15. september 2009 af ibje

To me, the argument is simple: it is widely recognised that the climate changes are at least in part caused by human behaviour. Education has an impact on human behaviour. Ergo, education is a key element in relation to climate change.

As simple as that sounds, there is a lot more to say about this.

First of all we may agree that human behaviour has some impact on the climate, but there is currently no panacea for how to reduce the global warming. Should we paint the roof of every building white, as the American Secretary of Energy recently suggested? Many people have already pointed out that white roofs, by reflecting sunlight, would make people use more energy on heating their houses in winter. This example shows that even the simplest ideas often carry unforeseen consequences when analysed in a cradle-to-grave perspective.

Secondly, the answer to climate problems may not be climate solutions at all. We don't solve any climate problem by splashing white paint anywhere. One of the things that complicate matters is that some solutions are not just fraught with unintended consequences; certain side effects may be downright unacceptable. We might, for instance, place enormous taxes on fuel, but what would that do to global commerce and in particular the third-world countries that depend on exports?

Thirdly, the development shows that global warming affects more than just the climate, and that it has highly complex and surprising repercussions. In this respect, it is very relevant to talk of a 'risk society', i.e. a society that generates the very things that can threaten it. Erosion of the ozone layer increases the risk of skin cancer. Over-zealous sun screening leads to vitamin deficiencies. The transition from oil to renewable energy, or from large to smaller cars, result in rising unemployment in some regions.

In combination, all this shows that there is no simple solution in merely teaching people to act differently. The solution is rather to empower citizens to make informed choices in a complex and rapidly changing world. People need a basic understanding of the natural sciences, as well as insight into complex social sciences and the ability to make choices based on ethical considerations.

But there is more than just a matter of complexity. Using education to influence the future citizens' behaviour is also more complicated than it would appear at first sight, because the relationship between teaching and learning is much more than a mere stimulus-response relationship. It is not like you turn a knob to generate certain behaviour. Pupils are hypercomplex entities, and the consequence of any given input therefore unpredictable. Furthermore, the aim of teaching in a democratic society is to make the pupils grow up as competent citizens, i.e. to empower them to make their own choices - which means that a teacher cannot 'program the pupils in a certain way.

Does this mean that, despite all the good intentions, teaching is useless?

By no means. All teaching comes with an element of intention: Which skills and competencies do we try to pass to the children? So even if education has no direct effect, all teaching has an aim. No one teaches completely in the dark.

Therefore I am fully convinced that the premise is valid. Education has an influence on behaviour - just not directly, but indirectly, in that it educates pupils to become competent and responsible citizens, and these days, such a citizen is a citizen of the world, who is fully aware that every action has a global ecological consequence.

This is why we must educate our pupils to become citizens of the world, with the skills and competencies to address the climate changes as they come.

To do this, we must incorporate the climate changes into the teaching as one among several elements in sustainable development. This is why we aim for 'education for sustainability'. This is the general education element in the teaching we give to our children.

And this is why we must approach this as a challenge to education on all levels. In order to implement education for sustainable development in the educational system, we have to see it as a structural challenge. Curricula must change. Teaching will have to be inter-disciplinary. Teachers must be taught and trained differently, both before and after they start teaching in practice.

The argument may be convoluted, but the basic premise is valid: Education is a key response to the climate challenge and sustainable development.

 

Professor Lars Qvortrup
Dean of the Danish School of Education, Aarhus University