.
The so-called eco-crimes range from leaving the tap running, to failing to use energy-saving light bulbs, to running the dryer on a sunny day, to putting hot food in the refrigerator. Children who visit the site can play a series of games where they chase down gas-guzzling SUVs or save polar bears from melting icebergs; those who complete all the games can unlock a codeword, enabling visitors to "join the elite cadets and train to become a Climate Cop." The codeword then unlocks a download, where successful "cadets" can print out a "Climate Cop ID". Did I mention I'm still not making this up?
If all this seems crazily Godwin to you, you wouldn't be alone; recruiting children to spy on their parents' infractions was artfully purposed by a particular mustachoed guy who was handing out Papers over half a century ago. Barring the patently nonsensical suggested actions (putting hot food in the 'frig? Brother!), the terrifically-horrible part is the implied moral lessons from this type of thing. Raenorth, a commenter from the UmbrellaBlog says it best:
Firstly, the designation of certain lawful actions - desirable or not - as "crimes" is an unwholesome distortion of our moral code. It confers moral equivalency between not turning off a light and, say, shoplifting or vandalism. It seeks to impose a moral judgment on a normal activity, blurring the line between something which is lawful and something which is not. This confusion, especially when children are the focus, cannot help define and communicate our moral code, with which many children have only a distressingly limited acquaintance.Secondly, the recruitment of children to pass judgment on their parent's "crimes" is wholly malign, not least in undermining the authority of adults.
Third, in that the campaign seeks to align children with an external agency, which is setting the parameters by which the children should judge their own parents and other adults, it creates an alternative authority which purports to be superior to that of the parents and other authority figures. That is confusing to the child, and also creates a potential area of friction ... what if the parents object to this overt attempt to undermine their authority?
Fourth, not only does the campaign encourage the child to believe it has the moral right to pass judgment on the behavior of parents and other adults, it actively encourages the child to "enforce" that judgment, distorting the normal relationships between adults and children.
Fifth, by asking the child to record the "crimes", it undermines the bonds of loyalty which should exist between child and family. The children are being encouraged to put the notional and highly contentious objective of "saving the planet" above that of family cohesion and loyalty.
Sixth, it asks the child to make judgments which it is not qualified or equipped to make. How does the child know whether there is a good reason for leaving a light on in an unoccupied room? For instance, crime prevention authorities recommend leaving lights on randomly in different, unoccupied rooms, to deter burglars.
Yeah; you got it in one. I'm generally not the type to clutch my babies and run for the high moral hills but this is one loony idea that has been passed off with a straight face; and that, my friends, is exactly why it is so dangerous. Die, die, die, Climate Cop ID, die in the egg. :: Umbrella Blog :: National post :: Watts Up With That
Climate Change
A Job for Captain Ozone
It Will Cost Billions
10 Ways Design Can Fight Climate Change
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Cell Phone Industry Looks to Chargers for Reputation Repair
- Sun, Nike, Starbucks and More Meet for Climate Action
- The Life of a Swedish 'Climate Smart' Chicken: Nasty, Brutish, Short?
- Council's Parking Fees Reward Electric Vehicles and Renewable Energy
It’s Still a Dirty Business: McCain v. Obama on Clean Coal
|
New Zealand's Transition Movement Gains Strength
|
Shades of the KGB; turn your parents in for a new pair of jeans...
HG
The arguments above are the exact reasons why peta handing this newsletter out to children at a fishing warf is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
www.fishinghurts.com/pdfs/DaddyKillsAnimals.pdf
[a little off topic 'bob' but you're right mjo]
I think this is great. It helps to give children an understanding of climate change and simple habits they can do to stop. As they pay attention to the actions of adults, it will also reinforce them to not do it themselves. Additionally, having kids bring bad habits to their parents attention may be one of the only ways to get some adults to change their habits. I do agree with one thing though, putting hot food in the refrigerator is overkill. Common treehugger, this is one of the best ways to educate children about global warming, and if I recall, this blog's purpose is to encourage healthy green habits.
Hm.
Can't say I am quite so terrified by this. Of course, i am actually terrified by the prospect of what is coming home to roost with climate change.
We have heard over and over again about the critical role children have played in environmental campaigns--parents who weren't really recycling until the kids started giving them the gears based on the lessons they learned at school.
So, we are in a position where the survival of humanity may rest with the children, and yet we don't have the luxury of time to wait for them to grow up. Well, if we want them to grow up into a world anything like the one we grew up in, they need to kick some parental butt, because mommy and daddy are making pretty poor choices right now.
Which brings me to the overall tone of the quote...are we really that concerned about children respecting and obeying? Where would women's rights, anti-racism, anti-homophobia, all of the social justice campaigns be if children had blindly followed and obeyed their parents? My own parents had to leave their parent's country, and still wrestle with the consequences of the moralism advocated in this quote. I cannot support blind fealty to family--only respect where respect is earned. And right now, very few people in our parent's generation have earned any respect. Sure they worked hard and bought a house and a car, but they were not capable of making decisions that would leave a functioning and healthy ecosystem capable of sustaining their grandchildren. Are we going to care about the North American Dream when we have no oil to drive our cars and an unstable climate that keeps killing crops and leaving us hungry?
And the idea that we don't have the moral right to pass judgement on everyday acts? Well, let's keep lynching black people then, and put them back in the cotton field. I know! That woman's skirt is too short--let's assault her! Of course we have the right to pass moral judgement. We do it all the time; it creates change in our culture, some good and some bad.
This post is a great disappointment to TreeHugger.
[I should mention the targeted audience is 7-14 for this 'program'. Frankly, I disagree with you - kids make bad decisions. To say that kids are going to lead the climate crusade because adults can't is just overboard mjo]
Sounds a bit like Farenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury.
I blindly believe in the FSM's noodly goodness so based on the relationship between pirates and global temperatures, I am confident that the resurgance of piracy in Somolia is a sign that the climate will right itself soon.
[funny mjo]
It's great to get kids informed and conscious about the environment, but this is taking it too far. The green movement has the burden of being seen as a fringe, hippie thing by many older adults, and some people with a right-wing or far libertarian perspective see it as a new form of fascism. This is the sort of thing Limbaugh loves to mock.
You're taking this way overboard. They're not organizing an army of 10-and-under eco-nazis. No parents will be shot for not changing a lightbulb.
I absolutely agree with Ruben. I'm really disappointed.
It's perfectly fine to encourage children to be green. It's even good for children to question parents. It's good for children to encourage and persuade parents. It is not ok for someone to push their OPINIONS onto children in an attempt to get them to disobey and/or disrespect their parents.
I like the looking out part and keeping a tab -- for yourself and as talking points with your family...but you're right, the use of the word "crime" is too much.
But teaching lessons to kids for the info to trickle up is actually not new...I remember being a Mr Yuck Poison control obsessed kid and I was monitoring nad lecturing my parents like crazy. They stopped putting poisonous materials in places within a child's reach.
Proselytizing kids is a smart approach...But dump the morality talk. We're all reasonable. Right?
This is definitely the wrong way to educate children about conservation of electrical energy. Rather, the children should be presented the true facts about electricity in an easy-to-understand way (plain English) in school rather than learning from some immature cartoons.
Going to extremes is never the answer - especially where children are concerned! Louis Kestenbaum recently published a study regarding the stress levels of our children today - it's at an all time high! Do we really need to add more to their plate, with this kind of thing?
1) It's not a "secret report on your parents" scheme so much as it's, a see what you, a new Climate Cadet, can do to keep a personal (paper-based) record of your ( and others ) conservation efforts. It's much more of a friendly, open Play along with Mum, Dad your brothers, sisters and all your friends from school
[the language is clearly different than you suggest mjo]
2) The "Diary" is supposed to be mailed to children under the age of 16 if the parents allow them to send an email to NPower's child friendly Climate Cops website. The children are very likely showing this book to Mum and Dad!
3) It's got teacher related school material -- which if I was in England I might just ask for and vet for Treehugger. Perhaps we will be lucky and a Treehugger educator in England can get the material for our perusal.
4) Children will at a certain age start to understand that there are rules for not only themselves and other children, but also their parents. Allowing a child to openly and courteously remind you of a rule / behavior should not cause the relationship mess that Mark and Raenorth seem to believe will happen. In fact it often helps them learn and understand the rule / behavior better.
[there are rules and there are crimes, there's a gap there mjo]
5) The use of introductory educational games (even computer games) is valid method for teaching younger children.
******
Personally I'm concerned that some of the material in this post are examples of the Straw man fallacy
[ditto mjo]
Except the Global Warming thing is so "last decade'. Now it is Global Freezing.
The fact that they empower kids to "inform on their parents" ought to give you a clue who is in charge - again.
Don't let the Gaiaests win. Our liberties are at stake here.
[non civil, non-intelligent header deleted]
1) You claim the language is different -- but you don't supply any proof. I've reviewed the material and it is a paper based "case book" -- something that the children are supposed to ask their parents if they want to have mailed to them -- so by either the request to the parent or the mail book getting to the house, the case book is not much of a secret either. If you have any other source of information that show npower is requesting the record be submitted to themselves or another entity please come forward with the proof.
[they are referred to as crimes mjo]
4) The gap is in some adults not understanding that children can make the distinction between imaginary "Climate crimes" and real ( legal ) crimes. The vast majority of children between the ages of 7 - 11 are capable of the rather fundamental distinction between imaginary and real.
[Again, the language is just not appropriate, 'crime' being the operative word. it's not about monsters under the bed mjo]
Haha, what? This must be some sort of double bluff by the climate change deniers/coal industry/pick your villain to make the green movement look bad, right?
I mean seriously, they have a point in trying to get children to modify parents' behaviour, but for any parents that are on the fence about climate change or are a bit apathetic about doing anything, someone else telling their kids to accuse the parents of "crimes against the climate" is probably going to have the opposite effect.
It's bad enough that teachers in schools abuse their position by pushing their personal beliefs onto kids as it is, never mind this stuff.
Glad to see TreeHugger calling them out on this one.
Ooh, reactionary much?
Never heard of the Fashion Police? Not really a police force, usually just an observant young person 'reporting' fashion 'crimes' - tracksuit and high heels? Call the fashion police! This is a similar initiative but with some educational value. The police are supposed to be the authority, they're supposed to have the moral high ground - at least in the UK (when they're not shooting Brazilians) - they're supposed to defend the law. Is it not normal then that children should seek to behave in a similar way? Is it not perhaps slightly reactionary to suggest that children playing spy games and reporting bad environmental behaviour to their parents - the website doesn't seem to be a malignant spying tool to be used to fine naughty parents - will undermine their authority?
Children do not always behave appropriately and nor are they always right, but they do learn faster and more efficiently than adults, especially when their knowledge is acquired through play. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing for children to remind their parents to switch off lights, hang clothes on sunny days and [gasp!] wait for food to cool before putting it in the fridge. Adults often live busy lives, juggling work with parenthood, and sometimes they're in autopilot when doing things. Chances are if they've been doing things one way for the better part of thirty or forty years they may well forget to carry through new behaviours. If children can remind them and feel like a super hero super spy - Bond franchise, anyone? - good for them. And us. And the world.As the voiceover says, "Climate change is threatening our world, the more energy we waste, the worse it gets..."
Lighten up, Treehugger.
Does anyone remember the episode of "The Brady Bunch" where Bobby is made "safety monitor", and he goes all gung ho and cites his parents and everyone else in the family with violations?
Sadly, I'm more familiar with this than Bradbury....
[what a great follow up!
"Bobby is crestfallen when he is picked to be safety monitor at school. With Mike and Carol's encouragement, Bobby becomes determined to be the best safety monitor ever but in the process becomes the most unwelcome person at his school, not to mention at home."
http://www.tv.com/the-brady-bunch/law-and-disorder/episode/4984/summary.html
mjo]
@Mark
As a regular reader and commentator on Treehugger I would note that many Treehugger posts tend to add author responses at the bottom of a comment rather than interlaced within the comment. You have a differing format - which I do not believe I commented negatively upon. To address your (new to me) interlaced format I included a dedicated space for your use and explained to both you and the general Treehugger audience why I was including the dedicated large blank space.
[aha mjo]
1) I think perhaps there has been a misunderstanding - My primary concern in the second response was in reference to my statement
and your subsequent statementI am addressing this again because you did not respond to the most important part of that particular concern -- while the members of the decades ago disbanded organization you referenced* were expected to report on their parents to external entities the NPower website specifically asks the Climate Cadets children to report the family's own behavior directly to the parents, not to an external entity.
To rephrase my question -- Do you have any proof that these Climate Cadet children are asked to report their parents actions to NPower or to any external agency without the parents foreknowledge and understanding of the child's Climate Cadet related behavior?
[I don't think anyone who has reported on this has inferred this. There are other dangers that must be addressed - read comments here and other referenced articles. mjo]
This is not a minor issue, it is the hinge point of any argument you and / or Raenorth might wish to make in proving a reasonable connection between the"Climate Cops" environmental website and the referenced organization.
*
is an obvious reference to this organizationPlease tell me if I understand correctly; the word "crime" and it's related connotations are the linchpin for your viewpoint of the "Climate Cops" website.
[There is no linchpin, no hinge point, except for perspective; you can allow your children to be a part of Climate Cops. For me, this is a dangerous and poorly-thought out initiative. mjo]
@Mark
I'd rather something more explanatory and corrective than a simple
but I'll take for now, that you understand the header you deleted was neither non civil nor non-intelligentI have read more on this issue than you supplied which is why I am so concerned with your post's language and the subsequent comments on Treehugger.
Stating that you believe this "Climate Cop" initiative is a poorly thought out and inappropriate environmental website for children is one matter.
Had your original post been closer in tone and language with your latest statement I would have read your post and the "Climate Cop" website and come to the conclusion that (while I might disagree with you) your viewpoint as a professional environmental author for Treehugger was both relevant and reasonable.
Unfortunately your latest statement's tone-language and the original post's tone-language are not in line with one another.
I would rather offer praise for a decent article, whatever relevant advice/information I have, and/or the occasional cheesy humor; but as it stands I am worried about how your earlier writing style and tone will negatively affect both Treehugger, and Treehugger's audience.
[We disagree, thanks for the comment mjo]
This is a great example of incremental totalitarianism - gradually, we can get the kids to trust the State instead of their parents.
[a terrible, terrible program, there are better ways mjo]
Stephen said: Louis Kestenbaum recently published a study regarding the stress levels of our children today...
Where can I find this study by Louis Kestenbaum, Stephen?
I'm doing a paper for school and this could really be helpful to me.