|
I think this approach potentially teaches more misconceptions than it helps. The amount of waste generated in the USA per person can be calculated directly (the edge of fat from a piece of beef you literally throw in the garbage) vs. indirectly (the pollution to grow the hay and grain that was fed to the cow, the manure that comes out of the cow, the guts and blood and other parts when the cow is butchered).
In some ways, young students at a concrete Piagetian stage might not be able to conceptualize anything other than the direct waste they put in the garbage, but if that is actually only 5% of the problem, then even if we recycled that (tiny) piece at 100%, we really haven't touched 95% of the problem (indirect waste).
The place this is most obvious is something like wasting water. Considering the agriculture and thermoelectric power generation (anything with a boiler, whether that is coal or nuclear ...) are the 2 major water users in the USA, by far, focusing on the little things like 'Let Yellow Mellow, Flush Brown Down' make absolutely no difference in the real world vs. a more systemic change like reducing beef consumption or changing your thermostat a couple degrees or using LED lighting instead of incadescent ... or voting for a pro solar/pro wind candidate.
So even though they might not be cognitively ready to handle the whole truth, I think we have an obligation to not intentionally create misconceptions.
|