Enseigner les Sciences de la nature

logo ensl   Logo du ministère de l'éducation
logo CIRI logo Immuniser Lyon
logo LBMC logo Musée Mérieux
Logo Inserm igfl igfl logo CREATIS
Logo du Museum national des histoires naturelles
Logo du musée de Confluences
logo geo 3d
Logo de Lyon 1 logo lgltpe 
Logo du Museum national des histoires naturelles
Logo du musée de Confluences
logo LBMC
logo LBMC
logos composé logo COP In My City logo Investissement d'avenirLogo du musée de Confluences
logo Météo France Logo du musée de Confluences
logo EVSlogo Grand Lyon
Vous êtes ici : Accueil / Thématiques / EDD / Climat, énergie et développement / Mises en scène pédagogique / Débattre en classe / Séquence pédagogique : "The scientific consensus on climate change" autour de l'article de Naomi ORESKES, 2004

Séquence pédagogique : "The scientific consensus on climate change" autour de l'article de Naomi ORESKES, 2004

Une séquence proposée par SES-Lyon (Académie de Lyon) à destination des élèves de Terminale ES bac européen...

Enjeux d’apprentissage: Mettre en évidence les questionnements sur les relations entre croissance économique et les contraintes environnementales. Insister plus particulièrement sur les enjeux géopolitiques du développement durable.

 

Thème : Le changement climatique, une expertise entre science et politique

 

Contexte de la séquence : Peut s’inscrire dans le cadre du chapitre introductif « Croissance et Développement. » au programme des TES

 

Déroulement :

 
  1. Fourniture de l'article de Naomi ORESKES "The scientific Consensus on Climate Change" aux élèves qui disposeront d’une semaine pour faire la recherche de vocabulaire….
  2. Étude en classe à partir du questionnaire ci-dessous (2h)
  3. Possibilité d'organiser, après le travail sur les questions (voir ci-dessous), soit une discussion orale, soit un devoir surveillé individuel en 1 heure sur le thème proposé en "discussion" (voir ci-dessous).

Autres supports éventuels :
Les vidéos du colloque "Evolutions climatiques : approches interdisciplinaires" de mars 2007

 


************************************************************************************************************
Sujet pour les terminales ES, bac euro : The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Questions :

 
 

1.      What do we mean by “human activities” ? What human activities are likely to cause global warming ?

 

2.      Where on the earth do we expect global warming to have the most catastrophic consequences on human life ? Where do main emissions of green house gas come from ?

 

3.      Developed countries are getting more and more successful in stabilizing there green house gas emissions. Why is the issue of global warming even though highly worrying ?

 

4.      According to the text, is there a scientific consensus on human responsibility in climate change ? What about a political consensus ?

 

5.      Why do you think American policy makers and media often assert that climate science is highly uncertain ?

 

6.      What makes the current global warming much more threatening for humans than former ages of warming or glaciations ?

 

7.      While most developed countries have ratified the treaty of Kyoto in February 2005, aiming to stabilize green house gas concentration in the atmosphere, the United States of America did not. Why is it particularly regrettable ? How can you explain this position ?

 
 

Discussion :

 
 

Do you think development can be achieved for a larger part of the world population without causing irreversible damage to the environment ?

 

************************************************************************************************************

 

Réponses

 
 
  1. What do we mean by “human activities” ? What human activities are likely to cause global warming ?
    • intensive agriculture and deforestation,
    • chemical, steel, oil, paper, clothing industry,
    • ground, see and air transportation & freight,
    • power generation.
  2. Where on the earth do we expect global warming to have the most catastrophic consequences on human life ? Where do main emissions of green house gas come from ?
 

Victim lands :

 
    • On the poles where the effects of green house gas appear quicker and stronger than anywhere else on the globe,
    • In arid areas where fresh water is missing more and more,
    • In flat lands like the Netherlands or Louisiana, where the growing see level may expose a larger shore to floods or tidal waves
 

Guilty lands :

 
  • Developed and developing countries, mainly located in temperate areas.
 
  1. Developed countries are getting more and more successful in stabilizing there green house gas emissions. Why is the issue of global warming even though highly worrying ?
 

Most polluting industries are leaving developed countries to get workforce for lawer wages and less regulated environments in the developing countries. Most products consumed by the wealthier are manufactured in developing areas. The economy of rich countries depends less and less on industry, more and more on services. But the standard of living of these populations can not be sustained without the relocated manufacturing. So statistics do not reflect the true responsibility of developed countries in the green house gas emissions. Moreover, developing countries like China or India are reaching very high demographic and economic growth levels, which means gas emissions will follow an exponential curb for some decades still.

 
  1. According to the text, is there a scientific consensus on human responsibility in climate change ? What about a political consensus ?
 

There is a debate on the part of climate change due to natural causes and that due to human activities. But there is a consensus on the fact that human activities at least partly cause global warming. The true debate is clearly political, since the scientific community fully endorse the stating that human modification of climate is compelling.

 
  1. Why do you think American policy makers and media often assert that climate science is highly uncertain ?
 

The American opinion is still hostile to any change in their standard of living which means an average gas emission level per inhabitant reaching twice that of any European. The media and the authorities would find any mean to avoid confronting the wishes of wealth and consumption of their population, to the matters of environment protection.

 
  1. What makes the current global warming much more threatening for humans than former ages of warming or glaciations ?
 

The man has been able to adapt to very hard climate modifications through millenniums. But those modifications were much slower and the needs of humanity for its survival were lesser than today.

 
  1. While most developed countries have ratified the treaty of Kyoto in February 2005, aiming to stabilize green house gas concentration in the atmosphere, the United States of America did not. Why is it particularly regrettable ? How can you explain this position ?
 

The disapproval of the treaty of Kyoto by the USA means the protocol fully failed (diplomatic power of the USA makes any agreement not credible to the rest of the world). The USA is responsible for the highest level of green house gas emissions. But the country benefits of a huge land quite a low density of population and very diverse climatic areas. This may lower the care fore environment of that population, while smaller countries with high density of population will quickly suffer from the consequences of global warming.

 
 

Discussion :

 
 

Do you think development can be achieved for a larger part of the world population without causing irreversible damage to the environment ?

 
 

I°) No without global, rules, regulations and funding

 
 
  • The Malthusian theory of demographic growth versus natural resources
  • History of the Easter Island
  • Asymmetry between “consuming countries” and “producing countries”
  • Power of international lobbies versus national politics
 
 

II° ) Yes, global, rules, regulations and funding

 
 
  • Agreements on emission rates
  • Control of demography
  • See regulation
  • Land and species protection
  • Pollution taxing
  • Funding research in environment friendly matters
  • Educating people to environment friendly cares