Jesse Goldman
Re-envisioning Education and Democracy
Public Intellectual Essay
April 26, 2002
Creating an Environmental
Education
“If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy115 square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000” (1)
One resounding answer to this question is that people are ignorant of the impact that they and others have on the environment. Most people do not think, “By driving 20 minutes to work every day I am emitting Co2, NH4, and particulates, and am ultimately contributing to global warming.” Our current lifestyle cannot be sustained. Three main crises face the environment in the future. First of all, our current main source of energy – fossil fuel – is nonrenewable and emits harmful pollutants that have serious byproducts such as acid rain and global warming. Secondly, because of many current farming methods, construction practices, and logging practices, there is great destruction of natural habitats and loss of arable land for farming. This factor coupled with an exponentially growing population points to a serious food crisis in the future. Thirdly, we do not know the full thresholds of ecological systems. As head of Oberlin College’s Environmental Science department David W. Orr says, “We can no longer assume that nature will be either bountiful or stable or that the earth will remain hospitable to civilization as we know it” (2).
If we are going to live in a future world that is sustainable and healthy for the environment everyone needs to understand the implications of their actions on the environment. In order to foster this enhanced consciousness, it is essential that our public secondary schools promote environmental responsibility and sustainability. Many public high schools’, including my own Alma Mater, lack of focus on environmental education is therefore particularly worrisome. The need to push for “ecological literacy” for our high school students is especially urgent in light of President Bush’s proposed budget from February 4 2002, which calls for serious cuts in the EPA’s budget for environmental education. Under Bush’s proposed budget of February 4, 2002, he calls for closing the National Office of Environmental Education at the EPA, ending the successful Environmental Education and Training Partnership, eliminating 8 million dollars in annual Environmental education funding provided by the EPA, and ending support for the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (3). In order to show that we want a cleaner more livable environment in the future we need stand up as communities against these types of budget cuts and push for environmental education in our schools.
What
is an environmental education?
A quality environmental education does not merely consist of specific courses designed around environmental issues, but is an all-encompassing ideological framework for all schooling. This ideology is based on an earth-centered philosophy that requires people to always consider the environmental impact of their actions, think of their actions in longer terms, and understand that they are part of nature and depend on its health for their survival. In his book “The Culture of Denial,” ecologist C.A. Bowers defines an earth-centered ideology as one that emphasizes “the noncommodified relationships within the community and environment” (4).
An earth-centered philosophy greatly contrasts with the largely anthropocentric (human centered) philosophy that is currently and has been historically taught in our schools in America. As Bowers states, an anthropocentric ideology “emphasizes individualism, technological mastery of nature, and the equating of a consumer life style with personal success” (5). Undoubtedly, the Western world has been greatly shaped by many ideologies such as the Judeo-Christian religions, which have promoted the beliefs that humans are the center of the earth and that nature exists for humans to exploit it. This human-centered ideology combined with humans’ tendency to think of the short-run benefits of their actions rather than the long-run consequences is highly problematic. For instance, proponents of nuclear power plants emphasize the short-term benefits of nuclear power – less emissions than plants that burn fossil fuels – while de-emphasizing the long-term consequences – toxic waste that must be stored for about 24, 000 to 162, 000 years before it is safe for humans (6). These tenets of a human-centered philosophy have direct detrimental consequences for the environment. If humans see themselves as superior to their surroundings and do not consider the consequences of their actions on their environments, then they will continue to destroy the environment and ultimately their own livelihoods.
Inherent in an earth-centered philosophy is awareness of the interconnectedness between environmental degradation and other social “ills,” such as poverty and racism. It is widely known that people of color and those of lower incomes are more in contact with hazardous toxins than other members of society are. Factories and hazardous waste sites are located closer to people of color and those of lower incomes than others do. In addition, because of lack of care for buildings by landowners, the buildings that people of color live in tend to contain more toxins, such as lead, than those that whites live in. In trying to rectify these serious inequalities, we need to work for racial equality as well as tighter pollution laws.
Globalization is another prime example of the interconnectedness of social problems. Global industries’ exploitation of cheap “sweatshop” labor in developing countries – who are almost all people of color – contributes to the terrible conditions these people live in as well as permitting great amounts of pollutants to be emitted. (Because of lower emissions standards, emissions tend to be far greater in “developing” countries than in “developed” countries.) These negative consequences of globalization can perhaps be righted if more people come to evaluate the broader implications of their actions and understand that the world is interconnected. If humans cannot begin to understand this interconnectedness, we will continue to allow grave injustices to exist.
A. First of all, a
productive environmental education is holistic and interdisciplinary in its
nature. As David W. Orr says, “All
education is environmental education” (7).
Too much of our current education is compartmentalized. While it is useful for students to learn by
separate subject matter, it is unhealthy not to urge students to draw broader
connections between all of the knowledge that they are gaining. It is the role of class curricula and
teachers to push their students to participate in this more broad critical
analysis. Therefore, almost all
disciplines should try to draw some connections between their subjects and the
environment. For instance, in history
class, when you study about the industrial revolution you should learn not only
about how it effected such aspects as the labor market, the growth of cities,
and gender and race relations, but also how it has had serious implications for
the environment.
B.Secondly, there needs to be specific courses that deal solely with environmental issues. It is important that students have a concrete grounding in the important environmental issues that are threatening and have threatened the environment, as well as possible solutions. Without a proper basis how can one begin to act? However, one of the main problems with many environmental science classes today is that they stay at the surface level of causes and solutions concerning environmental problems, rather than digging beneath the surface and looking at the underlying ideologies that have shaped causes and solutions. The environmental science introductory course that I took last semester at Macalester College fell prey to this common trend, in that it did not analyze the anthropocentric ideology that has been so central to the way people in the Western World operate. For instance, it is not enough to merely say that burning coal contributes to global warming and other ecologically harmful byproducts. If this was the cause of the problem then the solution would be to stop burning coal or resort to alternative energy sources. However, you have to go deeper to get at the root of the problem. You have to ask, “Why do we need to create so much energy in the first place?” The answer to this question is complex and calls for understanding the anthropocentric ideology that is central to the way humans lead their lives. Encouraging this type of critical in-depth analysis results in critically thinking students who will hopefully look to solutions that go beyond the bottom of the smoke stack and cut the problem at its root: our anthropocentric ideology.
C. Thirdly, an environmental education should foster an active citizenry. As Orr says, “environmental education ought to change the way people live, not just how they talk” (8). In order to have a properly functioning democracy based on equality for all, we need to have an active educated citizenry. Students need to be shown that their actions can have an impact on their environments. In acting on the knowledge gained in the classroom, these students can gain a greater understanding of the issues and their communities. As Orr says, “In the reciprocity between thinking and doing, knowledge loses much of its abstractness, becoming in the application to specific places and problems tangible and direct” (9). It is important that students understand that environmental degradation is not something that is merely happening in other parts of the globe, but that it also occurs in their own backyards.
1. One way that schools can promote action is through school projects directed at community concerns. A prime example of the ways in which schools can take action is the success of the Saginaw River Project in Saginaw, Michigan (10). In response to health concerns about the water quality of the Saginaw River, local secondary and elementary students began conducting water quality tests of the river. Their tests found an alarmingly high fecal coliform count that led directly to public health officials instituting new safety measures for the use of the river. Following their findings, the schools took the project to the next level by having the students research the history of the river and its impact on the city as well as “writing, drawing, photographing, and talking about it” (11). The project truly turned into an interdisciplinary project that utilized students’ critical thinking, math, science, and artistic skills. From the project students came to better understand their local environment as well as realize that they could make an impact on their community.
2. Another way in which schools can promote environmental activism is through the presence of environmental organizations on campuses. My own participation in an environmental action committee this semester has truly brought me to see the importance of activism as well as the urgency of dealing with issues surrounding the environment. While the introductory environmental science course made me aware of environmental degradation, I felt quite powerless because I did not know how I could begin to rectify these problems. However, I now understand that change can be made through working with a number of individuals all united towards a common goal. I came to learn that working in a group gives you more resources, ideas for projects, and connectedness to others, than if you work solely on your own. In addition, I have come to realize that you have much more political power in a group than as an individual. Therefore, in order to make significant social changes it is advantageous to work with groups of people.
3. A further way of promoting activism among students is by bringing in local, state, or national activists to talk about the work that they do. In learning about these activists, students can come to see various methods by which they can in turn change the systems that allow for environmental degradation. Also, perhaps students could become involved with these local activists.
D. One last essential element of an environmental education is experience in nature. Through direct experience in nature students will hopefully realize the importance of preserving natural habitats and perhaps shed a layer of their inherent anthropocentrism. Orr believes that interaction with the natural environment is essential for training “the intellect to observe the land carefully and to distinguish between health and its opposite” (12).
While it is often difficult for students in urban public high schools to experience true wilderness, these students can at least go to parks and public gardens. In recent years, there has been a push in many cities to convert concrete playgrounds throughout the US into vegetable and herb gardens. Gardening is an excellent way of involving students in the natural environment and bringing them to understand and appreciate how vegetables and fruit grow. In understanding where food comes from (not just the grocery store), students can then hopefully begin to think about the origins of other consumable products, such as water and electricity, and begin to reflect on how their actions impact the environment.
Opposition
Some of the main vocal opponents of environmental education are the Christian Right and other conservative groups. The Christian Right has accused schools that focus on environmental education of “practicing Satanism, of lying to children about the threat of global warming and ozone depletion, and of threatening their communities’ economic foundations by teaching students to critically evaluate the effects of industrial pollution” (13). Reporter William Grigg, from the bi-weekly Christian conservative magazine “New American,” says, “The growing environment education movement is an accruement drive intended to conscript young students into a pagan children’s campaign” (14). These religious fanatics claim that environmental education diverts students’ focus from the true God to a New Age God of “Mother Earth.”
In addition, one of the main conservative complaints with environmental education is that it is dangerous to the local industries that local economies depend upon. Using this argument, conservatives have successfully blocked environmental education agenda in a few school districts. For instance, in the Meridian, Idaho, school district pressures from conservatives brought the school board to pass an ordinance that, “Discussion should not reflect negative attitudes against business or industry who do the best job under present regulations considering economic realities” (15). Also, in the mid-1990s the legislature in Arizona overturned a 1990 law requiring environmental education in schools (16).
These attempts to censor the curriculum are in direct contradiction with promoting democracy in our schools. Are we going to let schools only show our children one side of issues, while protecting big business? By removing important environmental facts from the agenda we are protecting the interests of big business at the expense of our own lives. I support an environmental education that is not based on some false scare tactics, as some religious conservatives claim, but rather on critical evaluation of the facts. I want an environmental education that shows that there are many ways of interpreting environmental trends, such as global warming. While the great majority of scientists maintain that global warming is a reality, there are also scientists who contend that global warming is merely a natural fluctuation in the temperature. We need to lay all the evidence before the students and let them create their own views of the world. By removing evidence of environmental degradation from the educational platter you are robbing students of a full picture of the world and thereby persuading them to think in a small metal box.
Fortunately, because of their small numbers, the Christian Right and extreme conservative pro-business groups are not really that threatening to the adoption of environmental education. The real threat to environmental education actually comes from people who probably support environmental education, but believe that schools’ resources should be used for funding other programs besides environmental education. While I agree with these people that there are other programs that need increased funding, I think that environmental education should be a priority for these funds, especially when so many high schools lack even one environmental science class. If you follow the belief that our schools largely shape the views of our future citizenry, as I do, then we need to seriously examine the type of future that our schools are currently promoting. In public schools that have enough money to afford TV’s and computers in every class room (such as my public high school), we need to ask whether having these luxuries in every classroom is more important than a quality environmental studies program?
Conclusion
Having environmental education in our public high schools is going to involve significant changes in our current anthropocentric ideology and our compartmentalized style of schooling, as well as the inclusion of at least one quality environmental studies course and student run environmental groups on campuses. I believe that the greatest barrier to an ideal environmental education is its call for a shift in our ideology, rather than its call for more school funds. This initiative calls for all members of the community – especially teachers and students – to adopt a more earth-centered philosophy. I realize that it is difficult to alter one’s life style. However, if the ways in which we currently lead our lives are damaging to the future livelihood of the natural environment, including humanity, changes must be made. How can you put a price on the long-term livability of the earth? We can begin to move to a cleaner future by uniting as communities and putting pressure on our local schools and school districts to have quality environmental education programs in the schools. With enough people pushing for ecologically conscious students we can actualize this change.
References:
1.Bowers, C.A. The
Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental
Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State
University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206).
2.EE Act Information Alert. 2002. NAAEE.
http://www.naaee.org/news/eeact.php
(3)
3.Hutchison, David. Growing
Up Green: Education for Ecological
Renewal. New York: Columbia University press, 1998: (10) (11) from
P.130, 131.
4.Orr, David W. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. New York: State of New York University Press, 1992: (1) (2) (7) (8) (9) (12) from P.3, 90, 91, 129.
5.Mckinney, Michael and Robert M. Schooch. Environmental Science: Systems and Solutions. Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 1998: (6) from P.204.
6.Reuben, Barbara. “Reading and Writing, but not Recycling: attacks mount on teaching about the environment.” Environmental Action Magazine Spring 1994 v26: (13) (14) (15) from p.19.
7.Satchell, Michael. “Dangerous Waters? Why environmental education is under attack in the nation’s schools.” US News and World Report. 10 June 1996: (16) from P.63.