The two main ideas:
1- Everyone contributes both positively and negatively to climate change, with a goal of mitigating the negative impact we have.
2 - An abundance of energy use contributes to carbon dioxide pollution, alternatives may cost less in the long run.
I like how straightforward your statements are. Was interested in why you framed everyone's contributions as both positive and negative, especially since not everyone is interested in reducing negative impacts. Are you stating it that way to make that what you hope all of your students come to? In general, this seems like a bigger, more overriding big idea.
The second one seems like it's more specific to a sub-category of lessons about energy consumption and sustainable choices. It integrates social, environmental, etc. aspects as they occur in real life.
I like both of your main ideas. The first one seems more broad than the second. I can imagine very targeted and directed activities to understand different alternatives for energy usage and consumption. I also appreciate that you specified "in the long run" in terms of alternatives. I think that is an important thing to get across -- that in terms of climate change, we have to think and understand the effects of our actions not only today, but in the future.
Site pages
Current course
Participants
Frequently Used Items