The Devouring Dragon: How China's Rise Threatens the Natural World. By Craig Simons - Book Review

The current demise of our natural world is laden with complexities. Trying to explain these complexities to others can be a difficult task, a task that The Devouring Dragon takes on and eloquently succeeds.

When I first started to read The Devouring Dragon I was intrigued as to how Simons was going to place the decline of the natural world on China’s growth, yet he does not. Instead, Simons uses China to symbolically represent the world’s treatment of the environment.

Too often I find environmental texts laden with scientific jargon, preventing those without background knowledge in science, developing meaning from the text. Simons writes his more like a narrative and when he does use terminology he explains it. This makes The Devouring Dragon accessible for all individuals. The readability of The Devouring Dragon combined with it being a story about the whole world’s relationship with nature, makes it an important read for all.

Simons, a journalist who lives and works in China, presents a familiar picture. China, a developing country, wants the same quality of life as developed countries. In a similar journey that developed countries have taken, China is using the environment to their financial and developmental advantage. Yet their pace of development is so rapid it is putting a strain on the ecosystem services that nature provides. Developed countries see this, and even though their individuals have a greater impact on the environment than China’s, they suggest a different direction for China on their journey to a better quality of life. Meanwhile, as developed countries are requesting them to prevent their environmental impact they are using China to manufacture their goods. Which leads to huge environmental impacts locally for China and globally.

To tell this story Simons takes the reader on a journey telling the history of China and its current situation through those without a voice: the plants, animal species and individuals whose relationship with the natural world is being affected by China’s use of the environment. Through the loss of the Yangtze dolphin, the forests in Papua New Guinea and the failure of Copenhagen, the reader is confronted with the effects of our current treatment of the environment. In one statement by a local Papua New Guinean, ‘The trees are gone, the land is spoiled, it is all gone.’

One could be forgiven to see The Devouring Dragon as a pessimistic view of our world. A feeling of no hope, we are on the path to the loss of the natural world and humanity’s destruction. The descriptions of the plants and animals are highly emotive and are used as a metaphor to our ignorance. As they fade away, is there anyone to witness their demise? Does anyone care? Simons shows there are signs all around of nature’s declining state.  Simons describes himself brushing off coal ash from a magazine, a symbolic indication of our feigned ignorance to our consumptive use of the environment. Yet, almost painting an Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) vision of China, the people do not see the environmental destruction around them, only the progress of their society. In Simons’ descriptions of the fading natural world he faintly sends the message that we must see it now before it is all gone.

However, contradictory to his tone of the book where natural beauty meets human ignorance and greed, he concludes that there is hope. He offers that there are solutions that can be realised and he suggests that even though it seems bleak he has optimism. He is optimistic because he chooses to be so, perhaps a lesson for us all.

Despite the hard to swallow truths in Simons book, it is a must read. Not only does it perfectly describe the current environmental crisis, but it reminds us of what humanity could lose.

Huxley A 1932 Brave New World London: Chatto &Windus.

 

 

‘In one way or another, this century will be the one in which we learn to account for our planet. Because unless we start accounting for our transaction with the earth we will bankrupt it for all future human habitation.’ Gleeson-White 2011 p.254.

I have just finished reading Jane Gleeson-White’s (2011) book Double Entry- How the merchants of Venice shaped the modern world and how their invention could make or break the planet. I was drawn to read this book after listening to a talk with the book’s author on ABC radio. Although I only heard the tail end of the talk, the notion of this book intrigued me. In the talk Gleeson- White (2011) stated that Double Entry suggests that the current way we measure our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is destroying our planet, however if we were to take into account the environment as part of our GDP we could desist the destruction and start rejuvenation.

It has probably become apparent through previous entries to my blog that I grapple with the notion that it is difficult to argue a case for the environment as income earnings usually trumps environmental sustainability. I felt that by reading Gleeson-White (2011), my cognitive dilemma would be quelled. If my synthesis of her book is right, then I believe I now understand why monetary gain trumps environmental protection and how we can change this ingrained notion in our society.

In Double Entry Gleeson-White (2011) traces the history of accounting and its journey into today’s society controlling beast. Although I found at times Gleeson-White’s (2011) history of accounting difficult to follow due to lack of interest in the subject and lack of understanding, I believe I can sum up her discussion of how Pacioli’s invention of double entry led to today’s environmental destruction.

With the invention of double entry bookkeeping by Venice merchant Pacioli, the ability to measure ones capital gain (or loss) became a possibility. According to Gleeson-White (2011), it was this invention that sparked the Renaissance due to the ability of high earners to pay for the architecture and art. Although this revolutionised the way business and earnings were achieved, it wasn’t until the industrial revolution that double entry became common place along with the ability to tinker with one’s books. Thus the profession of accounting was born along with regulation bodies and the emergence of capitalism. Double entry had developed from a small invention used by merchants to an overarching tool that was used by businesses and eventually governments to measure their capital and therefore their overall worth. Unfortunately, measuring one’s capital, as Glesson-White (2011) points out, does not measure those things that do not hold monetary value, like education and the environment.

Eventually, with the rise of accounting double entry was used to measure a nation’s success. The use of GDP for calculating the profits and loss of a nation and thus developing a budget was first used by the British government to calculate the cost of World War Two. Despite the universal use of GDPs and budget developments today, calculating a nation’s worth and spendings was only to be used to calculate the effect of the war, and was not to set ‘a precedent’ (Gleeson-White 2011 p.185). Despite this warning, it was a precedent.

Following the evolution of accounting into the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, Gleeson- White (2011) mentions the many scandals and downfalls of businesses and the economy due to the fallibility of the human condition and therefore the manipulation of the double entry system. She shows that with a society that has a large focus on capital, when businesses and nations are subject to human dishonesty and greed the fall is rather large. Particularly when large corporations are tied up with governance and individual investments.

Through the journey of the evolution of accounting and the rise of capitalism, Gleeson- White (2011) brings the reader to our modern day world. We have become a society that measures the tangible while the intangible becomes second class. With the mention of Robert Kennedy’s speech in 1968 she shows how our evolution into a society who values profit has given us an inability to measure those things that give us life and give life meaning. In other words, the environment and society itself. However, she suggests that although through double entry we have ruined the planet, we can use this tool to rejuvenate.

Gleeson-White (2011) paints a vivid picture of the way we are currently treating our planet. One could put it into a metaphor of stealing. We take from our planet what we want and need and use it for our own purpose, yet we do not pay for what we take. We leave it in a state of dishevelment and do not believe we ‘owe’ nature anything. We get it all for free. According to Gleeson-White (2011) what we do with the resources that we take from nature is worth more to the national GDP than the actual resource itself. We do not pay for the cost of destruction as a result. However, she believes that if nature and society were included in the GDP, we could rejuvenate and avert environmental ruin. Gleeson-White (2011) suggests that if we put a monetary value on the ecosystem services that nature provides, the GDP of many nations would look very different as well as the state of the environment. Gleeson-White (2011) offers the following examples; tropical mangroves are worth US$1000/ for their ecosystem services , yet when cleared for shrimp farm the value is US $200/hectare. The WWF’s Living Planet Survey showed that the ‘ecological debt’ that we owe to the planet as a result of our activities is US $4 trillion to US $4.5 trillion each year. An amount, according to Gleeson-White (2011), far greater than the loss of the current global financial crisis.

What I believe Gleeson-White (2011) is saying is that we need to treat nature like we would someone who provides us with goods and services. We need to start paying nature for what we take. That means we need to start placing a monetary value on the services offered to us by nature and the only way to do that is by putting natural resources and their destruction into the double entry system of nations. Those of us who care for the environment for its own sake and for ecosystem services need to stop fighting capitalism and use it to our own advantage.  It certainly would be interesting to see how we would value and treat our environment if this was the case. I would imagine rather differently.

 

Gleeson J 2011 Double Entry- How the merchants of Venice shaped the modern world and how their invention could make or break the planet Allen and Unwin, Sydney.

The notion of 'de-extinction'- A reflection

Although the notion of ‘de-extinction’ is quite appealing, I feel a sense of concern. This sense of concern is two-fold. One concern is in relation to the inherent complexities of the process within ecosystems and the second concern is for the urgency and the feeling of needing to protect critically endangered species.

Processes within ecosystems are very complex and there is a possibility that when one species is no longer a contributor to an ecosystem other species fill that ecological niche. Thus, if a species is re-introduced could there be a potential for it to disrupt the processes that have developed since its departure?  Or, What would be the outcome of an extinct species re-entering into an ecosystem where its potential competitor is also on the brink of extinction? For example the Thylacine re-entering the Tasmanian wilderness with the Tasmanian Devil suffering from DFTD and habitat fragmentation/lose. Of course there is the possibility that the returned species will fit nicely back into its ecological niche. Yet that is the nature of ecosystems, they are highly complex and unique, outcomes could be positive to ecological processes or negative.

According to Tilbury and Wortman (2004), sustainability is about addressing the cause of problems, not the symptoms. I feel that the use of ‘de-extinction’ is a potential band-aid to the fact that we are going through a period of rapid species loss that is largely attributed to human activities. Although  did not state that this is a solution to saving species from extinction I fear that it could be seen as a potential solution by others, therefore diminishing the feeling of urgency and need to protect these species. I feel that one of the answers to species extinction is addressing the causes. That is, societal attitudes and systems that allow human activities to impact on the survival of other species and not the symptoms, which is extinction. Although this may seem like an almost impossible task, would it not be wonderful if other species’ survival were valued in all facets of society?

Tasmanian Devil: Symbol of ecological complexities and our inability to understand them.

I have just finished reading Tasmanian Devil: A unique and threatened animal by David Owen and David Pemberton (2005). After reading this book, completing three assignments in the subject Ecological Processes at university and the chance encounter with the television program Living Planet on SBS, I have come to the realisation of the deep complexities that make up an ecosystem. It appears that everything is connected and an intricate balance between the processes in an ecosystem keeps the environment functional and healthy. Yet, if something is removed or disturbed this intricate balance can be disrupted with sometimes drastic consequences.

A perfect example of the complexities within ecological processes is the Tasmanian Devil and the current issue of Devil Facial Tumor Disease (DFTD). According to Owen and Pemberton (2005) although it is known that the current declining rate of the Tasmanian Devil is due to DFTD it is not certain as to the cause of this devastating disease. There is speculation that it is due to deformities in oysters as a result of chemicals used in forestry that have made their way into the water streams. This same chemical has been associated with tumors in mice. As devils almost eat anything, including oysters, there is speculation that this chemical, bio-accumulated in oysters and ingested by devils, has caused DFTD (Owen & Pemberton 2005).
This association, though would seem unlikely, shows just how complex and connected processes are in an ecosystem and how our behaviour could have unintended consequences. As a result of DFTD we (Australia) are at risk of losing our last endemic marsupial carnivore. This begs a question to be asked, What consequences could losing the Tasmanian Devil have to the ecosystem in Tasmania, particularly when we consider the devils' scavaging abilities?
Predictably, the powers that be are denying this connection between their chemical usage and DFTD. How much power does a huge money making industry like forestry in Tasmania have? Is it enough power that its voice is louder and has more sway than that of the lose of a species?

This example shows that our lack of ability to understand the complexities in ecosystems is not just due to their inherent complex nature but our political stubbornness and greed for money. It seems that an industries ability to make money and produce jobs comes before conserving a species. Although this is speculation on my part, it appears to be a recurring and common issue with most environmental/conservation issues. After reading Owen and Pemberton (2005) two things seems certain to me, politicians will sit on their hands unless it is absolutely necessary to act, like a species becoming extinct, and if anyone stands to lose money as a result of a decision to save a species, affected parties will argue for their case stalling any real action.

Although I do feel sympathy for those who are trying to make a living I have trouble accepting that the ability of one to make a living trumps the health of our environment and the wellbeing of species. Do we want another extinction in Tasmania because of our actions and the value we put on capitalism?

Own D & Pemberton D 2005 Tasmanian Devil: A unique and threatened animal Allen & Unwin Sydney.

A video for change- Moving away from the fear message.

A friend of mine sent this video to me. At first I was hesitant to watch it as often organisations such as Animals Australia use confronting and, at times, disturbing images to change our behaviour. However, this video has used all that the literature has been saying about getting individuals to care and take action. 

Animals Australia reminds us of the compassion and empathy we have for other creatures, the love we feel for them. It is from this reminder that Animals Australia informs us of the mistreatment that occurs to our beloved animals in the name of mass consumption and makes us question our current use of the animals that we consume. 

Finally, we are moving away from the loss message and more towards the love message.The question is, can we change our behaviour in order to save the lives of innocents and extend our circle of care to ALL creatures? Can we be selfless?

My Philosophy of Environmental Education

The following paragraphs contain my beliefs and views on Environmental Education. They are based on all my learning over the past two years and will mirror some of my reflections in this blog.

My Philosophy will be broken up into six sections dealing with the purpose of Environmental Education, the importance of Environmental Education, how I view my role as an Environmental Educator, what makes learning effective in Environmental Education, how Environmental Education relates to the bigger picture of environmental and sustainability issues and what it is that I hope to achieve through my role as an Environmental Educator.

What is the purpose of Environmental Education?

I believe the main purpose of Environmental Education is to connect individuals with their natural environment in order to incite a want to protect nature. However, I acknowledge that connection is not sufficient enough to lead individuals to take action for the environment. Within Environmental Education, Education for Sustainability (EfS) should be complementary partners. Education for Sustainability gives learners skills and mindsets in order to take action for the environment.

I believe that although Environmental Education is not the single answer to environmental and social equity issues, it is an important component. In connecting individuals to the environment and giving them the skills to protect the environment, Environmental Education has the ability to assist in sustaining ecosystem services, prevent ecological disasters, prevent the extinction of species, improve social equity, improve the way we treat other species, enhance our wellbeing and allow future generations to experience the wonder and the diversity of nature.

Although these may seem like impossible tasks I truly believe that Environmental Education can make an important difference to our current treatment of nature.

Why is Environmental Education Important?

Environmental Education is important for reconnecting individuals with the natural world and creating an awareness of the reliance we have on the environment. In modern society I do not believe we think often enough about where our resources come from and whether or not we care if we lose our natural environment. Yet if we want to continue to survive on this planet as a species we can no longer bury our heads in the sand to the origins of that which we consume.

Environmental Education is also important for the survival of other species. Through the feeling of being connected with nature, learners can empathise and feel compassion for other species in the environment. It is through this ability that learners will wish to do no harm to other species and therefore the environment in which they live.

With its complementary partner, EfS, Environmental Education follows a pedagogy that enables learners to develop holistic and analytical ways of thinking. In doing so learners question all stated truths, look beyond the surface of an issue and recognise the connections within a problem. This ability will be important in learners’ futures in which they will be subject to insurmountable amounts of information, a growing populace, possible climate change and an environment and economic system that will need to be equally sustainable. Through reconnecting with the environment and gaining the skills and ways of thinking through EfS, learners will have the necessary cognition and ability to address these issues in a just manner.

How do I see my role?

I believe it is my role to help learners connect with nature and develop the necessary cognition and skills in which they will be able to make a positive difference to society, other species and the environment. I see my role as following four criteria:

1.       Allow for learners to spend time learning in nature- This will give learners hands on experience in their natural environment therefore giving them the opportunity to build a positive connection with the environment.

2.       Include knowledge about the environment- Through my own experience learning about the processes that occur in the environment I have become aware of how important it is to understand how systems operate in nature. I feel that without an understanding of these processes and interactions in the environment we may hold misconceptions about nature and other species therefore resulting in inappropriate treatment. For this reason, I see it as my role to allow learners to gain knowledge about the processes within the environment in order to develop an understanding of the natural world and its patterns. I believe this is best learnt within the natural environment.

3.       Follow the principles of EfS- The principles of EfS give learners the ability to think critically and deeply about issues. Therefore learners can become autonomous thinkers and not accept all information that is given to them. They will want to pull apart all stated truths in order to find reality. It will also give them the skills to deal with the reality once they have found it and develop well informed decisions.

4.       Lead by example- I cannot hold the belief in the resilience of the environment and the wellbeing of other fellow humans and other species without partaking in the action myself. If I lead by example I will hold conviction in my beliefs. Although I do not agree in imparting one’s beliefs onto another as this does not foster critical and deep thinking, through leading by example I can show what I believe through my actions and that others have the ability to do the same.

What makes learning effective in Environmental Education?

I believe effective learning in Environmental Education must possess the elements and their sub-categories that I outlined in a framework of EfS earlier in this blog. I have included this in my philosophy as I feel that it outlines my beliefs of what makes learning in Environmental Education effective. The only difference I have made is in regards to the sub-category of Programs should (if applicable) provide learners with opportunities to interact with their natural environment under the element of Learner needs. This has been changed to Programs provide learners with opportunities to interact and connect with their natural environment. This sub-category is essential in initiating a feeling of care and a want to protect their natural environment and it should be the starting point of all learning.

Framework for Environmental Education and EfS

Elements and their sub-categories

Learner needs

• Programs must acknowledge and build upon learners’ previous knowledge.
• Programs should be adaptable to learner needs eg. Disabilities, cultural.
• Programs provide learners with opportunities to interact and connect with their natural environment.
• Programs should have clear objectives that are known to the learner with feedback provided from educator.

Cognition

• Programs develop and foster Critical Thinking.
• Programs develop Reflective Learners.
• Programs develop and foster Systemic Thinking.
• Programs develop and foster Envisioning Skills.

Collaboration

• Programs should be developed with the goal of empowerment of individuals.
• Programs should have role of educator as facilitator.
• Programs should further build upon learner’s ability to work with others.

Values Clarification

• Programs should develop metacognitive skills.
• Programs should encourage learners to question current dominant world views that create unsustainable practices.
• Programs should encourage compassion and empathy.
• Programs should encourage visions of a better world and not treat them as rhetoric. 

Evaluation

• Programs have mechanisms in place that allow for flexibility.
• Programs should have on going monitoring and reflection.
• Educators should be engaged in reflective practice.
• Programs are developed with ability to be evaluated and built upon from evaluations.
• Resources are appropriate and effective.
• Evaluation should measure the elements in this framework.

What is the bigger picture?

I often feel there is a perception that Environmental Education is a non-essential subject. However, if we look beyond the education realm and to the issues in the wider world, common sense would suggest that Environmental Education is imperative. Through my learning in my Masters degree and critical reflection, I have come to the understanding that we, as humans, need to be treating our world better. I believe that our climate will change, I believe that we are losing some of our most wonderful plant and animal species, and I believe that due to current systems many individuals and other species do not have their basic needs or rights met. Our current way of thinking puts human needs above that of the environment and other species. As a result we place ourselves above the rest of the natural world and view our wants and needs to be far superior. Ironically, though, our basic needs are directly connected to the ecosystems that provide us with all necessities and in our race to consume all that we desire we put a great stress on these ecosystems. In response to this mindset and consuming actions, species are declining, global warming is a threatening issue, pollution is choking our oceans and water ways and we have many individuals living in poverty and with hunger or have lost traditions and customs that are integrated with the natural environment.

I believe these issues do not make for a just or sustainable world, as such we need ways of feeling, thinking and acting that will enable us to protect the service that provides us with our basic needs, the environment. Environmental Education follows a pedagogy that can provide these ways of feeling, thinking and acting.

What do I hope to achieve?

My motives are based on the connection that I feel with the environment and other species. I am very much concerned for the well being of other species and for this reason I want to protect our environment. Through Environmental Education I hope to create well informed, critical, reflective and positive individuals. I want learners to question injustices and our unsustainable way of living. I want them to possess the skills that will enable them to interact positively with their world and in doing so take actions that will heighten the well being of their environment, other species and other individuals. We need to start recognising that we share this planet and with that comes a responsibility to look after and care for it.

‘We have suffered here because we can no longer see the sacred in the trees, flowers, and our fellow men’ (Segovia 2010 p.749)

I have often wondered how we, as humanity, have come to view ourselves as separate from the natural world. The conclusions that have become apparent to me are not based on research that I have read but more of a combination of analysis from viewing the history of Australian Aboriginals and my own heritage. 

After watching the documentary Kanyini last year in the subject Introduction to Sustainable Development I became very aware of the reasons for the current situation Australian Aboriginals find themselves in. They have lost their culture and as a result their identity. According to Segovia (2010) many indigenous groups like the Australian Aboriginals have their culture tied with the rhythms of the earth. They view themselves as not being separate from nature but an integral part of the landscape along with the creatures who also belong to the same earth (Segovia 2010). It can be assumed, then, that as a result of oppression with European arrival to Australia, Australian Aboriginal’s lost their connection with the natural world. Could this be the reason for our Western anthropocentric views of the world? Did we lose our connection with the natural world?

I am lucky enough to be aware of some of my heritage. My father and his family come from Wales. Of the little history that I know of Wales, the Welsh, like the Australian Aboriginals, suffered oppression and had to fight to keep their culture from other invading groups. However, unlike the Australian Aboriginals who have only recently felt the oppression of an invading force, my ancestors suffered centuries before my time. 

According to Segovia (2010) our prehistoric ancestors would have had myths and legends for the patterns that are existent on Earth. Yet we have lost these stories and with it, our connection with the natural world. I have wondered what it was like for my ancestors to lose their connection with the natural world and therefore their culture. Although some still exists through our language, the Welsh and their way of life is very much integrated into the Western anthropocentric context. Did we feel disillusioned and disconnected?

When I think of my Welsh heritage and that they too would have shared the same connection with nature as indigenous groups do today (Segovia 2010) there is a feeling of hope that we may be able to regain this connection. Perhaps through regaining our connection with nature we can start protecting it instead of using it as a commodity.

Segovia V M 2010 Transforming mindsets through Education for Sustainable Development Demography and Social Change- Social Change Elsevier Ltd.

Lesson Plan for Environmental Education

Today I had an interview for an Environmental Education position. As part of the interview I had to do a ten minute demonstration from a lesson plan I had designed for an outdoor environmental education lesson. Below is the lesson plan which I used for this demonstration. In analysis of this lesson plan, I believe it shows my underlying beliefs of environmental education: the importance of developing connections between the learner and their natural environment.

 Rationale

Current research into the life experiences of those who are working to protect the environment suggest that a common theme amongst participants is a positive experience in the natural environment as a child (Chawla 1999). Due to the necessity of the ecosystem services that nature provides for our survival it is important that we have a positive and symbiotic relationship with the environment.

It is of concern, then, when considering the lack of time children currently spend in the outdoor environment for their relationship with nature and their treatment of the environment in their future. For this reason, this lesson is designed to build a positive relationship between children and their natural world. It is hoped through learning about the different ecosystem services that nature gives humans and through stopping to acknowledge the natural environment, children will want to develop a relationship with the natural world further and believe that the future of the environment can be a positive one.

Chawla L 1999 Life paths into effective environmental action The Journal of Environmental Education 31(1):15-26.

Syllabus Outcomes and Indicators HSIE: ENS1.6: Demonstrates an understanding of the relationship between environments and people. - Identifies ways in which people depend on the environment. Environmental Education Policy K1: knowledge and understanding about the nature and functions of ecosystems and how they are interrelated. V1: Values and attitudes relating to a respect for life on Earth. Education for Sustainability World Viewing			In this lesson learners will… -          Have opportunities to interact with the natural environment. -          Start to develop an understanding of how we rely on the environment to meet our needs. -          Participate in skills that will enable the development of a positive attitude towards the environment.
Orientation                                                                     15 min 1.       Meet and Greet, introduce self and inform learners they will be exploring nature today. 2.       Focus activity: Play ‘Find my mate’ activity. Students pull an Australian animal from a bag. There are two of the same animal in the bag. Students are to behave and make noise like their animal, through doing this students are able to find their corresponding mate. This will be their buddy for the duration of the lesson. 3.       Engagement activity: Read to students ‘Through my window’ (self-developed narrative- See attached.) 4.       Access background knowledge: Inform students that we are going to explore nature today like the boy in the story. Ask students what things might we find when exploring in nature? Go through the rules of appropriate behaviour in an outdoors environment.			Reflection                                                                   10min     7. Sitting in a circle, discuss with students the experience they just had in nature. Ask students what they enjoyed the most about exploring nature and what new things they learnt. 8. Pose the question: If you were a ranger and you were in charge of looking after trees, what things would you do to look after them? Ask the same question but for water cleanliness and protecting animal species like birds.
Content The elements in nature we rely upon to meet our needs.	Time 40min	Guided Discovery 5.       Take students on an exploration of their outdoor surroundings. Look at a native tree, a water course (pond, creek) and a shaded area with tall trees. 6.       At these places follow the activity card provided with this lesson plan.	Group                 Teacher Structure            Role Whole group        Teacher                                     guided	Assessment		Resources Activity cards Outdoor environment with native trees and a water course. Shears. Two clear containers. Two birds’ feathers.
				What? Ability to identify ways in which we rely on the environment. Their treatment of the natural surroundings- are they showing respect and care?	How? Responses to questions. Observations of students’ interactions with their environment.

Narrative for orientation phase of lesson:

One day a little boy, not unlike you, was sitting inside his home looking through his bedroom window.

Through his window he could see his back garden, he could see the tall green tree that cast a shadow over his long concrete driveway.

Next to his concrete driveway he could see his path full of pebbles leading from the back wooden door to his concrete driveway.

He looked at the green grass that lay next to his path full of pebbles and his small garden with a beautiful bottle brush bush. He watched as a bee buzzed its way down to the bottle brush flowers and collected the nectar.

The little boy thought to himself, I wonder where the concrete comes from for my concrete driveway, where do the pebbles come from for my pebbled path, why are trees so important and where is the bee going with its nectar?

With this thought the boy stopped looking through his window and opened the door to his back garden to explore the wonderful world of nature and seek the answers to his questions.

  

Activity card

Native Tree Activity 1.       At a chosen Native tree with accessible leaves and flowers. Get students to explore the tree. Looking at and touching the bark and leaves. 2.        Ask students to sit in a circle. 3.       Cut off a few leaves and a flower, pass them around to students. 4.       Get students to feel and smell the leaf and flowers asking them to describe these sensations. 5.       Discuss why trees are important and why the interactions between the tree and other animals are important in helping us meet our needs. Possible questions: Why do trees exist?                                     What do trees do that makes them so important?                                     How do trees help us?                                     What animals/insects call trees their home? Water course 1.       Move onto a water course (creek, pond). Take students on a walk around the water course, pointing out the animals that call the area home and other features to incite their curiosity. 2.       Ask students to sit in a circle. 3.       Take two water samples in a clear container and pass around to students. 4.       Get students to feel and smell the water asking them to describe these sensations. 5.       Discuss with students the importance of clean water to us and other animals. Possible questions: What is the purpose of water?                                     Should water be clean? Why/Why not?                                     What would happen if we and the animals did not have water? Shady spot under large trees 1.       Find a shady spot under some large trees. 2.       Sitting in a circle, get students to lie on their backs looking up at the trees and see if they can spot a bird. 3.       Get students to point and call out ‘bird’ when they have spotted one. 4.       Sitting back up, pass around to students two feathers. 5.       Get students to feel and smell the feathers describing the sensations and guessing which bird the feather comes from. 6.       Discuss with students the importance of animals and birds to us. Possible questions: Are animals and birds important to us? Why/ Why not?                                    What special things can birds and animals do that help us survive? (Guide through questioning. Search for answers in regards to seed dispersal, pollination, honey, clothing etc).

Should we be impartial?

After reading Implementing curriculum guidance on environmental education: the importance of teachers’ beliefs by Cotton (2006),I found myself questioning some of Cotton’s summations. In a study of three geography teachers in the United Kingdom and their ability to impart environmental attitudes onto students, it was found that teachers preferred to present their students with holistic views of subjects. Rather than suggesting that they should hold a particular view point or possess particular beliefs about the environment, teachers held a neutral stance and instead presented them with the necessary information and the skills to analyse and critique this information. According to Cotton (2006)this belief in a constructivist approach to education goes against the grain of environmental education. It appears that Cotton (2006) views the role of environmental education as imparting ones beliefs of the environment onto the learner so they will protect and take action for the environment. Cotton (2006) also states that through remaining an impartial educator we are not acknowledging the fact that education is not value free.

Personally, I find Cotton’s (2006) view of environmental education and its role to be in opposition of my belief of the purpose of environmental education. While I believe that as an environmental educator I will be seeking to incite in learners a want to protect the environment, I do not believe it should be done through imparting my beliefs and ideals onto learners. To me this is indoctrination, not education.

In looking back on the Framework of Education for Sustainable Development that I developed last year in this blog in the element of Cognition I have set out three sub-categories. Within these subcategories are the ability to critically think, be a reflective thinker, systemically think and envision the future. Within the element of Values clarification are the sub-categories of metacognition and questioning the dominant world view. If I were to take Cotton’s (2006) view of environmental education, these elements and sub-categories would become redundant. In a learning environment that imposes one’s ideals onto learners there can be no critical, reflective of systemic thinking, envisioning would be impossible and clarifying one’s values by being metacognitive and questioning the dominant world view would not be applicable.

I find the teachers in Cotton’s (2006) study to be quality educators who are pushing their students to question stated truths and thus following the principles of Education for Sustainable Development. I believe this creates a populace who will take action for the environment because through the elements of Cognition and Values clarification they will not accept injustice. As we all rely on ecosystem services to provide us with essentials for survival, the degradation of the environment can only be described as an injustice, therefore through remaining an impartial educator we are in fact creating a populace who will care for their environment.

Quality education and educators who develop within their learners the ability to question, critically assess and clarify develop deep thinkers who will have the skills to create a sustainable world.

Cotton D R E 2006 Implementing curriculum guidance on environmental education: the importance of teachers' beliefs Journal of Curriculum Studies 38(1): 67-83.

The historical context of Environmental Education and the hurdles it faces

In developing a Philosophy of Environmental Education it is important I understand the historical context of Environmental Education and the hurdles it faces. Understanding this will give me the knowledge of the current priority Environmental Education holds in society and the possible implications this may have for my future as an Environmental Educator.

According the new Australian Curriculum (ACARA n.d.) that will be in action by 2014, Sustainability is a cross curricular priority. At face value this would seem to mean that Environmental or Education for Sustainability (EfS) is becoming a priority to be taught in Australian schools. However, deeper analysis of the integration of Sustainability into the curriculum reveals that it is being treated quite superficially. If one is to consider that there is this push by EfS practitioners to have education systems reorientated towards EfS the apparent ‘add on’ of Sustainability into the curriculum is far from achieving this goal.

If Sustainability has been ‘added’ into the curriculum, it could be assumed that it has become another subject to be taught. Yet if we consider that teachers already feel overburdened with an ever expanding curriculum (Evans, Whitehouse & Hickey 2012), this would seem unwise. Instead, the Australian Curriculum’s interpretation of ‘integration’ of Sustainability into the Curriculum appears to be content based. If there is an outcome in English, Mathematics or Science that could be considered Sustainability then a little symbol is put next to this outcome that shows that if teachers are trying to achieve this outcome they are also trying to achieve Sustainability. This is most evident in the outcomes for Science. If teachers are focusing on the outcome that deals with teaching children about living things then they are also teaching students about Sustainability. According to the Australian Curriculum (ACARA n.d.) they just need to make sure they talk about caring for the Earth when trying to achieve this outcome.

Personally, the Australian Curriculum’s treatment of Sustainability is far from EfS. Where are the principles of values clarification, critical thinking and systemic thinking? Is it assumed that the teachers will pick up the corresponding Sustainability Curriculum Framework( DEWHA 201) and be able to use these principles in their teaching? Or do they really not care about Sustainability? Is it put into the Australian Curriculum as a ‘cross-curriculum priority’ to show that the Education system is ‘doing its bit’ for the environment; but still just going about their business as usual?

The Australian Curriculum is treating Sustainability rather superficially. Yet if we consider the historical context of Environmental Education and Environmentalism itself, it is easy to understand why this treatment is occurring. Saylan and Blumstein (2011) in their book The Failure of Environmental Education (and how we can fix it) discuss the historical context of Environmental Education.  In discussing the historical context of Environmental Education they also present the hurdles that Environmental Education faces. To summarise their argument, the historical context of Environmental Education can be placed into three categories. These categories are the Politicisation of Environmentalism, the Current dominant social paradigm and our current means of interacting with the world.

Politicisation of Environmentalism

Saylan and Blumstein (2011) suggest that environmentalism became politicised following the release of Rachel Carson’s The Silent Spring. According to Saylan and Blumstein (2011) Rachel Carson’s book through scientific evidence, implicated industry in adverse impacts on the environment through the use of chemical pesticides. As a result of this implication Carson was subject to public attacks by chemical industries who felt her findings would discredit and threaten their business. Although it was found that Carson’s findings were solid and resulted in the immediate cessation of DDT usage, the war that was waged over protection for the environment between industry and environmentalists ‘was the beginning of the politicisation of environmentalism’ (Saylan & Blumstein 2011 p. 25).

In the American context, it was at this point that environmentalism became the cry of liberal America (Saylan & Blumsetin 2011). Environmentalism was becoming a threat to economic gain with its call for protection and conservation of potentially economically viable resources taken from the environment (Saylan & Blumstein 2011). This want by environmentalists to protect the environment despite the negative impact it could have on industry caused the environmental movement to be seen as the voices of the extremist few; those with idealistic notions of reality whose views could negatively impact on industry. Environmentalists started to be labelled as ‘tree huggers’, or in today’s context ‘greenies’,  portrayed as a barrier to economic and industrial growth of society (Saylan & Blumstein 2011). According to Saylan & Blumstein (2011) it was this marginalisation of environmentalism as a movement which also marginalised the environment itself.

The Current Dominant Social Paradigm

To understand why the environmental movement was marginalised, the Current Dominant Social Paradigm needs to be understood. According to Fein (1993) the Current Dominant Social paradigm is the current ideal that nature is secondary and submissive to the economic needs of humans. Although this notion of the Current Dominant Social paradigm is described by Fein (1993) in the nineties, in today’s context the paradigm still rules supreme. As stated by Saylan and Blumstein (2011) ‘That society has failed to accept responsibility is a result of placing ourselves at the centre of our universe and believing we are here to dominate our surroundings’ (p.21). It is our value that we place on monetary gain that has created this marginalisation of the environment.

Although this is a personal reflection and is not backed by evidence, if the environment’s needs may override our chance to gain economically then the economy will trump the environment more often than not. This personal observation could be the result of the mention by Saylan and Blumstein (2011) that success in the Current Dominant Social Paradigm is largely measured in monetary terms.

The question that arises through delving into the Current Dominant Social Paradigm is, Is the Current Dominant Social Paradigm working for us? For some whose daily activities result in monetary gain would suggest yes, but surely humanity’s success and worth is beyond measuring economically. 

According to Saylan and Blumstein (2011) in terms of humanity, the Current Dominant Social Paradigm may be doing more harm than good. Unfortunately our education system is designed to produce a workforce, not individuals who hold notions of morals and ethics (Syalan & Blumstein 2011). Saylan and Blumstein (2011) suggest that we have become so wrapped up in standardising learning that it has resulted in a populace that are functionally illiterate. This means that while they may be able to read and write, when it comes to civic concerns and critically analysing the information that is presented to them, they are less able. It is this need for a robotic performing society to create a functioning populace that has resulted in a lack of concern for social and environmental issues (Saylan and Blumstein 2011). Saylan and Blumstein (2011) suggest with this notion that perhaps Aldous Huxley’s A Brave New World is perhaps not too far away from being the truth.

Our current means of interacting with the world

With the rise of new technologies, there has been a change with how we interact with our world. Today we interact through emails, social networking , text messaging and the internet itself (Saylan & Blumstein 2011). This new way of interaction means that we are subject to insurmountable amounts of information which leaves us feeling confused and frustrated with what exactly to believe (Saylan & Blumstein 2011). According to Saylan and Blumstein (2011) the issue of access to too much information is an even greater issue when we consider that most scientific concepts are not accessible to the general public due to scientific language. Thus the populace have access to a large amount of information that may not be backed by scientific findings.

Not only do new technologies give people access to potentially invalid and unreliable information but these technologies can keep us indoors and away from interacting with the environment (Saylan & Blumstein 2011).  This means developing a connection with nature and people is complicated by the fact that people enjoy technology that is used inside.

Assessing the historical context that Environmental Education finds itself in leaves many hurdles that appear to be in the way of achieving change towards action for the environment. These hurdles appear to be the marginalisation of the environment and the environmental movement, the effect the Current Dominant Social Paradigm has on our values and our love for new technology that creates a large amount of information causing confusion and frustration and keeping us indoors.

In terms of a Philosophy for Environmental Education, two questions arise from assessing Saylan and Blumstein’s (2011) stated historical context of Environmental Education. Firstly, are Saylan and Blumstein’s (2011) critique of society’s current treatment of the environment too critical or is it based on merit? And secondly, If Saylan and Blumstein’s (2011) critique is based on merit what do the hurdles it presents mean for Environmental Education?

Saylan C and Blumstein D T 2011 The Failure of Environmental Education The Regents of the University of California, London.
Evans N, Whitehouse H and Hickey R 2012 Pre-service teacher’s conceptions of Education for Sustainability Australian Journal of Teacher Education 37(1):1-12.
DEWHA 2010 Sustainability Curriculum Framework: A guide for curriculum developers and policy makers Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Fein J 1993 Education for the environment: Critical curriculum theorising and environmental education Deakin University and Griffith University, Geelong.
ACARA n.d. Sustainability http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/CrossCurriculumPriorities/Sustainability, 20 September 2012.

   

Homo Empathicus (Jeremy Rifkin)

Recently I gave a seven minute presentation on what it is that makes us care about the environment. This presentation was given to fellow students who were partaking in a training course called Green Steps @ Uni. We were all required to give a presentation on a topic of our choice as long as it was sustainability related. I chose to give my presentation on what it is that makes us care about the environment as since conducting a literature review on the topic I have become quite interested in the subject.

In this presentation I basically summarised my findings of my literature review and came to the conclusion, with the help of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)’ s current Love Not Loss campaign, that we care about the environment due to the love we feel for the natural world. This love for the natural world comes about through our human ability to feel empathy.  It is through empathy for nature and fellow creatures that we feel a sense of compassion and therefore love and it is through this love that we want to protect the natural world (Futerra 2010, Reis & Roth 2009).

The below TED talk by Jeremy Rifkin entitled The Empathic Civilisation alludes to this importance of feeling empathy for the natural world. He suggests that humans are hard wired to feel empathy and is a part of our neurology. He refers to humans as Homo Empathicus, and that over time our ability to empathise has evolved and extended to beyond our immediate tribe to that of our nation. Currently, Rifkin suggests, due to technology our empathy now extends to the whole world and with this extension, theoretically we should be able to extend empathy to other creatures and the biosphere. Rifkin believes it is by extending our empathy to other creatures and the biosphere that we may have a chance at protecting our planet.  However, he sends a word of warning that it is our current political context that is threatening Homo Empathicus and causing us to put empathy aside. If we disallow our political context to influence our ability to empathise with that which is beyond us than we potentially have a means of causing movement to protect nature.

Although Jeremy Rifkin’s idea resonates with me and supports the claims I have made in my literature review and recent presentation, I think I need to delve into this idea further and deeper. In doing so I think I may be able to pull out exactly why empathy and compassion cause us to want to protect the environment.  I may be passionate about this idea but if I cannot articulate it well and with a real conviction then it is not strong enough to put into an environmental education philosophy.

Futerra 2010 Branding Biodiversity Futerra Sustainability Communications http://www.futerra.co.uk/downloads/Branding_Biodiversity.pdf, 16 July 2011

Reis G and Roth W 2009 A Feeling for the Environment: Emotion Talk in/for Pedagogy of Public Environmental Education The Journal of Environmental Education 41(2):71-87.

Envisioning Exercise- Future Biopic

I have been partaking in a sustainability training course called Green Steps @ Uni. This course focuses on the skills that are needed to create change towards sustainability in organisations. At the conclusion of this course we were required to write a one paragraph future biopic. In this future biopic we were to put in what we envision our career path to be in twenty years time and this biopic is being read out at a conference. This is a version of Envisioning; one of the elements of Education for Sustainable Development.

 I found this highly useful and at the same time caused me to be idealistic. Even though I was aware that perhaps some of the things I had written down in my biopic may never eventuate it gave me permission to be idealistic. I guess through doing this exercise it gives you something to work towards and that feeling that you should never give up on something no matter how idealistic it may seem. It also helped with thinking about who I want to be as an environmental educator and where I want to focus.

This was the two paragraphs that I wrote in the 15 minutes that were given:

Conference: Nature Education Symposium

Job Description: Environmental/Sustainability Educator

Biopic: Rhiannon has been working as an Environmental Educator for twenty years  now helping all types of people engage with their natural environment and build meaningful connections. In that time she has worked as an education officer for National Parks and Wildlife and has written a book on the human need to be connected with the environment. She has been overseas working with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds as an engagement officer in the United Kingdom and spent two years working with the World Society for the Protection of Animals and the Borneo Orangutan Society helping to develop education programs that will help local and orangutans live harmoniously with each other. Now she is in the process of setting up an education centre coupled with an animal rescue program to help people make connections and care for their domestic and wild animals.

She is here to talk to you about never giving up on your dream to protect the environment and how you can make a difference as an environmental educator.