In the “no human being is creative enough to make this stuff up” category, Coyote shares a story about his son:
Scene 2, Spanish AP: My son hands me a list of Spanish words he is trying to learn. They are the Spanish words for things like “social justice,” ”poverty”, “exploitation”, etc. I told him it was an odd selection of words. He said that nearly every Spanish essay in every Spanish textbook he had ever had were about revolution and stopping the rich from exploiting the poor and fighting global warming. So he wanted to be prepared for a similar topic on the AP. After the test, I remembered this conversation and asked him what the essay was. He said the topic was “show why the government of poor countries should give free bicycles to the poor to fight global warming.”
Aside from the obvious absurdity of the world we live in, this demonstrates how damaging common curriculum standards are. It also raises a fun economics puzzle. Aside from the obvious consequence in terms of how expensive those bicycles will end up being, is it plausible that giving the poor bicycles would fight global warming? I tend to think it would do just the opposite. If someone is poor enough to not have a bicycle, they probably do not have a car. So I find it implausible that the bicycles would be substituting for motor vehicle transport. In fact, if you take the global warming alarmists seriously, then the production of these bicycles must be bad, because the poor would have been too poor to buy them, and so those resources (and CO2 emissions) never would have been used had the government not called forth their production (that’s not exactly true). And what other effects might we expect to see from this. And gosh, what an absolutely dumb question.