The conference objectives may be fine, but it does bring up some
concerns. Having talked with a very few teachers and some quite young
school kids around six to eight years old, their knowledge of global
warming is quite significant.
What I do notice is they speak the same language as those that would
close down all power stations tomorrow.
The language seems to be a regurgitation of the teacher speak.

To my mind it is this that rings bells of brainwashing.
How you steer a course between providing information yet avoiding
brainwashing I am not sure.

Upon reading the posts, it appears that many of you have read the title "Aussie Kids War on Climate Change" without bothering to read the content. It is an "International River Health Conference" - irrespective of your personal belief on whether climate change is genuine or not, the point is that kids will get an understanding of what harms our waterways, and how they can be improved. Personally, I believe in the science behind climate change, but regardless of what your opinion is, I do not believe that teaching kids how to look after the lifeblood of the environment is brainwashing - and in any generation, meeting the country's leader is an exciting opportunity for kids.
Youthfuture

Yes, indeed teaching children to protect our waterways, land care, water conservation and minimisation of waste, is all good, good good.... We all agree with this...but....why call it Aussie Kids War on Climate Change Already Underway? Listening to the PM expose his advisors ideas is not, to my way of thinking, changing the climate.

Australian children are not changing the climate you know that. They may be planting trees and taking part in grey water projects projects at school but they are not changing the climate. What you are saying is untrue and it is not a WAR - that is really offensive. I hope these children never know what real "war" is.

Therefore, I say it again it is brainwashing, you are telling them untruths. Why not tell them how much it will cost them to live in this so called "green country" in the future and, what the odds will be that they can get a job that will pay them well enough to have a decent family life and live in a house they may eventually own? The PM might like to add that to his speeches.

Why not teach them how to manage on very little in the future? Because, that is how it will really pan out if an ETS is implemented (GST by another name). This government can't hike up the GST as they would like but an ETS might just get them what they want, more taxes by a different name.

Why are we living in such a negative world?? Get up & smell the hommus! Our kids need a voice - and this is a chance for them to be heard! Let them have the opportunity to be heard!
I am a dedicated, committed teacher with 33 years experience - students do NOT echo teacher opinion! Students speak up for what they believe - listen to them - and give them an opportunity to speak their thoughts! Get there Kev!!Thankyou Arron!

Sancho

Let me just establish right at the outset your unmitigated drug hazed verbage and a few glaringly obvious relevant facts.

'Without flower power and the love revolution of the Baby Boomers, gays and women would still be second-class citizens, we'd be mired in a Tory class system, and we wouldn't live in the most peaceful, conflict-free era of human history.'

and

'the cultural renaissance of the 60s' and 'the unprecedented personal freedom we now enjoy in the first world.'

Sancho are you trying to say Flower Power and the Love Revolution equalled a Cultural Renaissance and an Unprecedented Personal Freedom?

Now Sancho the Charles Manson family (Commune) typified the, and some would go so far to say his 'Helter Skelter' theories were at the forefront, of the Flower Power and free Love Revolution of the 60's. That being the widely accepted case ... well you remember Sharon Tate and the La Biancas. Flower Power and The Free Love movement ended then. Fact.

As for 'unprecented conflict free era' ... you have got to be joking ... arn't you?

Sancho, let me know if you've never heard of the following people and organisations and the areas of life they are widely accepted as having some key involvement:

cont.
You will need to do some research ... I hope it's not beyond you and you learn a little thing or two.

1. Equal Federal Marriage and Divorce Law.
2. Retention of a Married Woman’s Nationality and Political Status throughout the Empire.
3. Equal Pay for Equal Work.
4. Equal Parental Rights.
5. Raising Age of Consent for Boys and Girls to 21.
6. Equal Rights in the Disposition of Property.
7. Equality in Measures for the Suppression of Vice.
8. Unadulterated Food, Clothing and Link Supply.
9. Fair Rents.
10. Protection of Neglected, Delinquent and Wage-earning Children.
11. Eligibility of Women for all Commonwealth, State, or Municipal Positions.
12. Complete Civil and Legal Equality of Men and Women.
13. Elective Ministries and Abolition of Party Government.
14. Proportional Representation.
15. Reform in Liquor Traffic.
16. Cessation of Borrowing, except for Reproductive Works.
17. International Woman Suffrage.
18. International Peace and Arbitration
From the Platform of Women’s Political Association (Non-Party). (1912)

The New South Wales Married Women's Property Act and Louisa Lawson. 1890's.

1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights

Axel and Eigil Axgil
Oliver Baldwin
William Lygon
Adolf Brand
Oscar Browning
Dorothy Bussy
Byron
Edward Carpenter

look Sancho, I'm only up to the C's and even you with a modicom of research would have to acknowledge the accuracy of this statement,

'The womans movement was around long before the 60's and was championed by liberal minded women and men, just as was tolerance of homosexuality among the more progressive liberal thinks of the past.'

Now Sancho I just had to comment on this:
'how tolerance of homosexuality among a few "progressive liberal thinks", and the existence of a tiny, much-maligned women's lib movement, in any way compares to the mainstream acceptance of both groups in 2009.

Please note your ... uhmmmm ... thrashing about can only produce a strawman argument in which I won't partake. In simple terms, for you, I haven't suggested any comparisons between, well, the not so recent past and the year 2009. What I said would be clear to anyone with a modicom of intelligence.