Unni learns about Higher Education Didactics for Sustainability: Topic 4. The role of the universities in sustainability education

What is the role of universities when it comes to sustainability education? How can universities be a positive force in the transition to a sustainable society? These are some of the questions we have been discussing in topic 4. Very often the ambitions and actions of universities seem to be going in the opposite directions as sustainability goals. For instance, the goals of international collaboration is in conflict with the ambitions to reduce climate gas emissions from traveling.

Some years ago my department at NTNU arranged a staff seminar in Estonia, and the Head of the department charted two planes to fly all staff to Tallin (This was in a time when the economy was still good). I think this story can be an interesting case for discussing topic 4, the role of the university in sustainability education. So hang on till the end, where I will tell you more about what happened and analyze the story in light of literature from topic 4. But first I will present some reflections on what I have read and learnt during this topic:

Foto: Caption from Universitetsavisa, 2018: "More climate friendly to fly to Tallinn than to take the bus to Røros. Can staff at NTNU fly with good conscience?"

This mess is made by educated people

In his article What is Education for, environmental educator David Orr (1991) reminds us that the loss of nature and species, and the emission of carbon is not the work of ignorant people, but largely a result of work of people with university degrees. Elie Wiesel, the famous author and holocaust survivor has made a similar point, saying that the holocaust happened even though the Germans were the best educated people on Earth. Wiesel asked what was wrong their education, and his answer was “It emphasized theories instead of values, concepts rather than human beings, abstraction rather than consciousness, answers instead of questions, ideology and efficiency rather than conscience.” Orr reminds us that “education is no guarantee of decency, prudence or wisdom.” He stresses that this is not an argument for ignorance, but that the worth of education must be measured against the standards of decency and human survival.

Orr goes on to lists six myths that has laid the foundation for modern education, and that he thinks are causing the problems we have today:

1)     The myth that ignorance is a solvable problem. Orr reminds us that the emission of CFC-gases is an example of how our ignorance of the ozonlayer and what can destroy it made it possible for us to release gases that destroyed it.
2)     With enough knowledge and technology we can manage planet earth.
3)     Knowledge is increasing and by implication human goodness.
4)     We can adequately restore that which we have dismantled.
5)     The purpose of education is that of giving you the means for upward mobility and success.
6)     The myth that our culture represents the pinnacle of human achievement; we are modern, technological and developed.

Orr also lists six principles for rethinking education:

1)     All education is environmental education
2)     The goal of education is not mastery of subject matter, but of one’s person
3)     Knowledge carries with it the responsibility to see that it is well used in the world.
4)     We cannot say that we know something until we understand the effects of this knowledge on real people and their communities.
5)     The importance of minute particulars and the power of examples over words. What is needed are faculty and administrators who provide role models of integrity, care, thoughtfulness and institutions that are capable of embodying ideals wholly and completely in all of their operations. Otherwise, the lessons being taught are those of hypocrisy and ultimately despair.
6)     The way learning occurs is as important as the content of particular courses. Process is important for learning. Courses taught as lecture courses tend to induce passivity.

Orr also goes on to suggest four main assignment for the campus; 1) Engange in a campus-wide dialogue about the way you conduct your business as educators. Does this college contribute to the development of a sustainable regional economy, or to the processes of destruction? 2) Examine resource flows on the campus; food, energy, water, materials and waste. Begin a process of finding ways to shift the buying power of the institution to support better alternatives that do less environmental damage, lower carbon dioxide emissions, etc. The results of these studies should be woven into the curriculum as interdisplinary courses. 3) Reexamine how your endowment works. Is it invested in companies doing responsible things that the world needs? And 4) Set a goal of ecological literacy for all students.

What is the situation now?

Three decades have passed since Orr’s recommendations. Has academia listened to his advice? Two articles on the reading list give some answers. In a study of universities from 45 countries Filho et al (2021) finds that universities are giving a growing emphasis to climate change. Based on the findings, the authors list some actions that universities may adopt, such as having a cross-cutting emphasis to climate change, identification of strengths and weaknesses in the curriculum, encourage staff to greater engagement by providing training programs for academic staff, and build a bridge between climate change teaching and research to maximize synergies.

In a more recent article Filho et. al. (2023) gives six recommendations for how education institutions can cause greater engagement on climate change;

Curriculum Reform. Higher education institutions should review their curricula to ensure that current and future generations of students are educated in the fundamentals of climate science (in technical subjects) and the global effects of climate change (in non-technical ones).
Education & Awareness: Institutions should promote educational campaigns and public awareness initiatives to educate students and the public on the importance of reducing their carbon footprint.
Research: need for studies to deeply analyse difficulties of inserting climate change in university programmes and propose manners for overcoming them.
Collaboration: institutions should establish and enhance partnerships with local governments, non-proft organizations, and other stakeholders to collaborate on initiatives to mitigate climate change.
Renewable Energy -universities should practice what they preach.
Green Buildings.

A framework for discussing the impact of universities

As we can see there are many recommendations for how universities could work to achieve sustainability education, but how to measure if they succeed? McCowan (2020) suggests a theoretical framework to measure the impact of universities on climate change. The framework sheds light on what the university is doing, and on the many pathways through which it impacts the society. According to McCowan there is little research on the impact of universities on sustainable development. What we know most about is the mitigation pathways relating to changes in the curriculum, and campus sustainability. We know less concerning knowledge production, public debate and service delivery activities of the university.

McCowan lists ten different mitigation pathways and five adaptation pathways, and lists how the pathways can impact the university, bridging actors, the society and the ecosphere. See figure. Some example of mitigation pathways are M1: Student acquires professional knowledge relating to climate change , M6: University provides a service directly to a community, M7: University provides directly environmental service, M10: University alters its own institutional functioning; impact on climate change mitigation. Some examples of adaptation pathways: A1: University develops knowledge, skills and values in students, A2: University develops new products or technology.

Figure: Mitigation and adaptation patways from McCowan (2021).

McCowan also acknowledges that there are potential negative impacts for each of the mitigation pathways, and lists some of them, see figure.

Figure: Negative impacts of universities on climate change, from McCowan (2021)

Deep adaptation – we need to face the reality!

For this topic there were also several video lectures to explore. I saw the lecture by Professor Jem Bendell on Universities, Climate and Deep Adaptation. In this lecture Bendell argues that the world is facing massive consequences of climate change, and calling for radical changes in how universities work. He calls this radical change Deep adaptation and he proposes eight steps for how academia can achieve this: 1) face reality, 2) reframe strategy, 3) prioritise people, 4) get practical, 5) Level with students, 6) migrate teaching and research, 7) club together and 8) get political.

Bendell also suggests that universities should have a Deep adaptation team who can work outside of the normal adaptation work. In such a team you would need for instance a psychologist, a wellbeing officer, a community engagement or public affairs officer.

The staff seminar story

Coming back to my personal story about the staff seminar to Estonia and the two charted planes, what happened ?

As nobody else seemed to question the climate impact of the seminar, I decided to ask whether the Head of the department had thought about the effect of climate gas emissions and also whether they had considered the message that arranging such a meeting had on students and the public. This became a debate in the university newspaper, where the Head of department claimed that flying to Tallin had a smaller carbon footprint compared to taking the bus to a nearby town. He defended his argument by claiming that emissions from flights was part of the EU quota system whereas emissions from bus was not part of the quota system. The sustainability manager at NTNU refuted this.

Applying the framework of McCowan we can analyze which impact the staff seminar had on climate change. In this case we can see how research-based knowledge in economy and EU quota was used to excuse emissions of CO₂, causing a negative impact on climate change by mitigation pathway M1 Professional development and M4 Application of knowledge. There was also negative impact for mitigation pathway M9, Awareness raising and M10 Campus sustainability, as the message that NTNU sent to its staff, students and society had a negative effect on climate change.

The end of the story was that my colleges went on a nice trip, while I had a quiet protest and stayed at home. The debate in Universitetsavisa might have had a positive effect on awareness, though.

This story happened five years ago, and awareness and knowledge has developed a lot since then. Now NTNU has an ambitious plan to cut emissions and there it states clearly that we are to cut emissions from flying.