You Too Can Ruin Your Kids’ Snack Time With ‘Climate Change’

Indoctrinating them early is important

What’s snack time got to do with climate change?

Hey parents! Do you find yourself wanting to talk to your elementary school-age kids about climate change, but you’re not sure where to begin?

Don’t worry, you’re not alone. Your children may be too young to read by themselves or, you know, wrap their head around the intricacies of global climate policy, but there are age-appropriate ways to introduce the idea that we should — and can! — take better care of our planet.

And what better way to start than with food! Every one of us eats, so everyone poops has the ability to take action on climate change. Cooking with your kiddo is a great way to introduce them to climate-friendly values such as thinking about where their food comes from, trying new (low-emissions) foods, and cutting down on food packaging and waste.

We scoured our video archives and rediscovered three of our favorite Grist Test Kitchen clips to use as jumping-off points to introduce your child to the concept of climate change. We’ve also come up with suggestions of what to do and say to help you connect the dots between food and the environment.

Yes, they helpfully provide videos and recipes with a heavy side of cultish activity and dogma you can feed your kids. Then you can screw with the lunch the little munchkin takes to school, lecturing them on going meatless at least one day a week. Followed not giving them any junk food and

Do: Dupe your child’s favorite packaged snack with a fun DIY. If you’re feeling especially daring, why not try convincing your potato chip-loving little one to try some of the delicious kale chips featured in the video above.

Yup, dupe your child to get them to join the cult.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

22 Responses to “You Too Can Ruin Your Kids’ Snack Time With ‘Climate Change’”

  1. david7134 says:

    With the dramatic decrease in use of fossil fuels during our shut down, we will be able to see that fossil fuels have no influence on the environment. And that this whole thing is a hoax.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      david,

      No. How much has global fossil fuel use decreased in the past couple of months? 5%, 50%, 100%? Do you have any idea? What effect would the temporary reduction in emissions have on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? Do you have any idea?

      Burning fossil fuels emits CO2 as a waste product, which accumulates in the atmosphere and oceans. The increase in atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 415 ppm over the past century or so is causing the Earth to warm. Fossil fuels do not cause warming, the CO2 from their burning does. A reduction in emissions for a few months will make little difference in the CO2 concentration.

      Are you proposing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from a source other than fossil fuels?

      • formwiz says:

        It’s called exhalation.

        Not to fear, you Commies have always had a solution for it.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Is that the hypothesis? That the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from human (and other animal) exhalation?

          That makes a lot of sense if you don’t think about it.

          If you do think about it… Animals (including the nearly 8 billion humans) use plants and other animals and not oil, gas and coal for personal fuel. Plants extract CO2 from the atmosphere and using energy derived from sunlight convert the CO2 into complex organic molecules (carbohydrates and eventually amino acids, lipids, nucleotides, vitamins etc). Herbivores and omnivores consume plants, extracting these complex molecules to use for generating energy and as building blocks for other needed biomolecules. In essence, animals use the energy from the sun temporarily stored in plants! This is a fairly rapid cycle, taking only weeks, months occasionally a year. The carbohydrates in the corn you ate yesterday was atmospheric CO2 not long ago. It’s a balance, isn’t it?

          Trillions of tons of CO2 were incorporated into plants millions of years ago and their decomposition by the heat and pressure of the Earth’s crust turned these plant carbohydrates into the organic molecules of oil and coal that we use today for energy sources.

          So, today animals and plants stay in relative energy balance, plants extracting atmospheric CO2, converting to carbohydrates that animals consume and metabolize back to CO2, which is exhaled. The CO2 stays in balance!

          On the other hand, we burn the organic molecules that came from plants millions of years ago, releasing gigatons of “old” carbon (as CO2) into the atmosphere.

          Anyway, carbon isotope ratios clearly show that the increased CO2 levels (280 ppm –> 415 ppm now) over the past century of so comes from fossil fuels, not exhalation. Now you know why!

          • formwiz says:

            No, the human race and the animal kingdom have benefitted from improved medical knowledge, antibiotics and stuff.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            the human race and the animal kingdom have benefitted from improved medical knowledge, antibiotics and stuff

            While that is no doubt true, it has nothing to do with the false notion that the human exhalation of CO2 caused the increase in atmospheric CO2.

            When gc gets humiliated he disappears for a while. wiz, on the other hand, just changes the subject, types something unrelated and keeps on truckin’! Kudos.

  2. Jl says:

    Here’s another thing to know-CO2 levels have been 10-15 times higher in the past with an abundance of life on earth. It’s been colder with more CO2, and it’s been hotter with less CO2. The supposed dire effects are all assumptions. Assumptions aren’t evidence

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’ ”
    —Issac Asimov

    • formwiz says:

      As you prove every day.

    • Jl says:

      “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts”. Richard Feynman

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        What do you think Richard P. Feynman meant by that aphorism?

        Could it be that science is a process, not a religion? And to challenge the pronouncements of experts IS science?

        Or do you take it to mean that all experts are ignorance?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          And by all means read his books. I recommend, “Surely, You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!” and “What Do You Care What Other People Think?”. The iconoclastic Feynman was a good writer and quite humorous.

          BTW – Professor Feynman was an expert.

        • formwiz says:

          Could it be that science is a process, not a religion? And to challenge the pronouncements of experts IS science?

          Lefties like to say, “I believe in evolution”, or “I believe in science”, so it makes them sound smart. Sounds a lot like a religion. And you’re the one who dislikes process. You believe in consensus.

          Process is when people keep poking at something. Process is the fact science is never settled.

          And to challenge the pronouncements of experts really is science. Copernicus, Kekule, Newton, Archimedes all challenged the “experts”.

          How do you think people learn (those of us who are willing to learn)?

          Or do you take it to mean that all experts are ignorance?

          The word is ignorant, and, from what we’ve seen the past few weeks, a lot of experts are ignorant and it’s a good thing we have a President smart enough to challenge them.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Do you not understand the theory of evolution? Or the value of the scientific method?

            You have no interest in learning anything. You’re ignorant and intent on staying that way. Trump is your god and you’re part of his cult.

            Do you think all experts are ignorant?

  4. formwiz says:

    While that is no doubt true, it has nothing to do with the false notion that the human exhalation of CO2 caused the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    It doesn’t? How do you know this?

    Geometric increases in human populations, not to mention animals, would naturally increase CO2.

    When gc gets humiliated he disappears for a while. wiz, on the other hand, just changes the subject, types something unrelated and keeps on truckin’! Kudos.

    No, I just hit you with something for which you were not supplied a stupid answer and you get all sulky.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Geometric increases in human populations, not to mention animals, would naturally increase CO2.

      Would it? Perhaps you didn’t read what I wrote proving you wrong.

      Where does the exhaled CO2 come from? From the plants consumed by animals (and from animals that eat plants in turn eaten by carnivores). Where did the CO2 in plants come from? From the CO2 in the atmosphere. The CO2 exhaled equals the CO2 incorporated in the plants eaten, unless you believe that humans exhale CO2 from some other source.

      The USDA and other scientists estimate each human adult human emits 0.9 kg CO2 by exhalation/day (330 kg/yr), for all humans 7 billion kg/day or 2550 billion kg/year for all humans. Of course, 7.7 billion humans also consume the equivalent of 2550 billion kg CO2/year. That whole balance thing.

      So a human exhales 330 kg. 330 x 2.2 lb/kg = 726 lbs!! of CO2 exhaled per year per capita.

      Fossil fuel CO2 emissions average 4.37 tons per capita (in 2017) or about 9000 lbs. Where does your 9000 lbs of CO2 go? It mixes in the atmosphere (recall CO2 is rapidly increasing) and about half dissolves in the oceans. Some “citizen” scientists claim that CO2, being heavier than nitrogen, settles in a dense layer over the Earth feeding plants, but that’s not true.

      The proportion of fossil fuel carbon (based on C isotope ratios) has increased in the atmosphere. The rapid increase in CO2 came from fossil fuel carbon!

      You’re wrong. The increase isn’t exhalation. Do you have any evidence that it is?

      • formwiz says:

        The USDA and other scientists estimate

        IOW they don’t know. They’re guessing.

        So you have no real evidence. You have proven (and aren’t you the one who says you can’t prove a theory?) nothing.

        7.7 billion humans also consume the equivalent of 2550 billion kg CO2/year. That whole balance thing.

        What balance thing? We inhale O2; we do not “consume” CO2.

        As always, you lie because you have no rebuttal.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Again, your ignorance and attitude hold you back.

          Distract, “Is not!”, confuse, divert, deflect… that’s your MO.

          What theory was I attempting to prove? You need to learn to differentiate between theories, hypotheses and facts.

          Of course we consume CO2 – from where do you think carbohydrates, fats and proteins come from?

          You are wrong and now lie about it. I’ve rebutted your ignorance twice already with facts.

          You respond with “Is not!”. You’ve been brainwashed, but you were receptive to it.

          It’s a sign of a cult member to construct a false “reality” based on the picture painted by their cult leader.

          • formwiz says:

            What theory was I attempting to prove? You need to learn to differentiate between theories, hypotheses and factsi.

            You certainly haven’t. It’s all one big jumble of techy terms to impress anybody dumb enough to buy your lies.

            Of course we consume CO2 – from where do you think carbohydrates, fats and proteins come from?

            You are wrong and now lie about it. I’ve rebutted your ignorance twice already with facts.

            You really call that science? If I’d put that in my 4th grade paper on photosynthesis, I’d have been flunked. How much CO2 goes into any photosynthetic process? Do you know, or is this just another “estimate”?

            Ignorance? You wallow in it in the hope everybody is as gullible as you are. Thankfully, we’re not.

            It’s a sign of a cult member to construct a false “reality” based on the picture painted by their cult leader.

            And you certainly have.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You don’t even have a 4th grade understanding of photosynthesis.

            If you did you wouldn’t have typed: How much CO2 goes into any photosynthetic process?

            Again you deflect, distract, blather… Do you have ANY evidence to support your hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 is increasing because of humans and other animals exhaling?

            You are wrong.

  5. formwiz says:

    Do you not understand the theory of evolution? Or the value of the scientific method?

    Clearly, you don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t go around saying stupid things like, “Scientific theories can’t be proven. You must develop a consensus”.

    You have no interest in learning anything. You’re ignorant and intent on staying that way. Trump is your god and you’re part of his cult.

    Sure. And if I bought global fantasy, I’d be the smartest guy in the room. Ionesco wrote a play about people like you.

    Rhinoceros.

    Do you think all experts are ignorant?

    I never said that, you did, but it really is starting to look that way.

  6. formwiz says:

    You don’t even have a 4th grade understanding of photosynthesis.

    If you did you wouldn’t have typed: How much CO2 goes into any photosynthetic process?

    OK, how much does go? And show your work.

    Again you deflect, distract, blather…

    Your words a few minutes ago

    Trump was informed in Jan that China was lying about Covid-19, but didn’t believe the intelligence community because they are part of the imaginary deep state.

    Sure looks like you changed the subject.

    Do you have ANY evidence to support your hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 is increasing because of humans and other animals exhaling?

    Because there are a lot more people than there were 100 years ago, ergo, more CO2.

    Have you any to refute it?

Bad Behavior has blocked 5694 access attempts in the last 7 days.