New Scientist - USA (2019-06-15)

26 | New Scientist | 15 June 2019

Climate sacrifices must

be made by all, equally

25 May, p 23

From Paul Whiteley,

Bittaford, Devon, UK

Debora MacKenzie draws

attention to the gilets jaunes

protests in France as an

indicator of the ordinary person’s

reluctance to pay higher fuel duty

prices. The real reason that the

rises caused so much furore was

president Emmanuel Macron’s

incompetent and arbitrary

imposition of taxes to fight a

nebulous concept like climate

change, while he also allowed

polluters and people at the top

to carry on as before. This

created justifiable anger.

To counter climate change

successfully, painful adjustments

must be made across the board –

equal misery for all. This is why

politicians need to be decoupled

from the decision-making process

and why Citizen Councils, as

advocated by the Extinction

Rebellion movement, of which

I am a member, are the way

forward. Ordinary people are in

the best position to judge what is

acceptable to them. They generally

have a greater sense of fairness

and less entitlement than

politicians, decision-makers

and top academics.

Tackling climate change

should result in the overwhelming

majority of people being in a better

place than they are now. The goal is

better houses and transport and a

cleaner environment, not business

as usual with a bit of climate

change mitigation mixed in.

Don’t get left high and dry

talking about rising seas

4 May, p 23

From Scott McNeil,

Banstead, Surrey, UK

In your article about the

Greenland ice sheet melting,

you mention how “bad news

begins to wash over you”. I spend

time in parts of the US that have

a lot of climate change sceptics.

Discussing evidence and

reasoning is often met with

suspicion, or even outright

derision, but I have found one

thing that consistently gives them

pause for thought: visualisations

of the forecast sea level rise over

the next 100 years.

Those that show the rise

that is “locked in” due to

current temperature rises and

which focus on low-lying areas in

Florida, Louisiana and Texas are

particularly effective. I would

encourage others who have

similar “discussions” to use

them as a tool to help.

Schools, genes and peers

affect your development

25 May, p 39

From Rob Lewis,

Langley, Washington, US

Robert Plomin’s observation that

genes are more important than

parenting in a child’s development

is hardly new. Judith Rich Harris

showed precisely this 20 years

ago in her landmark book

The Nurture Assumption.

She made a convincing case that

a child’s peer group contributes

much more to socialisation than

the home environment. This

implies that the greatest impact

parents have on their children is

in helping to determine their

peer group.

From Nick Canning,

Coleraine, Londonderry, UK

Plomin’s interview brought

to mind a counterpoint from

a documentary, The Mystery

of Murder: A Horizon guide, by

Michael Mosley. The programme

offered persuasive evidence that

high stimulation in the brain’s

amygdala and genes for low levels

of the chemical serotonin are

associated with violent behaviour,

except when good parenting

intervened to provide a happy

childhood environment for

people with these genes.

Both genes and environment

are important in the production

of the next generation of non-

violent individuals.

From Guy Cox,

St Albans, New South Wales,

Australia

Your article implied that selective

schools get better exam results

because they admit students

who did well in earlier tests. I think

Plomin has ignored a key variable:

that children are bound to do best

in a cohort of similar ability. If you

are fascinated by calculus and

the rest of the class is struggling

with fractions, where do you go?

Equally, if you can’t keep up with

the other pupils, you would be

better off in a school that meets

your needs.

I had a very chequered school

career, eventually ending up in

one of England’s top performing

schools. A recent review suggests

that my old school challenges

pupils, and if they can’t take that,

it isn’t the right place for them.

I second that. Here in Australia,

the selective public school system

doesn’t offer any better teaching

than non-selective schools, but

it offers a far better education,

simply because the pupils are all

keen to learn. Sadly, able students

who fail to make it to a selective

school often drop out because

there is nothing to challenge them.

Data is key to preventing

a tech monopoly

4 May, p 18

From Steve Snow,

Barber Booth, Derbyshire, UK

The tech giants’ huge revenues are

Views You r le t te r s