A few weeks ago, I was trying to find a way to make this explicitly clear and I made an info-graphic which I am hoping will be a part of the research that I do this quarter and next quarter. The focus is this: How do we get people to change their behavior? Ah, the million dollar question....literally. Ask any marketing director. This is usually where environmental education is put forth, sometimes as a part of the solution and sometimes as the hail mary pass that will save us all. What I believe is unaccounted for (and what I hope to address with the info-graphic) is other components of behavior change. There are far too many people who are fully aware of environmental problems and ways to affect change but do not reflect it in their behavior. This behavior could refer to anything from a consumer decision to purchase one product over another, a vote, support for certain organizations, expression of beliefs, career orientation, etc.
None of this is to say that I think environmental education is inherently faulty and should be eliminated or decreased. But I think that if we believe that it is a valuable part of affecting behavior change, we need to examine ways to make it better.
Here are some of my genius ideas:
1. Crank up the brightness of the light at the end of the tunnel.
I'm beginning to feel the rage boil up inside of me even as I write this. As someone who has heavily invested my time, money, and energy in a quality environmental education, I am disappointed in the prospects from my future. When students chose the focus of their education (most commonly communicated to the outside world as their "major"), why do they pick the programs that they do? Why do students decide to study business or engineering? One answer is the careers those tracks offer. Every discipline has its associated difficulties, but it seems like some are more handsomely rewarded than others. It even seems like people who chose education in fields that are historically low-paying that they are expected to accept the lack of good jobs and high pay because their fields are somehow noble and should be providing them some sort of intrinsic reward. Therein lies the same problem that makes education alone an inadequate way of affecting behavior: Intrinsic value is not enough to make enough people seriously change. Environmental studies needs to be a field that prepares students well for the job market...and the job market needs to recognize the niches it has for environmental students. The light at the end of the tunnel is too dim and it discourages even the most talented and motivated students from entering. In turn, this weakens support for environmental education and creates feedback loop that leaves environmental studies seeming like more of a struggling charity than a legitimate career path.
2. Reframe that ish.
There is not enough time in my life to talk about all of the reframing that I think needs to go into the entire environmental field, but let me just spill a few recommendations for the field of education specifically. First, please stop introducing anything remotely related to environmental history with "Since the first Earth Day in 1970..." That invites people to celebrate this as a hippie cause and makes minds jump right away to tree-hugging. Environmental education has a bit too much tree-hugging as it is. Now, I do think it's valuable for students to do hands-on field work and talk about how and why different parts of the environment matter. But I believe, and disappointingly this is especially the case in early education, that environmental studies starts out on the wrong foot. It starts by teaching intrinsic value and pointing out the beauty of nature. Not to mention the possible pushback of claims of social engineering, but this is problematic because it delegitimizes the entire field. It smacks of deep ecology right from the beginning. What would be a whole lot better would be to look at the economic and social aspects as well. You can read The Lorax, but the connection between the environment and human health and well-being has to be made at the beginning. The nature/culture separation is still surprisingly strong; lots of people do not understand how their livelihoods are attached to components of nature and still believe that conservation is entirely devoted to "Saving the Whales". Sustainability and environmental considerations should be reframed as public health, design, engineering, and policy issues. Which brings me to my next point...
3. "Sustainability should be a part of everything we do."
That is in quotes because it is a quote from Swedish student Estelle Westling who won a competition to design a plan addressing a company's environmental problem (which I think is such an awesome competition and opportunity for businesses to take on interns and entry-level graduates to do sustainability plans). This is what I think would really propel environmental norms into saliency. I challenge anyone to come up with a discipline or industry that has no relevance to environmental issues. At the very least, better materials management could lead to efficiency in even the most consumptive industries. Even the fine arts derive inspiration and have historical background in earth systems. Take a course in fisheries management and you're likely to run into plenty of math. No, the environment is not separate from us and it's high time to incorporate it into everything we do. Perhaps the best way to do this may not be to have a separate program for environmental studies. Perhaps each discipline needs to take the initiative to incorporate it instead of backing off and relying on another field. There are standards to which we hold our education systems: we would balk if a school announced it was cutting its history program. Environmental studies should be on the checklist of what makes an acceptable school and educations that do not receive it should be looked at as having gaping holes.
The bottom line, I feel, is that environmental education needs to be made applicable. It needs to be recognizably valuable, not just in the form of a metaphorical salute for dedication to some higher moral standard; it needs more tangible benefits. It further limits its applicability by placing too much focus too early on ethical environmentalism instead of economic environmentalism. It is invalid to think it morally reprehensible to do otherwise. It needs to be a part of every kind of education; not just an excuse for field trips to parks. It needs to permeate the false sense of mutual exclusivity that seems to spring up between disciplines. It needs to be considered a necessary component of a quality education, just like math or history. In a truly environmentally conscious world, the word "environmental" in front of the word "education" would be completely superfluous.
