Rep. Jack Draxler, R-Logan, is pushing legislation that would require educators to “consider” adding lessons into the curriculum about energy development, with the “Mineral and Petroleum Literacy Act”, HB25. The bill has passed the house and has moved on to the Senate.
Recommended by the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Interim Committee, and, in Drexler’s mind, in an effort to “balance” the curriculum, the bill
seeks to “educate” children about mining and petroleum drilling. The funds for the program would come out of surplus mining profits….most Utah kids don’t know that oil, gas and coal contribute to their education, and to the state’s economy. “Most of them,” he[Drexler] said, “don’t know their iPods, their toothbrushes, their homes and their roads are all products of this kind of natural resource development.”
It’s not enough that information about Utah is taught in elementary and middle school Utah Studies curriculum, including industries of the Beehive state. I t is speculated by some that legislators fear the knowledge that children are receiving in other curricular areas about energy and conservation.
The Salt Lake Tribune gives this bill a “thumbs down” to this piece of legislation:
Rep. Jack Draxler, R-North Ogden, has convinced his colleagues in the House that Utah schoolchildren are learning too much about energy conservation and recycling and not enough about the benefits of drilling for gas and oil. We’re not sure why they see this as a scale that must be balanced. Somehow, they seem to fear, children will be persuaded that if conservation and recycling are good then energy development is bad. Draxler’s bill would allocate all-too-scarce dollars so that teachers can explain that Americans should continue to rely on and subsidize fossil fuels. If balance is needed, we’d like to also see an explanation of how burning carbon fuels and drilling for them are contributing to the air that’s so bad these same children can’t go outside at recess.
Not to mention education about the longevity of the natural resources being extracted and the impact to the ecosystems as a result of the degradation of the land.
The funding allocation is vague as well. While it is stated that monies would be generated from the surplus funds of the Oil and Gas Conservation Account, which is a fund that has a state mandated cap, it doesn’t say how much would be given from that and how much beyond the cap would need to come from Utah taxpayers.
This is a biased and unbalanced piece of legislation that has not brought all interests to the table for discussion.