Climate silence not the answer: open letter claims safe, accurate education does not harm children

The letter is in response, the co-signatories say, to growing misinformation suggesting climate science is to blame for rising anxiety in children.

In late May, the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA), a conservative think tank, released a report claiming climate education was distressing children and should be scaled back or removed from Australian schools. 

The report’s author Clare Rowe, an educational and developmental psychologist, said the paper does not take a position on the science of climate change, but rather questions the developmental suitability of exposing young children to it, “especially when presented through alarmist and unbalanced narratives”.

“Teaching children about global catastrophes in ways that they are not developmentally equipped to process is not education; it is fearmongering,” she claimed.

Rowe argued that the current approach within the Australian Curriculum is cognitively inappropriate and ethically questionable. 

In response, the open letter, published today, argues that it is not climate science education that is causing distress, but the lived experience of climate change itself, and the failure of leaders to act.

“Young people are already absorbing information about climate change through social media, news, family conversations, schoolyards, and lived experience of climate disasters,” the letter reads.

Schools, it says, offer a rare and valuable opportunity to correct and ground that information in facts, build community and emotional resilience, and provide constructive pathways forward. 

Georgia Monaghan, co-founder of ECOMIND, an organisation focused on youth climate mental health resilience, says instead “accurate, developmentally appropriate and psychologically safe climate science education, not climate silence, is the solution”.

The IPA’s claims, Monaghan says, are not only misleading but are part of a broader strategy to delay climate action by shifting public attention to despair, distraction and denial.

She said this rhetoric, linking climate education to youth mental health harm, has recently appeared in Australian politics, echoing narratives emerging in the United States.

The IPA paper contends that when climate change is presented in emotionally charged and alarmist terms, it can overwhelm young people's still-maturing emotional regulation systems, potentially leading to feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, and mistrust in adult authority.

Newspapers like the Courier Mail in Brisbane have trumpeted headlines reading: ‘Net Zero messages causing mental illness in teens’.

In this example, journalist Des Houghton claimed the jump in mental illness among Australian teenagers was probably the fault of climate change alarmists.

“Cultural Marxists have embedded themselves in our high schools and universities and they are telling wide-eyed youngsters that they have no future,” he wrote.

Houghton said people need to be reminded that the world is a better place today than it was 50, 100 and 1000 years ago.

“It’s time to tone down the rhetoric and let teenagers get on with enjoying life without being targeted by loony left catastrophists,” he said.

This agenda, Monaghan claims, distorts the reality of climate education, and the emotional experiences of young people, while serving a broader agenda of climate delay and distraction.

Young people themselves are, in fact, asking for more education on climate change to improve their knowledge and resilience, she claims. 

It is precisely this type of demand that has resulted in the development of new programs and resources such as innovative educational social media series, Stay Tuned to Our Planet (STTOP), which has been produced with the aim of teaching Generation Z how to positively impact climate change and reduce their eco-anxiety.

“Avoiding the topic, rather than explaining climate impacts, can lead to greater confusion, fear and anxiety, and even a sense of betrayal by older generations,” Monaghan says.

The IPA paper contends that exposing children aged 5 to 12 to “alarmist climate narratives” is counterproductive and only contributes to the rising prevalence of eco-anxiety.

Children at this developmental stage, the paper contends, lack the cognitive capacity to fully comprehend abstract, multifactorial issues such as climate science, economic policy, and global environmental systems.

The open letter signatories offer a solution - a vision for climate education that empowers rather than overwhelms.

They argue that while current school curricula are underdeveloped, the solution is climate education that is accurate, holistic and psychologically safe.

The letter outlines a vision for age-appropriate climate education that provides facts, tools, and, importantly, hope.

“Children growing up today are on the front line of climate change impacts,” Monaghan says.

“What young people need is the knowledge, emotional resilience and support to weather the climate reality. It is also what they want. 

“Let’s deliver safe climate science, not climate silence.” 

A link to the IPA paper: ‘Climate anxiety in pre-adolescent children: A Neuroscientific and Psychological Perspective’ can be found here.

The open letter, titled ‘Climate science, not climate silence: Safe, accurate climate education helps, not harms, young Australians’ mental health’ can be found here.