Part 12: AMU’s Environmental Science Course Blames the West

Subjects of Interest:

• American Military University (AMU)

• Introduction to Environmental Science (EVEP180)

I enrolled in Introduction to Environmental Science at American Military University (AMU) to investigate where environmental extremists get their propaganda. Week after week, this course confirmed my suspicions. From the first assignment to the final discussions, this class didn’t provide fair or accurate science. It served as a machine to instill guilt, blame Western society for every environmental problem, and quietly excuse or praise nations like China that are among the worst polluters on Earth today.

The message of this class was clear: if you live in the West, you’re the problem. Your consumption, your industrial history, and your way of life are destroying the planet. Meanwhile, China is treated like a role model or barely mentioned at all when it comes to modern pollution. The class materials, assignments, and discussions pushed students toward radical thinking and offered no fair solutions.

The syllabus made it clear that this wasn’t going to be a neutral class. It promised “lifestyle examination, ethical considerations, and critical analysis of individual contributions to local and global impacts.” From day one, students were told that the key to solving global environmental problems was to change their personal habits, feel guilty, and accept that their way of life is the cause of global destruction. We were told we should be more like the Chinese, as if their government’s policies are a model for environmental responsibility.

The ecological footprint calculator set the tone. My result was 7.7 gha, more than double the average Chinese citizen’s footprint. The solution? According to the assignment, I must turn off my water, give up electricity, stop driving, and basically live like a peasant to be a “worthy” American. Only then did I receive a footprint comparable to China’s reported numbers. The same tool that shamed me for my lifestyle was littered with ads and donation requests. So much for scientific objectivity. And of course, there was no serious discussion of how China’s consumption figures are underreported or how their state-driven pollution dwarfs individual actions. I wonder if the professor or anyone at AMU has actually turned off their power, given up water service, stopped driving, and started fetching their own water like this course demands from its students.

Week two hammered U.S. and Western agricultural practices as the villain in global food insecurity and environmental damage. There was no meaningful discussion of China’s or India’s massive agricultural pollution, deforestation, or water abuse. Real solutions like vertical farming, AI-driven agriculture, or desalination were downplayed in favor of more personal guilt, lifestyle change, and of course, more donation requests. I’ve heard the same line since the mid-1970s: we can save the Earth if we just hand over more money.

The materials on conservation and biodiversity highlighted U.S. failures while ignoring massive habitat destruction caused by state-level policies elsewhere. International agreements were praised without addressing their failure to stop abuses in places like China. The message was clear: if the U.S. just did better, the planet would heal.

The Plastic Wars video admitted recycling programs have failed, then blamed capitalism and praised China’s supposed environmental efforts. There was no serious look at the truth: China has been the world’s largest plastic polluter, dumping waste into oceans for decades. The course even showed images and videos of trash in the ocean, footage that came from China, while talking about America’s contribution to pollution. The goal was to make Western consumers feel guilty while ignoring the real offenders.

Mining and land degradation were pinned squarely on the U.S. and Western industrialization. Rare earth mining in China, the most destructive on the planet, got only a passing mention. Individual and national guilt were the takeaway, not accountability for modern polluters.

The water crisis discussion focused on the Colorado River as an example of Western overuse. China’s industrial water abuse was barely mentioned. The materials pushed personal conservation as the solution and ignored technological fixes or global accountability.

Climate change was pitched as the product of Western industrial history and personal consumption. China, the world’s largest emitter today, was handled gently. The solutions were the same tired calls for personal lifestyle changes: buy a hybrid, drive less, consume less, as if those actions can offset industrial-scale pollution from China and other major offenders. Yes, we should consume less and recycle more, but it’s dishonest to push that as the main solution while ignoring where the real damage is coming from.

By the final week, the class went into full propaganda mode. Environmental justice was pitched as a fight against Western capitalism. The material encouraged activism, portraying it as a means of justice for the oppressed, and consistently blamed the West. Climate injustice was portrayed as something caused by the West that victimizes the rest of the world. Modern pollution from China, India, and other large-scale offenders was buried. The solution? More personal guilt, more lifestyle change, more moralizing.

Since this was my first class at AMU, I didn’t take close notes like I did in subsequent classes. Looking back, I realize I should have tracked everything more carefully. I also remember that several of the external links provided for reading material were flagged by my Norton 360 virus protection as unsafe, with recommendations not to open them. I skipped those links. Now I wonder who was behind those websites, maybe questionable organizations, maybe even China. It’s another piece of the puzzle worth investigating.

I wrote to my professor and said what needed to be said. I received no reply. All feedback from assignments and discussions was generic: “Good job, Arthur.” Much of the class material by the professor was in broken English and hard to understand. I had to email other students to ask if they understood the instructions, and they said no. At times, I received emails asking for help. From the beginning of this course, I was curious about where environmental extremists were getting their propaganda. It turns out it’s from the classrooms themselves. Colleges are teaching a distorted view of victimhood and climate change, motivating students to take radical actions and profit from them. I urged the class to stop blaming only the West and start teaching fact-based environmental science. Climate change is real, but it’s not just the fault of the West. China isn’t the answer.

AMU’s Introduction to Environmental Science doesn’t teach accurate science. It teaches Western guilt, moralizing over solutions, and selective blindness to the worst polluters of today. It encourages students to feel ashamed of their lives and ignore the real drivers of environmental destruction. The class doesn’t prepare students to solve global problems. It prepares them to become part of the propaganda machine. Further research may reveal what kind of Chinese funding or influence contributes to AMU teaching this misinformation. The bias in this course fits an obvious pattern across AMU, not just in the counter-terrorism curriculum, but likely throughout its programs. The entire curriculum appears to be highly politicized and aimed at targeting the West while shielding China and other authoritarian regimes from criticism. The investigation will continue and broaden.

Click the links below for a breakdown of AMU’s counter-terrorism and homeland security curriculum. Each entry focuses on a specific course, pattern, or policy, exposing how bias undermines national security and professional training.