Can we face up to the real consequences of moving beyond petroleum?

Around 1900 our planet supported about 1.5 billion people. Then the age of accelerated and excessive reliance on fossil fuels led to an increase which now stands at somewhere around 7 billion people. Independent estimates invariably put the number of people the planet can support happily and bountifully in a truly long-term sustainable way at roughly the level we had reached in 1900. So the conclusion is obvious. In order to turn our societies into sustainbel ones we need not only cut our energy use or our carbon emissions by a factor 4, but also the world population. It is quite straightforward really: all we know about functioning sustainable societies, all we know about truly democratic societies (where participation is not a marketing joke; see the writings of Douglas Lummis or Noam Chomsky), all we know about impact and carrying capacity (see Ehrlich's formula Impact = People x Consumption x Technology) points towards the same direction: small is beautiful and numbers (not just efficiency) do matter. If you are not trying to fool yourself with some pipedream of technological wonders yet to come, a sustinable society is not conceivable as a mass society: not on the impact level, not on the level of necessary personal responsibility and commitment, not on the level of close-nit community that is required for a functioning social fabric, not from the point of view of our co-inhabitants ont the planet – flora and fauna – which can only survive and thrive if we drastically reduce our numbers, our resource use and our space demand, say by a factor 4.
So far, so clear. Only how do we get there? It is hardly an option to revert to fascist or stalinist measures and exterminate every non-sustainable member of the human race in a Gulag or concentration camp. But the issue is serious. You can hardly engage in a more unsustainable activity with massive long-term negative effects than produce children, particularly if they are born into the increasing global consumer class. Okay, so here is an idea. Nobody would suggest that driving tests should be abolished. Now it is not difficult to see that navigating the roads to sustainability requires considerably more skills, knowledge, social competence and moral values than driving even on a crowded motorway at high speed. This applies even more so, if you have to raise children at the same time in a responsible way. So why not a test before you are allowed to have children? There are other options, of course. You could give everybody a carbon or footprint allowance. This allowance would include the footprint of your kids up to at least their 18th birthday. Overshoot in excess of your ecological footprint allowance would be punished in the same way as banks punish an overdraught: with excessive interest rates, repayable only with concrete actions which positively contribute to lighten your footprint below the global fair share level (imagine those superrich bankers and CEOs of multinational corporations spending most of their year working on the local farm to produce the communities' organic food). You think that is crueal and mean? Do you prefer war, environmental catastrophes or things like the black plague? Compared to these not even the Chinese one child policy seems such a bad idea. But then again I am frankly a bit lost as to what might be the best solution to a problem we need to solve if we aren't into sustainability just for the brownie points.

Science and ESD: how much more 'speedily implemented' modern science do we really need?

I was recently invited to another ESD conference which had as its aim the improved transfer of scientific insight into education. The general tone of the questions posed by the conference organisers seemed to imply that we have two problems: First, 'good' science has already and continues to produce results entirely in line with sustainable development, but the problem is that the educational system and society in general are not capable of the transfer. Second, where transfer is happening, it isn't happening fast enough. The organisers talked of 'speedy implementation' and 'fast transfer'.

I would like to take issue with such an understanding of science which seems to me entirely incompatible with how I understand sustaineble development and education for sustainable development (ESD).
a) Given the history and complicity of science in making our societies into unsustainable ones, it would be rather naive to expect science to solve the problems it helped create in the first place. This would be similar to expecting of a fox to do a good job at protecting the hens in a henhouse.
b) This means that science needs to do some growning-up before it can be really helpful in constructing sustainable societies. Rather than starting from the old dissemination approach which assumes that science 'knows' and all there is left to do is transfer, i.e. making the 'uneducated' public understand and accept the solutions science has on offer, we need a different perspective. If sustainable development is about empowerment and participation, about equity, about the precautionary prinicple and complexity, then it follows that science can be just one partner in this endeavor, and not a priviledged one.
c) Sustainable development is clearly about acceptance of limits and sufficiency as well. This means that we have to question the progress myths which underly this concept of science and in general the worldview of Western societies. In our context, this means a couple of things which are very hard for scientists (and educators) to swallow:
- There are indigenous societies which have practiced sustainability for many centuries, without the help of science, high-tech and formal education. It seems that their success is more based on a set of moral values, including a respect for nature and others, a sense of sharing and equitable social structures.
- It can be argued quite seriously that all we need to know to live sustainably is known and the relevant solutions are practiced sometimes since millenia. In other words, the crucial point is not for us to wait for science to come up with these fantastic new solutions to our problems. The issue rather seems to be a social and political one: how do we achieve change on a paradigmatic scale, against the self-interests of the current political, social, scientific and economic powers?
- Rather than arguing for 'swift implementation' and 'fast transfer' we should therefore opt for 'Entschleunigung', as Hans-Peter Dürr has called it, i.e. deceleration: what we need is not fast application of 'new' scientific insights, only to discover afterwards, that we have produced unintended side-effects. We need time and space to work on what makes systemic sense.
- As far as education is concerned, similar things can be argued: if you look at new trends in educational theory, at the propositions for competences, methodologies and didactic approaches and if you strip away the jargon associated with current trends, you realise that most basics are clear since a very long time, and have not been put on the table by recent 'scientific breakthroughs':
-- there is a clear conflict between the values underlying ESD and schooling as understood since the Industrial Revolution, i.e. turning children into material which is readily usable by the current social, political and economic system.
-- Most effective learning takes place if the teacher is a convincing role model, if learning is experiential learning in the real world and if learning takes place within social structures which are on the one hand supportive, on the other hand are based on clear moral values to which all concerned are committed and held accountable.

On this basis, I would like to make the following suggestions:
1. As I have elaborated elsewhere (Our Common Illiteracy, 2002), the above imples that science – and education or any other profession, for that matter – ought to become self-reflective, i.e. start to reflect upon their own history, their ideological preconditions, their dependency on certain economic and/or political structures, their impact, and upon the relationship between what they claim and what they deliver. This self-reflection in the context of sustainability principles is far more important for long-term gain than any fast implementation of 'new' results.
2. 'Beware of the shadow curriculum'. Education is only one element which can guide the direction of society. Education cannot carry full responsibility for enabling change in society. If other important drivers are opposing or hindering the transition to sustainable development (politics, economy, social values, media, etc.), there is not much chance that education will succeed in its mission.
3. All stakeholders must enact this change. We cannot delegate the necessary change to the next generation, i.e. the pupils and students of today. Corporate leaders, politicians, all professions and Joe Bloggs from round the corner will have to bite the bullet: reduce consumption and enable more self-sufficiency.
4. All stakeholders in the scientific and the educational system will need to perform this shift. Raised and trained since early on to think in disciplines, to reduce complexity, to shy away from looking across boundaries of disciplines, cultures, times, all scientists and educators will have to retrain / be trained in systems thinking, the culture of complexity, the principles of sustainability, and understanding of different ways of life.
5. The change will primarily be a change of fundamental values which ought to support a complimentary change in lifestyles:

'[Ultimately, sustainability will depend on changes in behaviour and lifestyles, changes which will need to be motivated by a shift in values and rooted in the cultural and moral precepts upon which behaviour is based. Without change of this kind, even the most enlightened legislation, the cleanest technology, the most sophisticated research will not succeed in steering society towards the long-term goal of sustainability.' (UNESCO, 2002, 11)

6. And this means, that we need a discussion about what kind of education we really want. The technical talk about competences and skills will not take away from us the need to agree on the underlying values. If it is not clear where the much advocated skill 'critical thinking' is appropriate (i.e. to solve the problem of overdevelopment) and where it is not adequate (i.e. develop the next generation of atomic bombs), we will not be one step further. To quote David Orr again:

'My point is simply that education is no guarantee of decency, prudence, or wisdom. More of the same kind of education will only compound our problems. (...) It is not education, but education of a certain kind, that will save us.' (David W. Orr: Earth in Mind. On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Washington, DC; Covelo, CA: Island Press, 1994. S. 7‑8)

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD), where are you?

Something which Stephen Martin and me have argued for some time (see “Educating Earth-literate Leaders” [http://www.unesco.org/iau/sd/pdf/Jucker-Martins.pdf] or “World Wise: Can universities be models for ethical and sustainable communities?” [http://www.aaee.org.au/docs/2004conference/keynote-Jucker%20R.doc]), becomes more and more urgent by the day. It is the question about both the effectiveness of (first) Environmental Education and Development Education and (now) ESD and its most important target audience.
In 35 years of EE and DE and in over ten years of ESD the focus has been on turning pupils and students into human beings fully equipped with the competencies to cope with the challenges of a world which the present and the last generation have turned into anything but paradise.
In other words, the target audience has always been the next generations which / as I have written before / is disingenuous on two counts: first we expect those who aren’t responsible for the mess we’re in to clean it up and second, it is an implicit but stark admission on our part that we are not capable of cleaning it up ourselves. All we can do, so we signal, is hope that our successors will turn out to be a notch cleverer that we are.
To come back to the audience question, this means that those who really need to be educated, who need ESD, who clearly lack the competencies to deal with our sustainability crisis, are the current political and economic and spiritual leaders. If Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, wants to take the lead in tackling Climate Change in Europe and at the same time makes every effort to exempt German car manufacturers from more stringent (but still wholly inadequate) new CO2 emission limits, if Doris Leuthard, member of the Swiss Government, says that tackling Climate Change cannot mean less economic growth or no new nuclear power stations, one is sadly reminded of George ‘the older’ Bush’s punch line for the Rio Earth Summit of 1992: ‘The American Way of Life is not negotiable’. In reality, statements (and the ensuing politics) like the above mean that these leaders have not even grasped the most basic fundamentals of sustainable development. For the industrialised Euro-American societies of this planet, there are 3 of these basic laws:
1. There is no unlimited growth in a materially non-growing system like planet Earth.
2. If you have taken over many years, if not centuries, more than your fair share, it’s time to give back and make do with (much) less.
3. If your way of life, taken as a role model and emulated by the rest of humankind, is a sure recipe for destroying the life-support system Earth, it’s time to abolish it, deter anybody from copying it and to establish pretty fast a new one that is sustainable.
As soon as you hear points like these uttered by leading politicians and economic leaders, you know that ESD has started to work and you can safely turn your attention towards pupils and students (but not before!).

Education! What education?

"Those affiliated with Unitierra affirm what the people dwelling in villages know very well: that schools and all other educational institutions actually prevent their children from learning what is needed to continue living well in their community. Benjamin Maldonado, a Oaxacan anthropologist, used a collection of "tests" to compare children going to school with those who have never been schooled. The latter knew more about every aspect of life in their community; they failed, however, when it came to singing the national anthem." (Prakash/Stuchul, McEducation Marginalized, Educational Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, 2004, pp. 67-68)
These are frightening times. Christmas, as usual, brings out the worst in our societies. It is a massive feat of social learning, with only one possible learning outcome: the more, the bigger you consume, the better. Yet most of this consumption is actually contributing to the distruction of livelihoods in poor countries and accelerates the destruction of the planet.
Unfortunately, much the same is true for education. Most educational reform discussions are only about this: how can we rewrite the curriculum, reform the structure of education so that pupils/students learn faster, better, more efficiently the key skills they need in order to move into careers which perpetuate and accelerate a way of life, an understanding of progress, a notion of growth which all destroy the very life-support system we depend on, only more efficiently than the generation before them (and they (we) were pretty good at it already).
Maybe I have missed something, but in all the suggestions for EfS/ESD I have seen recently, I fail to notice:
- programmes which reintroduce pupils/students to the skills needed to live well from the land, the skills Maldonado noticed are litteraly unlearnt by schooling;
- programmes to re-enable pupils/students to understand their direct dependence on the land - to understand the fact that neither computers, nor TV nor supermarkets guarantee their survival, but only food nurished by the soil;
- programmes which equip pupils/students with the tools, skills and knowledge to build a fulfilling life outside the destructive mega-machine of globalised capitalist 'civilisation';
- programmes which reconnect young people to traditions which sustain life rather than technology, which promote communal well-being rather than ultimately destructive growth.

Don't we need to be a bit more radical when we look at education?
Radical in the original sense: we need to go back to the roots and rebuild a sensible, sustainable, future-proof and human-scale education from there.

Reality check

Always be realistic about your sphere of influence. All the other "educators" (mass media, peer groups, technology, industry, family) have a far wider impact on the learning of students than you will have as a tutor, and their message, at present, is pretty much the opposite of ESD/EfS. If you then also send mixed messages (ESD/EfS in classes, non-(E)SD behaviour outside the classroom), you have lost before you started.
A little reality check to back this up: the biggest public event in Switzerland this year which could be broadly placed in a SD/ESD/EfS context attracted 50’000 people and the SD/ESD/EfS scene was well pleased. The annual motor show in Geneva attracted more than 700’000 people, i.e. more than 10% of the Swiss population...

EfS at HE level: where are the role models?

ESD/EfS in practice means applied learning in the real world, doing, not conceptualising. And I suspect that this is a real threat for academics (and students). My experience is indeed that academics are very good at concepts, but have very limited standing as ESD/EfS role models. Yet ultimatively the only test for effective ESD/EfS is whether or not it leads to sustainable behaviour, sustainable consumption, sustainable lifestyles. Where are the publicly visible showcases of academics who demonstrate to the wider community how a sustainable life could be led here and now? Again, this is not about prescribing a certain way of life, but about showing the various ways in which it is actually possible (without any further technological progress, without any further economic growth, with what's around now).
This also means: get them out of the box. The tutors and the students. Engage them in reality checks: one of the most common problem with peoples' views about wind energy or solar energy (just as examples) is that they have never ever been near a real example, just "know" it through media consumption with all the spin attached to it. The reaction to the real thing is more often then not unashamedly positive.

Critical thinking is not quite enough

Let me make this clear. I don't want to impose "my version" of sustainability onto all the others. But the discussion about sustainability and our role in this endeavour as educators needs to mature and leave behind the notion that it's enough to have students critically debate sustainability. Studies in Switzerland have shown that current students are not able to do this. They are only able to "promote" the positions which have been given to them before. They seem not to have a framework against which they can judge and evaluate information and decide whether it might make sense or not. You might say: clear, this is precisely what we mean by "critical thinking". I say, yes, of course, but critical thinking means: being able to sort right from wrong. So the “liberal” hypocrisy that we need to allow all positions as equally valid is simple not compatible with SD nor is this a sensible skill in ESD/EfS.
My hunch is that the problem which we have with the ESD/EfS discourse has largely to do with the abstract level at which the discussion goes on. As soon as ESD/EfS is lived on the ground, in concrete projects, this becomes obvious. I'm not saying it is always easy to opt for the sustainable option and to enhance this ability as educators, but I'm claiming that it is possible in most cases. In Switzerland the authorities responsible for the national action plan in the context of the UN Decade still argue that ESD/EfS is not clear, that we need more concepts and theories etc. I argue that there is no point in investing too much time into the theory bit at the beginning. If we wait until we have unambiguously defined what ESD/EfS is, the world won't need ESD/EfS anymore. What we need is concrete implementations on all levels. Only the practice on the ground will clarify and correct the theoretical concepts. This action research loop seems to me the only way forward.

Sustainability is not "everything is possible"

As I have tried to show in my book Our Common Illiteracy the big problem with the concept of sustainability is that it is clearly not a rigid blue print (a precisely defined plan which only needs implementation), but a process which needs to be refined, redefined and developed along the way. On the other hand, it is not a "everything is possible" post-modern concept either. Particularly if we leave the lofty heights of theoretical discussions and go down to real life problems, it is in most cases possible to define which solution is more or less sustainable. It is also very often obvious which solutions are clearly unsustainable (e.g. feeding everybody on a meat-rich diet, expansion of private motor car usage worldwide to US-levels, etc.).
This unfortunately means that the constructivist theory of learning, as Chet Bowers has succinctly shown, is, despite its worldwide hegemony, ill-suited to deal with the challenge of sustainability. The assumption that instruction is manipulation and that the learners should "construct" their own worldview with educators as mere facilitators in their learning process is both factually wrong and ignorant. Factually wrong in so far as the “liberal” hope that students will “freely” construct sensible worldviews out of their own depths is illusory. They will, for the most part, just modify those worldviews most effectively mediated to them by the “shadow curriculum”. (Because instruction, for good or for bad, does work amazingly well as the history of mass media shows. And this insight, of course, places an immense responsibility on us educators not to abuse it. But there is no way we can run away from it by hiding behind the “empowering students” mantra.) Ignorant because sustainability is not just what every individual thinks it is. Of course, every individual will have to integrate sustainability into his/her own mental map and worldview (i.e. engage in ESD/EfS), yet it would be a total misunderstanding of the concept to assume that it can be filled with whatever content. There is a whole host of rather well established scientific facts, cumulative social and historical knowledge and experiences of sustainable systems (e.g. in indigenous societies) which must form part of any education for sustainability/ESD. Both factually and morally there are Rights and Wrongs in sustainability and unless we start to accept this and develop ways in which these facts and values become socially acceptable and accepted, there will be no transition to a sustainable society. There is, to turn a famous slogan by Bob Jickling on its head, no sense in talking about "the need to move beyond sustainability". Beyond sustainability is: a depleted planet Earth.

Beware of content-free competencies

Never underestimate the fundamental conflict between our existing western economic and political system and what might qualify as a sustainable society. This is exemplified by the guiding values. The current system is based on unlimited growth, accelerated progress and technological innovation, short-term orientation, individualism and unlimited consumption. A sustainable system which works for all (and not just for us in the rich countries) is very difficult to imagine without acceptance of planetary limits, reduction of resource throughput/consumption, long-term planning, acceptance of diversity of systems, collective effort, slowness, acceptance of our responsibility for the consequences of our ways of life.
The educational discourse, at least here in Switzerland, tries to ignore or suppress this uncomfortable potential for conflict by concentrating on skills, quality indicators and other formal tools which have no intrinsic connection with sustainability. The much touted ESD/EfS “competence” "critical thinking" for example is, of course, very much at play in many scientific developments and new technologies which have very limited, if any, potential for enhancing our transition to a more sustainable world (e.g. development of new weapons of mass destruction, or development of new generation of unnecessary consumer electronics, or much of the current wave of nanotechnology research). "Critical thinking", as an abstract skill, can help genocide as much as sustainability. The same applies to other “competences” such as “systemic thinking” and “ability to act”.

Language and reality

Recently, Arran Stibbe has reminded me forcefully that we need to be aware of the power of spoken and written language to create 'world' and thereby fundamentally shape our human-nature interaction. Yet, nevertheless we shouldn't buy into the postmodern illusion that there is nothing but text, i.e. we should insist on differentiating between language and 'nature out there'.

I have tried to make similar points in 'Our Common Illiteracy' (Chapter 2) where I have insisted that we need to come to terms with the 'discourses' of the media, technology, and economics, if ever we want to make EfS/ESD effective.

Particularly one point seems crucial since we in the West tend to overemphasise certain discourses (written) over others. I find here that Bowers' writings about the Revitalisation of the Commons are so fruitful because they reminds us that 'discourses' of resistance may need to be rekindled on all levels: language, social interaction (which, of course, often is mediated through language, but doesn't end there), and action. There are crucially important acts of resistance which transcend language: physical resistance to GM food, acts of sustainable consumption, generally sustainable behaviour (beyond verbal claims).