Discovering College 1d R B A L S Y K A S Ipage 1ets 260 Do School ✓ Solved

Discovering College 1 D r . B a l s y K a s i ETS 260 Do Schools kill creativity? “The power of being Creative†His website: Ken Robinson “Creativity expert Sir Ken Robinson challenges the way we're educating our children. He champions a radical rethink of our school systems, to cultivate creativity and acknowledge multiple types of intelligence.†– from: Ted speaker bio. Follow the link to watch this most viewed video in Ted.com: 1.

Do schools kill creativity? Yes, it is not about ETS260! It is about your educational experience What do you think about online education? How can we foster creativity in education? Any comments on Sir Ken Robinson’s views on education I am not looking for lot of writing but a quality reflection Use the “D2L Dropbox (Assignments)†to submit From this video, you will note that we are all educators and learners together… Unit VII Web Assignment: Deforestation Deforestation is the removal of trees in a forest by natural and human actions and rates of deforestation vary across the world.

In this assignment, we will examine patterns of global deforestation and their causes using the New York Times Changing Forest website. Instructions A. Open the New York Times Changing Forest website for an interactive map of world forests: Click the link below to access an interactive map of world forests: Bloch, M., & Corum, J. (n.d.). Changing forests. Retrieved from You will first see a world map.

Give it a general look to gain your coordinates and to see the locations where intact, relatively undisturbed forests and fragmented forests occur. B. Next, zoom into the specific areas of the Earth to gain a more detailed perspective on deforestation by region. First, click on North America. There will again be a view of intact and fragmented forests also with two buttons on the bottom right of the screen: Recent losses and Ancient forests.

Click these buttons to see recent deforestation in North America and the former extent of ancient forests. Do this for each of the other regions on the map (Europe, Asia, South America, Africa, and Australia). Then answer the 10 multiple-choice questions (8 points each), and one short answer question (20 points) in Blackboard. Dr. Balsy Kasi Page 1 PLANET IN PERIL 2021 The Case for a Carbon Tax on Beef By Richard Conniff March 17, 2018 (from: The NYT) Click on the picture below or the article title to go directly to article in NYT Let me admit up front that I would rather be eating a cheeseburger right now.

Or maybe trying out a promising new recipe for Korean braised short ribs. But our collective love affair with beef, dating back more than 10,000 years, has gone wrong, in so many ways. And in my head, if not in my appetites, I know it’s time to break it off. So it caught my eye recently when a team of French scientists published a paper on the practicality of putting a carbon tax on beef as a tool for meeting European Union climate change targets. The idea will no doubt sound absurd to Americans reared on Big Macs and cowboy mythology.

While most of us recognize that we are already experiencing the effects of climate change, according to a 2017 Gallup poll, we just can’t imagine that, for instance, floods, mudslides, wildfires, biblical droughts and back- to-back Category 5 hurricanes are going to be a serious problem in our lifetimes. And we certainly don’t make the connection to the food on our plates, or to beef in particular. Dr. Balsy Kasi Page 2 PLANET IN PERIL 2021 The cattle industry would like to keep it that way. Oil, gas and coal had to play along, for instance, when the Obama-era Environmental Protection Agency instituted mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions.

But the program to track livestock emissions was mysteriously defunded by Congress in 2010, and the position of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association at the time was that the extent of the emissions was “alleged and unsubstantiated.†The association now goes an Orwellian step further, arguing in its 2018 policy book that agriculture is a source of offsets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture, including cattle raising, is our third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, after the energy and industrial sectors. At first glance, the root of the problem may appear to be our appetite for meat generally. Chatham House, the influential British think tank, attributes 14.5 percent of global emissions to livestock — “more than the emissions produced from powering all the world’s road vehicles, trains, ships and airplanes combined.†Livestock consume the yield from a quarter of all cropland worldwide.

Add in grazing, and the business of making meat occupies about three-quarters of the agricultural land on the planet. Beef and dairy cattle together account for an outsize share of agriculture and its attendant problems, including almost two-thirds of all livestock emissions, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. That’s partly because there are so many of them — 1 billion to 1.4 billion head of cattle worldwide. They don’t outnumber humanity, but with cattle in this country topping out at about 1,300 pounds apiece, their footprint on the planet easily outweighs ours. Dr.

Balsy Kasi Page 3 PLANET IN PERIL 2021 The emissions come partly from the fossil fuels used to plant, fertilize and harvest the feed to fatten them up for market. In addition, ruminant digestion causes cattle to belch and otherwise emit huge quantities of methane. A new study in the journal Carbon Balance and Management puts the global gas output of cattle at 120 million tons per year. Methane doesn’t hang around in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide. But in the first 20 years after its release, it’s 80 to 100 times more potent at trapping the heat of the sun and warming the planet.

The way feedlots and other producers manage manure also ensures that cattle continue to produce methane long after they have gone to the great steakhouse in the sky. The French researchers, from the Toulouse School of Economics, decided to take a look at a carbon tax on beef because the European Union has committed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions more than half by midcentury — and that includes agricultural emissions. The ambition is to keep global warming under 2 degrees Celsius, widely regarded as a tipping point at which cascading and potentially catastrophic effects of climate change could sweep across the planet. Their study found that a relatively steep tax, based on greenhouse gas emissions, would raise the retail price of beef by about 40 percent and cause a corresponding drop in consumption, much like the sugar tax on sodas and the tax on tobacco products.

Wouldn’t it make more sense to put a carbon tax on fossil fuel, a larger source of greenhouse gas emissions? You bet. But many people who now commute in conventional gas-fueled automobiles have no better way to get home — or to heat their homes when they get there. That broader carbon tax will require dramatically restructuring our lives. A carbon tax on beef, on the other hand, would be a relatively simple test case for such taxes and, according to the French study, only a little painful, at least at the household level: While people would tend to skip the beef bourguignon, they could substitute other meats, like pork and chicken, that have a much smaller climate change footprint.

The tax would also reduce the substantial contribution of beef and dairy cattle to water pollution, deforestation, biodiversity loss and human mortality. (A 2012 Harvard School of Public Health study found that adding a single serving of unprocessed red meat per day increases the risk of death by 13 percent.) Those factors have already driven down beef consumption in the United States by 19 percent since 2005. Zohra Bouamra-Mechemache, a co-author of the French study, readily acknowledged that the proposed carbon tax on beef has no chance of becoming reality, “not even in Europe†and certainly not in the United States. Our politicians continue to regard the beef industry as, well, a sacred cow.

And even if the rest of us acknowledge the reality of climate change, we tend to put off actually doing much about it in our own lives. It’s a J. Wellington Wimpy philosophy: We want our hamburgers today, on a promise to pay on some future Tuesday, probably in our grandchildren’s lifetimes. Still, the idea of a carbon tax on beef makes me think. I crave the aroma of beef, from a burger, or a barbecue brisket cooked low and slow.

It’s just harder to enjoy it now when I can also catch the faint whiff of methane lingering 20 years into our increasingly uncertain future. Richard Conniff (@RichardConniff) is the author of “House of Lost Worlds: Dinosaurs, Dynasties, and the Story of Life on Earth†and a contributing opinion writer. The Case for a Carbon Tax on Beef

Paper for above instructions

The Impact of Education on Creativity and Environment

Education plays a crucial role in shaping not only individuals' knowledge and skills but also their creativity and understanding of global issues. Sir Ken Robinson, a renowned creativity expert, argues that conventional education systems often stifle creativity rather than foster it. In a world grappling with pressing environmental challenges like deforestation, the cultivation of creative thinking can enable students to devise innovative solutions. This reflection explores Robinson's views on creativity in education, examines the significance of online education, and discusses how creativity can be nurtured within educational systems.

Do Schools Kill Creativity?

Robinson posits that traditional schooling prioritizes regurgitation of facts and standardization, leading to a homogenized form of learning that discourages individuality and creative thought (Robinson, 2006). He suggests a radical shift towards educational practices that recognize and celebrate diverse forms of intelligence. For instance, many learners may excel in creative arts or practical problem solving rather than academic subjects such as mathematics or language arts, yet these talents are often undervalued in mainstream education (Robinson, 2013).
In light of these views, one might question whether conventional education methods are conducive to fostering creativity. Many students report feeling disconnected from their learning experiences, leading to disengagement and a lack of innovative thinking (Barton et al., 2020). Creativity is essential in the face of global issues such as deforestation, which requires out-of-the-box thinking and collaborative approaches (Conniff, 2018).

The Role of Online Education

Online education has emerged as a powerful alternative to traditional classrooms, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. It offers unique opportunities for fostering creativity through its flexible nature and diverse platforms, allowing educational content to be presented in more engaging and interactive forms (Martin et al., 2020). Online learning encourages students to explore subjects at their own pace and in ways that resonate with them, enabling a more personalized educational experience.
Research suggests that online education can enhance creativity by providing students with access to diverse resources, including multimedia tools and networking opportunities with peers across the globe (Wang & Wang, 2020). Moreover, online platforms can engage students with real-world problems, prompting them to think critically and creatively as they collaborate with others to develop solutions.

Fostering Creativity in Education

To encourage creativity in education, several strategies can be applied. First, educators should foster an environment where failure is seen as a part of the learning process, allowing students to take risks and innovate without the fear of poor performance (Brophy, 2010). Additionally, integrating project-based learning (PBL) into the curriculum allows students to apply their knowledge to real-world problems. PBL not only enhances critical thinking skills but also encourages collaboration and creative problem-solving (Thomas, 2000).
Furthermore, incorporating interdisciplinary approaches can help students make connections across subjects, igniting creative thinking. For instance, combining art and science in a project about environmental conservation can open new avenues for innovation (Beers, 2011). This approach encourages students to view problems from multiple angles, promoting their ability to think creatively.
Robinson emphasizes the importance of arts education as a fundamental component of a well-rounded curriculum (Robinson, 2006). The arts encourage self-expression and imaginative thinking, allowing students to explore and communicate their ideas. Schools should prioritize and support creative disciplines like music, theater, and visual arts to cultivate a generation that values creativity alongside academic achievement.

Contributing to Environmental Education

In the context of environmental challenges like deforestation, education plays a critical role in shaping responsible citizens who understand the implications of their actions. The New York Times’ interactive "Changing Forests" map highlights patterns of global deforestation, offering an educational tool for students to visualize the impact of human activities on forests worldwide (Bloch & Corum, n.d.).
By utilizing such resources in the classroom, educators can prompt discussions around the importance of forests in biodiversity and climate regulation, fostering a sense of stewardship among students (Conniff, 2018). Engaging students in environmental projects encourages them to devise creative solutions that mitigate the effects of deforestation, encouraging them to tackle real-world problems effectively.

Conclusion

In conclusion, education has the potential to either stifle or nurture creativity, influencing how individuals respond to significant global challenges. Robinson’s advocacy for rethinking educational approaches emphasizes the need for a system that fosters innovative thinking and values diverse intelligences. Online education emerges as a powerful tool in this realm, presenting opportunities for personalized and interactive learning experiences.
Creating a curriculum that prioritizes creativity, incorporates project-based learning, and emphasizes environmental education, particularly concerning issues like deforestation, can empower students to be proactive stewards of their environment. By fostering creativity in education, we can cultivate a more innovative and environmentally conscious generation capable of addressing the pressing issues facing our planet.

References

1. Barton, A. C., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2020). Critical Approaches to STEM Education: Working Towards Equity and Social Justice. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 1-25.
2. Beers, S. Z. (2011). 21st Century Skills: Preparing Students for Their Future. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(2), 100-106.
3. Bloch, M., & Corum, J. (n.d.). Changing Forests. New York Times. Retrieved from [link to article]
4. Brophy, S. (2010). Creative Teaching Practices in the Classroom: What Teachers Can Do. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6), 5-10.
5. Conniff, R. (2018). The Case for a Carbon Tax on Beef. The New York Times. Retrieved from [link to article]
6. Martin, F., Wang, C., & Piquado, T. (2020). The Role of Online Learning in Supporting Creativity in Education: A Systematic Review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 23(1), 18-28.
7. Robinson, K. (2006). Do Schools Kill Creativity? TED Talk. Retrieved from [link to video]
8. Robinson, K. (2013). Creative Schools: The Grassroots Revolution That's Transforming Education. Penguin Books.
9. Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of Research on Project-Based Learning. The Autodesk Foundation.
10. Wang, L., & Wang, C. (2020). The Effects of Online Learning on Students’ Academic Performance: A Study of an Application of UTAUT. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4215-4234.