by David Orr

TRADING STORIES one day about smart animals, I heard from an old farmer who described a wily fox that appeared at the edge of a clearing in which his dog was tethered to a pole in the yard. Inferring from the pattern of tracks, the empty dog dish, and the fact that the dog was bound up to the pole, he deduced that the fox had run in circles just outside the radius of the dog’s tether until he had tied the dog up, at which point he strutted in to devour the dog’s food while the helpless mutt looked on.

Something like that has happened to all of us who believe nature and ecosystems to be worth preserving and that this is a matter of obligation, spirit, true economy, and common sense. Someone or something has run us in circles, tied us up, and is eating our lunch. It is time to ask who, why, and how we might respond.

Despite occasional success, overall we are losing the epic struggle to preserve the habitability of the Earth. The overwhelming fact is that virtually all important ecological indicators are in decline. The human population increased three-fold in the twentieth century and will likely grow further, levelling off at eight to eleven billion. The loss of species continues and will likely increase in coming decades. Human-driven climatic change is now taking place and is occurring more rapidly than many scientists thought possible even a few years ago. There is no political or economic movement presently under way sufficient to stop the process of a doubling or tripling of the background rate of 280 ppm of carbon dioxide. On the horizon are other threats to humanity and nature in the form of self-replicating technologies that may place humankind and natural systems in even greater jeopardy.

The movement to preserve the habitability of the Earth is in failure mode and we ought to ask why. The reasons can be found neither in a lack of effort or good intention by thousands of scientists, activists, and concerned citizens, nor in a lack of information, data, logic, and scientific evidence. On these counts the movement has grown impressively, as have the quality and quantity of scientific evidence and rational discourse on which it rests. But we must look more deeply at how this is manifest in the larger arena in which public attitudes are formed and the way in which this influences the conduct of the public business.

We are in failure mode, first, because for twenty years or longer we have tried to be reasonable on their terms, in the belief that we could persuade the powerful if we only offered enough reason, data, evidence, and logic. We have quantified the decline of species, ecosystems, and now planetary systems in exhaustive detail. We bent over backwards to accommodate the style and intellectual predilections of self-described ‘conservatives’ and those for whom the economy is far more important than the environment, in the belief that politeness and good evidence stated in their terms would win the day. Accordingly, we put the case for the Earth and coming generations in the language of economics, science, and law.

With remarkably few exceptions we have been reasonable, erudite, clever, cautiously informative, and, relative to the magnitude of the challenges before us, ineffective. In short, we do science, write books, publish articles, develop professional societies, attend conferences, and converse learnedly. But they do politics, take over the courts, control the media, and manipulate the fears and resentments endemic to a rapidly changing society.

The movement to preserve a habitable Earth is in failure mode, too, because it is fractured into different factions, groups, and arcane philosophies. In this respect it has come to resemble the nineteenth-century European socialist movement that became bitterly divided into warring factions, each more eager to be right than to be right and effective. When the world was finally ready for better ideas about how to decently organise industrial society, that movement delivered Bolshevism, and the rest, as they say, is history. The ‘left’ historically has exhausted itself in bloody internecine quarrels: the strategy, as David Brower once described it, of drawing the wagons into a circle and shooting inward. The ‘right’ generally suffers no such fracturing, in large part because its agenda is formed around less complicated aims having to do with pecuniary advantage.

We are in failure mode because all too often we are complacent and lack passion. In the words of Jack Turner, “We are a nation of environmental cowards … willing to accept substitutes, imitations, semblances, and fakes – a diminished wild. We accept abstract information in place of personal experience and communication.” Effective protest, he continues, “is grounded in anger and we are not (consciously) angry. Anger nourishes hope and fuels rebellion, it presumes a judgement, presumes how things ought to be and aren’t, presumes a caring. Emotion remains the best evidence of belief and value. Unfortunately, there is little connection between our emotions and the wild.” We are endlessly busy trading emails, doing research, writing papers, and attending conferences in exotic places, but we go into the wild less and less often. We are cut off from the source.

We are losing because we failed to appreciate the depth of human needs for transcendence and belonging. We have allowed those intending to pillage the last of nature to do so behind the cover of religion, national pride, community, and family. As a result, the majority of people – even those who regard themselves as ‘environmentalists’ – see little conflict with the goals of human domination of nature and the perpetual expansion of the human estate on Earth. As Buddhists would have it, whatever we thought we were doing, we have built a system based on illusion, greed and ill will disguised by patriotism, religious doctrine, and individualism.

WHAT IS TO be done? To that question there can be no simple answer. But I do think there are some obvious places to begin. I would like to make seven points:

The first requires that we take back public words such as ‘conservative’ and ‘patriot’ which have been co-opted and put to no good or accurate use. How is it, for example, that the word ‘conservative’ came to describe those willing to conserve nothing? They are not conservatives but vandals. How have those driving their sport utility vehicles to the mall, sporting two American flags and a ‘God Bless America’ bumper sticker, come to regard themselves as patriots? They are not moved by authentic patriotism at all, but by self-indulgence. For that matter how has the great and noble word ‘liberal’ been demeaned and slandered as the height of political and intellectual folly? Unable to defend the integrity of words, we cannot defend the Earth or anything else.

The integrity of our common language, however, depends a great deal on the cultivation of discerning intelligence in the public, and that requires better education than we now have. And this is my second point. Education has been whittled down to smaller purposes of passing tests and ensuring large ‘lifetime earnings’ in some part of the global economy. What passes for education has become highly technical and specialised, little of which is aimed at drawing out the full human stature of young people. We’ve become a nation of specialists and technicians, not broadly educated and discerning people. Scholars have been too intent on developing ‘professional knowledge’, arcane theories, complicated methodologies, instead of broad knowledge useful to the wider public. Consequently, we have fewer and fewer people who know history, or how the world works as a physical system, or the rudiments of the constitution; or who have a respectable political philosophy. We are a people ripe for the plucking.

This leads to a third point. We do not have an environmental crisis so much as a political crisis. A great majority of people still wish a decent and habitable world for their descendants, but those desires are thwarted by the machinery that ought to connect the popular will to public decisions but no longer does so. We will have to repair and perhaps reinvent the institutions of democratic governance for a global world and that means dealing with issues that the founders of this republic did not and could not have anticipated. The process of political engagement at all levels has become increasingly Byzantine, confusing, and inaccessible. And in the mass-consumption society we have all become better consumers than citizens, which is to say willing participants in our own undoing. The solution, however difficult, is to reconnect people with the political process and government at all levels.

Fourth, it is necessary to expose the mythology that surrounds “the divine rights of capital” and place democratic controls on corporations and the movement of capital. We once fought a revolutionary war to establish political democracy in Western societies, but have yet to do so to democratise the workplace and the ownership of capital. These are still governed by the same illogic of unquestioned divine right by which monarchies once ruled. The assumption that corporations are legal persons, and thereby beyond effective public scrutiny, control, or law, is foolishness and worse. The latest corporate scandals are only that: the latest in a recurring pattern of illegality, self-dealing, and political corruption. The solution is to enforce corporate charters as public licence to do business on behalf of the public. These charters should be revocable if and when their terms are violated. If private ownership is a good thing, it should be widely extended, not restricted to the super-wealthy. By the same logic, we must remove the corrupting influence of money from politics, beginning with corporate campaign contributions and the hundreds of billions of dollars of public subsidies for cars, highways, fossil fuels and nuclear power that corrupt the democratic process and public policy.

Fifth, political reform requires an active, engaged, and sometimes enraged citizenry. Compare, for example, the Illinois farmer-citizens who stood for hours to hear Lincoln and Douglas debate issues of slavery and sectionalism in 1858. They were citizens and were willing to sacrifice a great deal for that privilege. In our time, while the issues have grown to global scale with consequences that extend as far into the future as the mind dares to imagine, political argument is reduced to sound-bytes fitted in between advertisements. The means whereby citizens are informed have been increasingly monopolised and manipulated. Only half or less of us citizens bother to vote. Some believe public apathy and political incompetence to be good or at least tolerable. I do not. Unless we reverse course they will, in time, prove to be the undoing of democratic government and all that depends on a healthy democracy. The nature of what will replace it is already evident: an unconstrained managerial and well-armed plutocracy intent on global plunder.

Sixth, we need a positive strategy that fires the public imagination. The public, I think, knows what we are against, but not what we are for. And there are many things that should be stopped, but what should be started? The answer to that question lies in a more coherent agenda formed around what is being called ecological design as it applies to land-use, buildings, energy systems, transportation, materials, water, agriculture, forestry, and urban planning. For three decades and longer we have been developing the ideas, science and technological wherewithal to build a sustainable society. The public knows of these things only in fragments, but not as a coherent and practical agenda – indeed the only practical course available. That is our fault and we should start now to put a positive agenda before the public that includes the human and economic advantages of better technology, integrated planning, coherent purposes, and foresight.

Finally, we should expect far more of leaders than we presently do. Never has the need for genuine leadership been greater, and seldom has it been less evident. We cannot be ruled by ignorant, malicious, greedy, incompetent and short-sighted people and expect things to turn out well. If we are to navigate the challenges of the decades ahead, we will need leaders of great stature, clarity of mind, spiritual depth, courage, and vision. We need leaders who see patterns that connect us across the divisions of culture, religion, geography, and time. We need leadership that draws us together to resolve conflicts, move quickly from fossil fuels to solar power, reverse global environmental deterioration, and that empowers us to provide shelter, food, medical care, decent livelihood and education for everyone. We need leadership that is capable of energising genuine commitment to old and venerable traditions as well as new visions for a global civilisation that preserves and honours local cultures, economies and knowledge.

Imagine a world in which those who purport to lead us must first make a pilgrimage to ground zero at Hiroshima and publicly pledge “Never again.” Imagine a world in which those who purport to lead us must go to Auschwitz and the Killing Fields and pledge publicly “Never again.” Imagine a world in which leaders must go to Bhopal and say to the victims “We are truly sorry. This will never happen again, anywhere.” Imagine, too, those pilgrim leaders going to hundreds of places where love, kindness, forgiveness, sacrifice, compassion, wisdom, ecological ingenuity and foresight have been evident.

Imagine a world in which those who purport to lead us must help identify places around the world degraded by human actions, and help initiate their restoration. Some projects might take as long as 1,000 years to restore, such as the Aral Sea, the ecology of the Harrapan region in India, the forests of Lebanon, soil fertility in the Middle East, the Chesapeake Bay, the North Atlantic cod fishery – the possibilities are many. Imagine a world in which those who intend to lead, help lift our sights above the daily crisis to the far horizon of what could be.

Imagine, too, leaders with the kind of humility demonstrated by Czech President, Václav Havel: “In time I have become a good deal less sure of myself, a good deal more humble … every day I suffer more and more from stage fright; every day I am more afraid that I won’t be up to the job … more and more often, I am afraid that I will fall woefully short of expectations, that I will somehow reveal my own lack of qualifications for the job, that despite my good faith I will make ever greater mistakes, that I will cease to be trustworthy and therefore lose the right to do what I do.”

Self-described ‘realists’ will dismiss the idea of better leadership as muddle-headed. Some will see in it some global conspiracy or another. Prospective leaders will profess sympathy but say that they do not have the time to improve themselves further. And those least qualified to lead will pay no attention at all. But it is not up to any of them to prescribe for us. We are now citizens of the Earth joined in a common enterprise with many variations. We have every right to insist that those who purport to lead us be worthy of the task. Imagine such a time!

David W. Orr is Professor of Environmental Studies at Oberlin College, USA.

Share on Facebook

The Sustainability Education Initiative is a program of professional development coursework and activities for K-12 teachers in the West Linn-Wilsonville School District. During three courses offered in 2009, Smith prepared 50-60 teachers to incorporate sustainability issues into their classrooms and help them implement school or community projects that will enhance local natural and social environments. Participants will be eligible for small seed grants to fund start-up projects. The grant aims to increase the number of teachers implementing sustainability projects in schools, and increase student and educator awareness of local natural systems, ecologies, and social needs.

Share on Facebook

by Chet A. Bowers

What is ironic, even tragic for future generations, is that the various approaches to educational reform being advocated by politicians, parents, and professional educators in the United State do not take account of the rapid changes occurring in the Earth’s ecosystems. Equally tragic is that these approaches to reform, like an unchecked virus, are spreading to other regions of the world.

These reforms do not take account of the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that is it being caused by human activity. Nor have the decline of key fisheries such as those of the Grand Banks and the North Sea, and the impact of the over 80,000 synthetic chemicals introduced into the environment on the viability of natural systems ranging from marine ecosystems to human health, influenced the different agendas for educational reform. Indeed, one of the central points to be made is that the reform proposals, as varied as they are, are based on a common set of cultural assumptions that were formed before there was an awareness of ecological limits.

ALERT: You need to subscribe to CLEARING to read the rest of this article.
(enter password and hit return button on your keyboard for best results)

Chet A. Bowers is Adjunct Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Oregon. Professor Bowers’ most recent books include The Culture of Denial (1997); Let Them Eat Data (2000); and Educating for Eco-Justice and Community (2001); and Detras de la Apariencia: Hacia la Descolonizacion de la Educacion (2002).

Share on Facebook

by Mike Weilbacher

With the new wave of interest in the environment, will we finally give students the tools they need to become environmentally literate citizens?

In just a few weeks, high school seniors all around the United States will walk proudly across stages, hoisting their diplomas as they graduate from formal K–12 education. As their teachers, we’ll look on with some wistfulness, for the world into which they are graduating—one of spiraling financial crises coupled with huge international challenges—is vastly different from the one in which they started their senior year only 10 months ago.

But wait, it gets worse. If you place your finger on the pulse of the planet, this is what you’ll discover: global surface temperatures rising, glaciers melting, oceans warming, sea levels rising, rain forests burning, coral reefs dying, old-growth forests disappearing, deserts spreading, the world’s population increasing, and species vanishing at the highest rates since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

In short, the ecology that underpins our economy is also collapsing. And the solutions to this challenge elude not only most of our graduates, but also us—their teachers, administrators, and parents.

Will our graduates be ready for these new realities? Will they confidently stride into this world as college students, workers, voters, consumers—in short, as competent, caring adults capable of making good decisions on the pressing issues of the day?

Environmental Ignorance

Forty years ago, in the first issue of the Journal of Environmental Education, William B. Stapp (1969) defined the goal of the nascent field of environmental education as producing a citizenry that “is knowledgeable concerning the biophysical environment and its associated problems, aware of how to help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward their solution” (p. 30).

Today, a new U.S. president actively seeks approval from the American people for repairing the economic collapse while preventing the ecological one. There will be fierce pressure on President Obama to forego environmental projects in lieu of economic ones. Have the past 40 years of environmental education met Stapp’s challenge and created the environmentally literate citizenry we need to negotiate the coming trade-offs?

In a word, no.

A typical high school student is aware of environmental issues, has discussed and debated climate change or rain forest loss in some class sometime, and might have bumper-sticker answers to lapel-pin questions. But do our students know where the trash goes when it leaves their house? The leading source of greenhouse gas emissions? Why we recycle? (Glass and aluminum, after all, are not rare resources.) If you ask a group of students what we can do to combat the warming trend, several will chime in that we need to remove chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) from hair spray. (Many high schoolers conflate global warming with ozone depletion and haven’t been told that CFCs were removed from the market 20 years ago.)

My organization surveyed high school students on these questions and more and discovered that although students are overwhelmingly “pro-environment,” they possess remarkably little information about breaking environmental issues. One small example: We asked them to name one bird they can identify by song. The leading answer? None. If local birds disappear from the landscape because of extinction, or arrive three weeks late because of warming climates, it’s possible that no one will notice.

Oh, there are numerous bright spots in the environmental education movement, but progress is hardly keeping up with the increasingly urgent issues that face us today. When Stapp coined his definition four decades ago, the United States was riding a wave of interest in the environment triggered by the Santa Barbara oil spill, Ohio’s Cuyahoga River catching fire, Lake Erie being declared biologically dead, and charismatic birds like eagles and peregrine falcons vanishing. As we addressed these issues, the wave crested, and interest in ecology quickly ebbed.

Today, even though an interest in green ideas is resurging, the issues are far more global, complex, and intertwined with politics. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels currently exceed 385 parts per million, almost 40 percent higher than pre–Industrial Revolution levels, and they are rising every year. Consequently, the Arctic Ocean is changing dramatically as the Arctic warms more quickly than anyone expected, and our graduates may see an ice-free polar cap in the summer in their lifetimes.

An International Union for the Conservation of Nature report (2008) noted that one in four of the world’s mammals are at risk of extinction from habitat loss, poaching, and climate change. Many critically important rivers—such as the Nile, the Yellow, and the Colorado—no longer empty water into the sea. Mountains of discarded cell phones and computers make their way to destitute Chinese villages, where they are picked apart for valuable metals, exposing the villagers to high concentrations of incredibly toxic materials.

To address today’s geopolitically entangled world of large, complex eco-issues, students simply have to know more than they did 40 years ago.

What’s the Problem?

Four issues have become huge obstacles to environmental literacy. First, students are extraordinarily disconnected from the environment. Richard Louv’s revelatory 2005 book Last Child in the Woods called attention to a world of children rapidly retreating from outdoor play and time spent in nature. Instead, modern kids stay indoors, “’cause that’s where all the electrical outlets are,” as one 4th grader famously said (p. 10).

Viewing screens has become a child’s full-time job. Kids are plugged in 24/7, watching an average of 25 hours of TV a week (Gentile & Walsh, 2002) and then logging additional screen time on the Internet, browsing the Web, playing video games, and engaging in whole new verbs, like IMing and Facebooking. Louv coined the phrase nature-deficit disorder to describe the “human costs of alienation from nature” (p. 34), including diminished use of the senses, attention difficulties, and higher rates of physical and emotional illness. Just when students need contact with nature more than ever, they have abandoned it.

Second, ask any environmental educator and he or she will bemoan No Child Left Behind, whose pressures have caused many schools to trade outdoor field trips for test prep. Science teachers routinely eliminate such concepts as environmental education, which do not appear to relate directly to questions on the tests. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s Web site (2009) bluntly states, “No Child Left Behind is contributing to an increasing environmental literacy gap by reducing the amount of environmental education taking place in K–12 classrooms.”

Third, students’ exposure to environmental education depends on the luck of the draw and the amalgam of the interests of whichever teachers they happen to have throughout their school career. In my daughters’ school, there were two 5th grade teachers, one contagiously obsessed with birds and birdwatching and the other in love with Broadway musicals. One class went on an all-day birding trip; the other performed a play for the entire school. Both are equally interesting and important activities, but why didn’t the two cross-pollinate and give all 5th graders equal access to both? My daughters caught the birding bug, but one-half of the 5th grade never saw a nesting piping plover.

And finally, the downside of the large nonprofit universe of environmental education facilities—zoos, museums, aquariums, nature centers, parks, arboretums, children’s gardens—is that schools approach environmental education like a Chinese menu. They pick a field trip from column A and a lesson plan from column B; toss in an occasional Earth Day assembly, litter pickup, and letter to the president; and assume that their charges are now environmentally literate. And the nonprofits, wanting students to return the following year, emphasize fun over content, immersing the students in activity-based education that is designed to serve as an appetizer for environmental literacy but ends up becoming the main course. They often retreat from tough concepts like water shortages and stay with politically lighter ones like the water cycle.

The upshot? Even though there are more centers for environmental education and more college degree programs in environment-related fields than ever, and even though building green schools has suddenly emerged as an important idea (pre-economic meltdown), we are perhaps even farther from environmental literacy than we were in 1969.

Students are graduating from our schools thinking that green is good. But we haven’t given them the tools they need to become environmentally literate citizens.

New Research May Turn the Tide

Fortunately, several important research efforts are threading their way through the education system. For example, the Children and Nature Network, a Web-based organization (www.childrenandnature.org) that reports a wide variety of data and activities related to repairing the nature deficit disorder, showcases data illuminating the educational benefits of immersing students in the outdoors and environmental education experiences. And there’s tons of data.

The American Institutes for Research (2005) studied the effects of weeklong residential outdoor education programs in which most of the participants were at-risk youth. Comparing students who experienced the outdoor education program with those in a control group who had not had the experience, the researchers found a 27 percent increase in measured mastery of science concepts, plus enhanced cooperation and conflict-resolution skills, higher self-esteem, and gains in problem solving, motivation, and classroom behavior.

A Canadian study found that children whose school grounds include diverse natural settings are more physically active, more aware of nutrition, more civil to one another, and more creative (Bell & Dyment, 2006). Another study discovered that children playing in green settings have reduced symptoms of attention deficit disorder (Taylor, Kuo, & Sullivan, 2001).

The more studies are published, the more they agree: Exposure to nature raises test scores; increases creativity, cooperation, and self-confidence; reduces stress; and enhances cognitive abilities.

Promising Models

When the next wave of environmental interest washes over our schools, as it inevitably will, this body of research will support the new ideas for truly fulfilling Stapp’s dream of environmental literacy. Here are a few intriguing efforts now underway.

No Child Left Inside

In response to Louv’s book, more than 1,000 nonprofits with almost 50 million members have launched a variety of efforts loosely organized under the title “No Child Left Inside.” For instance, the National Audubon Society has pledged to place a family-oriented nature center in every congressional district. Connecticut governor M. Jodi Rell launched a special Web site (www.nochildleftinside.org) promoting state parks, an idea copied by many other states. And the U.S. Congress has considered a No Child Left Inside act that would provide federal funding for environmental literacy plans and for state efforts to train teachers in model environmental education programming, including outdoor learning. In the last session, the act passed the House, and supporters are eager to try again in the new Congress.

Green Charter Schools

For better or worse, the charter school movement has been sweeping across the United States in the last decade. A growing number of charter schools have been designed around the simple premise that the entire science curriculum can be taught through environmental education.

The Green Woods Charter School in Philadelphia is located on the campus of the Schuylkill Center for Environmental Education, a 340-acre living laboratory of forests and fields, streams and ponds. The center’s naturalists are integrated into the science faculty of the school, and the students spend quality time immersed in the woods.

Wisconsin’s River Crossing Environmental Charter School, located in a one-room schoolhouse, provides a hands-on curriculum with subjects integrated through environmental studies. Students in 7th and 8th grade participate weekly in field trips and real-world ecosystem restoration projects, such as restoring the prairie and building rain gardens for storm water.

Other sites include California’s Environmental Charter High School, Connecticut’s Common Ground High School, and Florida’s Academy of Environmental Sciences. A Green Charter Schools Network (www.greencharterschools.org) has formed to assist teachers and staff. Sadly, precious few students are fortunate enough to attend these schools.

Environment as an Integrating Context for Learning

Another innovation that has grown in popularity in the last decade is the Environment as an Integrating Context for Learning movement, a cumbersome name for a simple concept. In place of the rigorously scheduled school day of science, English, and gym periods, these programs use the environment and the outdoors as the centerpiece of students’ curriculum. This format breaks down barriers between disciplines, stresses team building and individualized learning, and involves students in real-world community issues.

In suburban Philadelphia, for example, the pioneering Watershed program at Radnor Middle School engages students in outdoor field studies all year, including stream testing, canoeing, trout rearing and release, and more. Students in the program spend all day together, except for math and foreign language classes, in which they are integrated with the rest of the school. Students hone their communication skills at conferences and youth summits.

One analysis of 40 Environment as an Integrating Context for Learning programs (Lieberman & Hoody, 1998) discovered that students in these programs outscored their peers on standardized tests, had better grades, and acted more independently and responsibly. At one school using this approach, reports to the principal’s office declined 91 percent in the three-year study period.

Wood Kindergartens

A rather radical movement has leapt across the pond from Europe and, coupled with Richard Louv’s work, has begun making inroads in the United States. In the Wood School model, child care workers and youngsters ages 3–6 spend the entire day outdoors in nature. The program is held outdoors in all seasons, although the group moves indoors in extreme weather. Proponents of this process assert that playing outside for prolonged periods strengthens the students’ immune systems and improves development of manual dexterity, physical coordination, tactile sensitivity, and depth perception.

Here in the United States, many nature centers, such as the Chippewa Nature Center in Midland, Michigan, have begun opening variants of Wood Kindergartens, versions that might not strictly adhere to the European’s outdoor component but still allow the students full and frequent access to natural areas and nature-based play (Reynolds, 2007).

Greening of the Culture

U.S. schools teach what American culture considers important. Once society decided that computer literacy was central to a solid education, computer classes invaded schools at warp speed, and the “digital divide” became an important and contentious issue.

As environmental issues heat up (pardon the pun), the culture is coming to consensus—again—on the importance of the environment. Green cable channels, green Web sites, eco-chic clothing, green roofs on green buildings, and innumerable products made from recycled objects are beginning to infuse the culture with a newfound interest in sustainability—an interest that ideally will create a ground swell of support for environmental improvement.

But the four horsemen of the global apocalypse—warming, species loss, water scarcity, and population growth—are bearing down on us, and many environmentalists worry about a vanishing window of opportunity for addressing these issues. Science fiction writer H. G. Wells was prophetic when he wrote in 1920 that “human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.”

Environmental literacy is one race that education must win.

What Every Student Should Know About the Environment

There are scores of possible models of environmental education programs, and most have many of the following large concepts in common. As students go from kindergarten through high school, they can work their way down the list.

1. Earth overflows with life.
One of science’s biggest mysteries is how many species share this planet— estimates range from 5 million to 100 million species. Many environmental education programs begin with the premise that life is vanishing; young learners should first know that Earth teems with a huge number of creatures.

2. Each creature is uniquely adapted to its environment.
Every species evolved to possess a unique set of adaptations that enables it to survive and thrive in its ecosystem. Students should be on a first-name basis with many local creatures.

3. The web of life is interdependent.
Organisms evolve complex relationships, each depending on numerous other species for their survival.

4. Materials flow through ecosystems in cycles.
All creatures need water, air, and nutrients to survive. These materials cycle and recycle through ecosystems. The water we drink today is the same water we’ve always had, and always will.

5. The sun is the ultimate source of energy flowing through ecosystems.
Food grows from sunlight energy; our houses are heated by fossil fuels created many millennia ago from ancient sunlight.

6. There is no waste in nature; everything is recycled.
In nature, every waste product is used by other creatures. Humans have bent those circles into straight lines, where things are used once and tossed.

7. We consume resources to live.
Every student should know where the trash truck takes the trash, where water comes from, and how the nearest power plant makes electricity.

8. Conservation is the wise use of finite resources.
We are physical creatures with real needs—to eat, drink, build houses, write on paper. But how do we use these resources sustainably?

9. Humans can have a profound effect on environmental systems.
Fossil fuels pump carbon dioxide into the sky; habitat loss is causing the extinction of large numbers of species. Our actions profoundly affect the ecological systems that sustain living things—and us. Nature can often repair these systems (forests grow back, for example); but humans are changing systems faster than nature can adapt.

10. Each of us can powerfully affect the fate of the natural world.
Because each of us is directly plugged into the planet, the actions we take—or fail to take—profoundly influence earth’s systems.

Mike Weilbacher is Director of the nonprofit Lower Merion Conservancy in Gladwyne, Pennsylvania. He travels the United States as an environmental educator, performer, and workshop presenter. E-mail: mike@dragonfly.org; Web site: www.mikeweilbacher.com; Blog: www.mikeweilbacher.blogspot.com.

References

American Institutes for Research. (2005). Effects of outdoor education programs for children in California. Palo Alto, CA: Author.

Bell, A. C., & Dyment, J. E. (2006). Grounds for action: Promoting physical activity through school ground greening in Canada. Toronto: Evergreen.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation. (2009). What has NCLB done to environmental education? [Online]. Annapolis, MD: Author. Available: www.cbf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=act_sub_actioncenter_federal_nclb_done

Gentile, D. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2002). A normative study of family media habits. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 157–178.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature. (2008). IUCN Red List reveals world’s mammals in crisis [Press release]. Gland, Switzerland: Author. Available: www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/red_list/?1695/IUCN-Red-List-reveals-worlds-mammals-in-crisis

Lieberman, G. A., & Hoody, L. L. (1998). Closing the achievement gap: Using the environment as an integrating context for learning. Poway, CA: State Education and Environment Roundtable.

Louv, R. (2005). Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.

Reynolds, C. (2007, January 22). Everybody in the vegetable patch! MacLeans, 42. Available: www.macleans.ca/education/universities/article.jsp?content=20070122_139722_139722

Stapp, W. B., et al. (1969). The concept of environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education, 1(1), 30–31.

Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001). Coping with ADD: The surprising connection to green play settings. Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 54–77.

Share on Facebook

Abstract: This article discusses the important role of educators in helping students understand, connect to, and act on critical global issues facing us today and in the future. Global issues impact social, environmental, economic, health, and security concerns. Global issues are interconnected and hold the potential for far-reaching impacts on large numbers of people. What is important to remember as we explore global issues is that while they may be daunting, because of their interconnectedness they can provide us with opportunities to help create a sustainable world. By approaching global issues from a systems perspective we can help students create a world that represents their highest aspirations. It is up to each of us individually and as a community to make the choices and take the actions to create a future we want for ourselves and for future generations.

Introduction
The idea of issues that are truly global in scale is new to us. It emerged late in the 20th century, perhaps when humans first saw images of the Earth from space – a small blue-green planet devoid of boundaries and arbitrary political divisions. Regardless of their novelty, global issues are so important that they may literally determine the future of the human species. Global issues impact virtually all social, environmental, economic, health, and security concerns. And those concerns are, in themselves, global issues. Perhaps one of the most important roles that educators have today is helping our students understand global issues, see the connections to their own lives, and empower them to create a sustainable world.

Defining Global Issues
Since the study of global issues is relatively new there is not agreement as to how one defines a global issue. For the purpose of this presentation we will define global issues as follows. Global issues are those that have, or hold the potential for, far-reaching impacts on large numbers of people. Global issues are trans-national, or trans-boundary, in that they are beyond the capability of any one nation to resolve. Global issues are persistent or long acting in that they may take years, decades, or even generations to be fully felt, and may require similar time frames to be resolved. Finally, global issues are interconnected, which means that a change in one – whether for better or worse – exerts pressure for change in others.

Population
World population exceeded six billion in 1999 – doubling from three billion in 1960 – and is currently increasing by 80 to 85 million people each year. Depending upon the choices we make over the next few decades, demographers at the United Nations project world population in 2050 could be anywhere 7.3 billion to 10.7 billion. A number of factors drive this growth. At the most basic level, it is because far more people are born each year than die. Advances in nutrition and health care have increased survival rates and longevity for much of the world, and shifted the balance between births and deaths. Another is population “momentum”. Even though fertility rates have come down worldwide, there are many more people of childbearing age today than ever before. Roughly half the world’s population is under age 25, so as those three billion people start families over the next few decades, world population will likely increase by several billion. Another reason for continued high levels of population growth is that fertility rates remain relatively high in some populous regions like Africa and South Central Asia. Decisions about family size are often based on economic factors, and in poorer societies, having numerous children may be an important asset. They provide support and security in parents’ old age, help raise food, haul water, care for younger siblings, and gather fuel wood. Children may also work for wages outside the home, be indentured, or even sold to help support the family.

Consumption & Environment
One approach scientists are increasingly using to explore the issue of the Earth’s carrying capacity (the number of people the Earth can support over time) is through the concept of “ecological footprint” pioneered by Mathis Wackernagel and William Reese. The footprint model calculates the area of the Earth’s productive surface (land and sea) necessary to support a particular lifestyle or level of consumption. Through the ecological footprint lens we see that a person’s lifestyle has as much (or even more) of an impact on the planet than the mere numbers of people on the planet. By mapping the items of everyday items such as food, clothing and transportation, through Facing the Future’s activity Watch Where You Step, students begin to see what makes up their ecological footprint, and more importantly what they can do personally and what we can do collectively to reduce the total human footprint on the Earth.

Poverty, Scarcity, Impacts, and Sustainability
As we enter the 21st century, the gap between the world’s rich and poor is widening, both within and among countries. The United Nations identifies 2.8 billion people surviving on less than two dollars a day. Overall, the richest 20 percent of the world’s people control 86 percent of global income, while the poorest 20 percent control barely one percent.

The impacts of poverty, over consumption, and resource scarcity are varied. They include environmental destruction – richer nations and individuals can afford to over-consume resources, while poorer nations and individuals are often forced to over-exploit the environment just to survive. They include migration – people are forced to move in search of adequate resources. And they include conflict – wealthier nations and individuals fight to keep what they have, while those suffering a lack of resources fight to obtain them.

The solution this cycle of resource scarcity and poverty is to develop sustainable practices. We can help students understand the complexity and interconnectedness of scarcity and poverty through Facing the Future’s classroom simulation activity Fishing for the Future” in which students “fish” over several seasons. This activity also helps students understand the concept of sustainability as they over-fish their oceans and realize that they can “survive” and the resource base can be maintained by establishing sustainable fishing practices.

Linking Global Issues to Action
The good news is that we have the knowledge and tools today to help create a sustainable world. There are both personal and structural solutions that we can help our students identify and act on. On the personal level these include among many other things reducing our consumption, recycling, supporting sustainably developed products and food, considering our own family size, and engaging in the political process. On the structural level, as a nation we can help provide reproductive and community health care so people can make choices about their family size and be assured that they and their children will survive and be productive members of society. We can help alleviate poverty so people can support their families and aren’t forced to make decisions of “rational desperation” that may not be good for the environment. And finally we can develop new ways of measuring progress that take into account environmental and social impacts along with more traditional economic indicators.

We can help our students identify these solutions and begin the process of changing the way we think and act by using the lens of a system thinking process that recognizes the interconnectedness of all people and of all global problems. This perspective offers us a starting point; the only principle we can then follow is one of sustainability. The only “answer” is one that doesn’t create new problems but rather searches for underlying causes and their links across the spectrum of issues and finally rests on common ground.

We have the tools at our disposal to create a world that represents our highest aspirations. It’s up to each of us individually and as a community to make the choices and take the actions to create a future we want for ourselves and for future generations. To learn more about actions that educators and their students can do to make a positive impact in local communities and in the world, visit Facing the Future’s websites at www.facingthefuture.org.

References:
Facing the Future: People and the Planet. Curriculum Guide: Classroom Activities for Teaching about Global Issues and Solutions 2002

Facing the Future: People and the Planet. Facing the Future: Population, Poverty, Consumption and the Environment 2001

Population Reference Bureau website www.prb.org

Redefining Progress website, www.rprogress.org

United Nations Development Program website, www.undp.org

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization website www.fao.org

Gilda Wheeler is currently the Program Supervisor for Environmental and Sustainability Education at the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public instruction (OSPI). She is responsible for supporting districts, schools, teachers, and students in implementing legislatively mandated environmental and sustainability education in Washington state.  This includes the development of integrated standards and assessment and professional development for classroom teachers and non-formal educators. Gilda also serves on a number of state and national boards and committees including co-chair of the E3 Washington K12/Teacher Education Sector steering committee, national K-12 Sector of the U.S. Partnership for Education for Sustainable Development and the Council of Chief State School Officers EdSteps Global Competency work group.

Share on Facebook