When I was young and in the scouts, we used to recycle paper. We would fill a large trailer with newspapers and magazines and earn money to buy camping supplies for the troop. It must have made economic sense or there would have been no money in it. None of this was mandatory, or designed to save the planet... If it makes economic sense it doesn't require coercion.

The prof's argument may have weaknesses but I see reflections of Objectivist / libertarian thinking.
What I like are:

1. Does privilege implies responsibility?
This point is strongly put down- No, a contract should not apply that is not freely agreed to. Besides, what is meant by responsibility here is just observance of 'greenism'.

2. Reason over emotion.
There is no consideration of market mechanisms or any kind of rational thought. No analysis, just dogma, the repetition of statements rather than conversation, the shutting down of debate. This cannot be other than the observance and promotion of a fanatical religion.

3. Force.
The enforced use of labor and materials. For example requiring all to sort waste (thinks- slavery, and human time is a limited resource), the use of other resources that are best used elsewhere, for example potable water for washing instead of a central facility which could non-potable or recycled water.

4. It is being taught in school, even in pre-school to youngsters who cannot read or write.

I have the advantage over American readers here of some experience with a state school where the C of E was established. (Many years ago), parents who were Catholic Muslim Jewish atheist calatumpian could have their child excused from prayers and religious lessons. -you odd people can go to your own school or stay out of these activities- but the new religion regards non-observance, dissent or even questions, as wickedness. Well back in those days the C of E may have thought that but they had the good manners to stay quiet. The greenies have no manners.

This new religion is not communism but works very well with it as requiring state control of economic activity and the squashing of dissenting opinion. They both abhor liberty, individualism, free association and property rights.
Stalin said- industry and economic growth whatever the cost,
the greens say- cut coal, gas and oil, preserve trees, whatever the cost.

As I read that the thought popped into my mind, "Well, yeah. A lot of elementary teachers are idiots." There are some good ones, for sure - great ones. But, I am surprised at how uneducated a lot of them are.

My son came home with some enviro re-education this week. He doesn't seem to give a damn about it, luckily.

The paper is here:
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/...

I got it from this site where there is a good discussion:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/4/2...

I agree, the story only leaves me wanting more. I too am concerned about my children being indoctrinated towards environmentalism.

It 's good. He also comes off a little like a jerk. It does seem as if this were round 2 with the teacher. And of course he makes valid points. I know that despite our constant disscussions on recycling with our kids, they tend to automatically accept the plan with their own garbage collection services. It gets ingrained pretty deeply throughtout school as well as reinforced in the community. The fact is, if it 's economically viable, if it conserves energy, if there is profit in it (not just monetary) companies and individuals would do it anyway -no indoctrination needed. I did find the teacher 's r initial response about "privilege comes with responsibilities " highly obnoxious