What does education for sustainability mean?

"Education for sustainability is an emerging concept that encompasses a new vision of education that seeks to empower people of all ages to assume responsibility for creating a sustainable future."

Reference: Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2004

See change:Learning and Education for Sustainability.



David Orr's article "What is Education for?" raises some controversial points. It engendered a certain degree of introspection to see how his ideas and my own, aligned themselves.

The paragraph outlining a typical day on the planet was shocking, and a totally unsustainable state of affairs; yet the degradation continues largely unchecked.

"If today is a typical day on planet Earth, we will lose 116square miles of rain forest, or about an acre a second. We will lose another 72 square miles to encroaching deserts, as a result of human mismanagement and overpopulation. We will lose 40-100 species, and no one knows whether the number is 40 or 100. Today the human population will increase by 250,000. And today we will add 2,700 tons of chlorofluorocarbons to the atmosphere and 15 million tons of carbon. Tonight the Earth will be a little bit hotter, its waters more acidic, and the fabric of life more threadbare.



"The truth is many of the things on which your future health and prosperity depend are in dire jeopardy: climate stability, the resilience and productivity of natural systems, the beauty of the natural world, and biological diversity. It is worth noting that this is not the work of ignorant people."



Elie Wiesel makes a similar point noting that, "the high level of German education did not provide any kind of barrier to the barbaric and inhumane behaviour they wrought on the Jews in designing and perpetrating the holocaust."



Orr notes that the only people who have lived sustainably on the planet for any length of time could not read.

For example:-The lifestyle adopted by pre-European Maori society was highly sustainable in that nothing was owned by individuals. Tribes held land and resources in perpetuity for current and future generations to share. Renewable resources were used in sustainable ways. The extended family was the heart of all life and all members contributed to life in useful and meaningful ways. Knowledge was passed through the generations by the best orators,(the elders who were venerated and respected). And 'family' was the measure of your wealth rather than possessions.



Ideas I agreed with:-

Orr makes a number of observations that I agree wholeheartedly with:- firstly that "Education is no guarantee of decency, prudence or wisdom.....the worth of education must be measured against the standards of decency and human survival. He goes on to say that it is not education that will save us but 'education of a certain kind.'



Secondly: The myth that ignorance is a solvable problem. There can be no state of knowing all that there is to know about the world and everything in it. Advancing knowledge draws us into unknown territory.



Third: We can manage planet earth with enough knowledge and technology. Because of the dynamism of the world and its systems we cannot ever know all that there is to know to allow us to control the world and everything that is in it. Far better to control the things that can be controlled (ourselves). It makes far better sense to reshape ourselves to fit a finite planet than to attempt to reshape that planet to fit our infinite wants.

Fourth: Knowledge is increasing but that which is being learned may not be for the benefit of mankind. Political agendas dictate the types of knowledge that will be offered at educational facilities. So valid knowledge may have more to do with profit than sustainable practice on a global scale.

Fifth: True production costs are not recorded against the GNP records. Profits are recorded but there is much more to be considered than that. E.g. the carbon footprint that is created in the creation of the product.



Sixth: It is said that education gives one the tools for upward mobility and success but what exactly do we mean when we talk of success? For many, success means:- money, power and possessions. These possessions will not sustain future generations. What the world needs is peacemakers, healers, restorers, and lovers of every shape and form. It needs people of moral courage willing to fight to make the world habitable and humane. What is needed is a rethink of our beliefs and ideas about what 'success’ equals.



Seventh: There is the belief that our culture represents the pinnacle of human achievement. We know that is not true however. Neither capitalism nor communism produced the utopia that gave fairness equality and a sustainable future for all. Always, in our disintegrating culture, there has been power, success, and wealth for the few and Calcutta poverty for the masses.

Ideas that challenged me:

For the most part I agree with the educational proposals put forward by Orr apart from the component parts of the recommended 'ecological literacy' knowledge base that, he suggests, should be taught to all students. His ideas here are far too convoluted for the masses. Education of this nature needs to be pitched to the lowest common denominator and so be accessible to all. Laws of thermodynamics, steady-state economics, energetics and least cost , end-use analysis have little place in a certificate level course for a low level students studying at certificate level with the end goal of being able to function adequately in a society using a second or subsequent language.



How do you apply any of Orr's ideas:

All students need to learn about, and play their part in living lightly on the planet in sustainable ways, that provide for their own needs now and for those of the generations to come.