Bill Scott's blog

Thoughts on learning, sustainability and the link between them

Monthly Archives: October 2016

Another day; another world heritage site

📥  Comment, News and Updates

UNESCO's world heritage sites [WHS] are a wide-ranging in scope and focus.  The UK has 30 of them.  Some are natural, but most are deemed cultural; one, St Kilda, is said to be both, although many could be so designated.  They range from Henderson Island which I'd not heard of (I suspect because it's in the eastern South Pacific), to the The Forth Bridge.  Somewhere in the middle, metallurgically speaking, is Ironbridge.

As I was passing by Saarbrucken the other day, I stumbled across a German WHS – The Völklinger Iron works – and went in.  Its blurb says it was the first from the "heyday of industrialisation" to be classified a world heritage site (in 1994).  It was the worst signposted museum I have ever seen.  I think that was because, inside the ironworks, there was an incongruous exhibition focused on the Buddha, and all the signage urged you to follow the "path to enlightenment".

That said, Völklinger was impressive in a rusting hulk sort of way – a veritable dark Satanic mill (unless, of course, you believe (as I like to) that Blake was referring to OxBridge).  But it lacked fire, limestone, noise and smoke, and all those alpha-males who would have populated the place as they did here in the coal, iron, steel, shipbuilding and railway industries.

All this brought to mind the Song of Steel from BBC Radio Two's magisterial Radio Ballads.  Click on ...


Nature, Childhood, Health and Life Pathways

📥  Comment, News and Updates

In preparation for the Natural England meeting last week, I read the University of Essex's Nature, Childhood, Health and Life Pathways report:

Pretty J, Angus C, Bain M, Barton J, Gladwell V, Hine R, Pilgrim S, Sandercock S and Sellens M. 2009. Nature, Childhood, Health and Life Pathways.  Interdisciplinary Centre for Environment and Society Occasional Paper 2009-02.  University of Essex, UK

Here's an extract from the Executive Summary:

"... ‘green exercise’, comprising of activity in green places (in the presence of nature), is predicted to lead to positive health outcomes, as well as to promote ecological knowledge, foster social bonds and influence behavioural choices.  Research suggests that attention should be given to developing the use of green exercise as a therapeutic intervention (green care), that planners and architects should improve access to green space (green design), and that children should be encouraged to spend more time engaging with nature and given opportunities to learn in outdoor settings (green education). Some of the substantial mental health challenges facing society and physical challenges arising from modern diets and sedentary lifestyles could be addressed by increasing physical activity in natural places. If children are encouraged and enabled to undertake more green exercise, then they are more likely to have active exposure to nature embedded in their lifestyle as adults and will reap the associated health benefits."

Indeed – NB, the emphasis is mine.

I go along with the general thrust of this sort of argument: An appropriate amount of nutrtious food and the right sort and amount of exercise in the open (ideally unpolluted) air (probably ideally with others) is, generally speaking and other things being equal, good for you in all sorts of ways.  But why is there a need for all this green jargon to make that point?  It surely impresses no one these days.


New blood pumping at think global

📥  Comment, News and Updates

Think Global has appointed a new CEO, Jess McQuail, who is currently Executive Director at the charity Basic Needs.  Jess has over 20 years' experience in the UK and international not-for-profit sector and is passionate about working for a more just and sustainable world.  Jess said

"I am delighted and proud to be joining Think Global at such an important time, when its vital work is needed more than ever.  I greatly look forward to being part of a community of people that are committed to learning about, and acting on global challenges."

Indeed!  Welcome and congratulations, Jess.  It would be good to think that under your watch, TG might become much less London-centric than it has been for the past many years.  We, beyond the M25, also exist, have needs and an ability to contribute.


Adjectival good order

📥  Comment, News and Updates

I'm no fan of the excessive use of adjectives.  More to the point, I'm no fan of the use of adjectives.  This unpreference has grown out of my reading of too many academic papers rendered both prolix and otiose by strings of adjectives that obscure meaning.  In other words, it has grown out of my reading of too many papers using strings of adjectives that obscure meaning.  It's a commonplace to discover just how much adjectives get in the way, and how you can do without them.  Take this passage of gospel poetry and count the adjectives in it:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.  In him was life; and the life was the light of men.  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.  There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.  The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.  He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.  That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.  He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.  He came unto his own, and his own received him not.  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.

That said, when adjectives are used, it's important to put them in a particular order, otherwise it sounds odd.  Take this sentence:

On holiday I bought a xxxx bowl  – where the xxxx is a string of adjectives :

old   blue   glass   beautiful     rectangular   fruit   French    huge

The question is: what order do you put these words in?


So, what's the sentence?

On holiday I bought an old  blue glass beautiful rectangular fruit French huge bowl.

Hardly.  How about:

On holiday I bought a beautiful old huge rectangular French blue glass fruit bowl.

Sounds reasonable, but this sounds even better:

On holiday I bought a beautiful huge old rectangular blue French glass fruit bowl.

The sounds good because it conforms to the rule, which we all know, but have never learned:

STEM: opinion, size, age, shape, colour, origin, material, purpose : NOUN

So, the next time you're composing one of your tediously long strings of adjectives, bear this in mind.



To Bristol ...

📥  Comment, News and Updates

To Bristol last week for a meeting of the strategic research group on learning in natural environments – LINE.  It was a small group which meant there could be a free-flowing exchange of views, with ideas building on ideas.  Well structured and ably chaired, it was a great day out.  Well done Natural England.

Last Great Western might have coughed up a younger and longer train for the return journey, and the students from Hayesfield school in Bath might have been more considerate of others, but, as an expensively-compensated man once said: it's the age of the train.


The CO2 emissions of sacred cows

📥  Comment, New Publications

The CO2 emissions of sacred cows is by Indiana University's Richard Wilk and it is reproduced in full here, with his permission, and my recommendation, as a provocative (in the best sense) read.

I have been thinking about energy conservation issues since 1982 when I had my first grant to study households in California, families that were spending large amounts of money on dubious energy saving devices. Since then I have been to many conferences and symposia and meetings concerning what has come to be called “sustainable consumption”. I cannot claim to be the brightest person in the room, but after more than 30 years, I have begun to see the ethnocentrism and bias that underlies both the definition of the “problem” of overconsumption, and thinking about how to motivate change in consumption behavior.

Let me give you a revealing example. During conference discussions and in classes, I suggest that one of the best trends to encourage in order to save energy is to get people to watch more television and spend more time immersed in video games. I have also playfully suggested that sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll are all forms of entertainment that require little fossil fuel. Sex and dancing even burn calories. People always laugh when I say these things, but I think this is a case of laughing it off rather than letting the point sink in. After all, when I look around my own neighborhood and town to single out the kinds of entertainment that are contributing the most to climate change, I focus upon things like lawn tractors, dirt bikes, pontoon boats with large outboard motors, giant RVs, swimming pools, and even driving across town to let the dog run in the park. None of these things are essential, but nobody points a finger in their direction when looking for energy savings.

Now think about some of the most popular elements of today’s “sustainable” lifestyle. To go fishing, or backpacking, or rock climbing you need to drive a long way in a private car, or even fly somewhere and then rent a car. Or how about the carbon balance involved in a nice lush home garden? Even with no gasoline or electric powered devices, there are many trips to the hardware store, fertilizers and mulch. This is why one critique of the home gardening movement is called “the $50 tomato.”

Even that sacrosanct warm and cozy activity called “a home-cooked meal,” is usually a terrible waste of energy and material, including packaging and waste disposal. Look at the fossil fuel used to get to the supermarket or farmers market and back, the energy used by enormous refrigerators and the inefficiency of preparing small batches of food. A Swedish study found that central cooking and distribution of meals is far more energy-efficient, not to mention cheaper.  A pair of Australian anthropologists studied a farmers’ market, and found that vendors spent almost as much time driving as they did selling at the market, and the customers were burning a lot more gas when they added the farmers market to their other shopping.  While there are a lot of good reasons to learn to cook, saving energy is probably the least realistic. Organic and locally grown produce and meat may be healthier for the grower and the consumer, but how much are they improving the health of the planet? When CO2 emissions become the yardstick, many cherished practices of the middle class turn out to be extremely wasteful. Making families fly all over the country at holidays to sit and eat energy intensive meals may be an important practice that keeps families together, but let’s not make believe that it has no effect on CO2 emissions, even if the turkey is organic, or carved from tofu.

A stranger landing on our planet might ask why we spend so much time and energy driving to cinemas to watch entertainments in a large room, when we have a perfectly good large flat screen television at home, where we are paying for a continuous feed of similar entertainment. Then try explaining why we spend so much energy on professional sports, and why some people are willing to drive thousands of miles to watch other cars driving around in circles. While we are taking an alien point of view, we might as well point to sports cars, SUVs, giant king-cab pickups, low riders and monster trucks.

Life without these entertainments would be poor, but ranking them or criticizing them on the basis of their energy inefficiency seems to be completely taboo.  My university has a sustainability office that is trying to reduce the amount of plastic and food waste produced by tailgaters at our football stadium (undergoing a $53 million renovation while faculty salaries stagnate). Why do we always think about improving the efficiency of energy wasting practices, on energy Star appliances, hybrid cars and solar power installations, but rarely compare the energy intensities of different forms of entertainment and amusement?

Is it because appearances are so much more important than substance in our consumer culture? Going on a kayak trip, cultivating a large garden, buying organic food, and driving a hybrid vehicle to a conference on climate change are all acceptable forms of consumption that appeal to the educated middle-class. A very small minority of the most conscientious people will ride bikes and buses instead of private vehicles, or buy carbon credits when they fly, but these still remain rare and marginal practices in most places. In these same people are likely to seek nature for their leisure and recreation. Perhaps a hike in the forest or a trip to the beach.

Ever since the European romantic movement of the early 19th century, seashores and majestic mountains have been firmly connected to the bourgeois love of nature. Before that time majestic mountains and sandy beaches were considered ugly and depressing wasteland occupied by poor people eking out a pitiful existence. Nature only became beautiful after the middle class was secure in the knowledge that they would never have to dig in the dirt for a living. But practicing this love of nature in the raw or tamed in a zoo or Marine Park is an extremely wasteful form of entertainment.

Similarly, participation in the arts, visits to museums, attendance at the opera, gathering in church, summer camps, and endless rounds of sports and self-improvement keep us driving and emitting greenhouse gasses. And the surfeit of material culture is so great that many households in the United States have to hire specialists to help them deal with “clutter.” After they filled their garage to the roof, they may have to rent storage space, or perhaps turn the room into a closet, or furnish a vacation home or condo closer to their favorite form of nature.

The bourgeois aesthetic disparages passivity, using the label couch potato for those supposedly tasteless people who just sit and watch TV all day. And it has become almost sinful for adults to stay away from the gym and other forms of exercise. In contrast, poorer and rural people here in Indiana like to spend their weekends burning gas in their riding lawnmowers, putting their kids on dirt bikes, hauling a jet ski to the lake, or camping in an RV with 0RVs strapped to the roof. The bourgeois would rather be out tasting craft bourbons, flying down a zip line in the rain forest, or driving across the state to see and hear a famous musician or a play. Older members of this class tend to be worried by internet addiction video games, electronic communications, sexting and Instagraming, activities that save a huge amount of energy that might otherwise be spent driving to see each other in the flesh. Environmentalists and the climate change community seem oblivious to the importance of this change from physical to virtual worlds – because it conflicts with middle class values.

I am not suggesting that we need to plug into pods that sustain our bodies while we experience the world vicariously, as in “The Matrix.” Yet, if entertainment is one of the major sources of greenhouse gas, why should it be off-limits to critique? Perhaps it is because consumer sovereignty is such a powerful ideology, (perhaps more dominant in the USA than elsewhere)? In “A Consumer’s Republic” Lizbeth Cohen says that the freedom to buy has replaced other kinds of political and intellectual freedoms. Yet even in the United States, that freest of markets, there are many potentially popular products that have been prohibited, heavily regulated or highly taxed. You cannot simply walk into a pharmacy and ask for antidepressants, or find heroin it in a vending machine, or bring your own sandwich (or dog) to lunch with friends in a nice restaurant. Most of these market taboos are justified in the name of health, which requires inventing many new diseases like “low T” or “neophobia” (when children refuse to try new foods).  Until recently most citizens have passively accepted regulation made in the name of health, but distrust of science and government, and outbreaks of food-borne disease have eroded even that boundary.

I overheard a comment while flying out of New York, about the time when the city’s Board of Health banned soft servings of more than 32 ounces; “Soon the government’s going to be telling us what we can and cannot order in the sushi bar.” Yet one more blow against our most basic freedom. They seem to be unaware that their raw fish on sushi rice has already passed through customs regulations. USDA standards, and health codes at the federal, state, and local levels. And indeed many health regulations have no basis in science – for example it is illegal to eat raw quail eggs on sushi in Indiana, for fear of salmonella, though there has never been a single incident. In this politicized environment how is it possible to get people to accept restrictions based on the health of an ecosystem or the planet’s atmosphere? Consumer sovereignty desperately needs to be renegotiated, but so far convenience and entertainment have taken precedence over the distant problems of melting ice in Greenland or drowning tropical islands.

It is time that we start to compare different forms of entertainment, and think about ways that low impact activities can substitute for the most egregious energy wasters. Do we even know if it is better to exercise at home on a machine, instead of driving to a health club? How could we make a farmers market a more efficient collection and distribution system? On the other hand, we know that having sex doesn’t necessarily consume any fossil fuels (especially when you can find partners through your cellphone instead of going out to a bar), that listening to music on the Internet uses a minuscule amount of electricity compared to live concerts, and that computer gaming may have much less impact than the other forms of recreation it is replacing. The only reason we cannot think about television as a major energy saving appliance is because of bourgeois prejudice against what my parents’ generation called the ”idiot box.”

Soon after the energy crisis of the 1970s, power companies and university researchers started to focus on increasing efficiency of appliances, cars and other energy-using devices like air-conditioners and water heaters. They needed a way to measure the savings gained by increasing efficiency, in order to do cost-benefit analysis. They came up with the idea of “negawatts,” the kilowatt hours of electrical energy saved by increasing efficiency and reducing consumption. The funny thing about negawatts is that because you can put a value on them, you can buy and sell them, and this was the antecedent of the idea of carbon trading as a means of cutting down emissions. Someone else is running an energy hogging paper mill? They can buy my negawatts I earned when I installed energy-efficient lighting in my stores.

This provides a useful way to think about what kinds of everyday activities are liable to generate the most negawatts. How can we credit people who lower their carbon footprint?? What would it mean to offer people a payment for staying home on the weekend instead of going on a driving vacation? It’s not that different from paying indigenous people in Peru to protect rain forest instead of burning it down to plant corn, or selling the timber to a plywood factory. What if you had to pay a certain number of negawatts to take an airline trip over 500 km? Or to buy a refrigerator that has a greater capacity than 25 ft.²? Negawatts accounting could be easily automated using existing wrist – activity – monitoring devices. The nice thing about this form of accounting is that profligate rich people are going to have to buy negawatts if they want to keep their yachts. Poor people who do not produce much carbon dioxide will receive negawatts that they can then sell to send their children to school, pay for medical care, or put a concrete floor in their hovel.

This may seem like a ridiculously large amount of accounting. But think about carbon emissions – invisible, and mysterious. When people talk about the carbon emissions of driving a car, it’s not about that particular car, but about the average of that model of car, as defined by an arbitrary set of tests and standards. Carbon dioxide and methane are just abstractions; so a carbon tax has no real referent. If you drove every person out to a coal burning power plant to see what was coming out of the smokestack, they still would not see any carbon dioxide. A carbon tax seems totally arbitrary; the person with an energy efficient car pays the same amount of tax per gallon of gasoline as someone driving a monster truck. That hardly seems fair given that the first person has already paid for that energy efficiency (unless it turns out to be emitting a lot more pollutants than stated by the manufacturers).

But let’s come back to the bourgeois mentality, rooted in the romantic movement and the kinds of suggestions that still bubble up from new devotees of the arts and crafts movement, the ones who want to replace mass-produced goods with craft products, hand knitted sweaters for the cheap ones from China. We know where this goes. Cheese shops where the cheapest cheese is $12 a pound, compared with two dollars at Walmart, locally handloomed cloth which is actually made from sheep in Australia, costing 10 times as much per yard as the same wool that has passed through a factory in India.

Several years ago we had our kitchen rebuilt by a local couple who designed and then built gorgeous cabinets out of wood that came from a sawmill right here in town. The whole thing cost about three times as much as it would have cost to buy nice cabinets at the superstore and have them installed by a journeyman carpenter. The superstore would have finished quickly, while the skilled crafts people took three months. We were initially thrilled with the beautiful results, but now  I find myself wondering if mass producing the cabinets in a large factory using generic materials and efficient machinery may have been much more energy-efficient than having our specialists constantly driving back and forth, running woodworking equipment for hours at a time, and ordering both tools and hardware from China. In retrospect, we should have had to buy negawatts for the luxury of a kitchen like that, in order to wake us up to the true environmental costs of the different options.  We might still prefer to pay friends of friends in our own community, rather than an anonymous country and faceless workers far away.  But that is a political and economic issue, not one based on the urgent issue posed by climate change. Our aesthetic was actually a class based notion of the value of human skill and community, a set of values that are probably going to have to fall by the wayside if our children are going to keep their heads above the rising sea level.

Another blog from Madison

📥  Comment, Talks and Presentations

Here's a link to another of the thoughts from Morgan Phillips about his time with NAAEE in Madison.  This is how it begins:

"The NAAEE Annual Conference is in its 45th year, fourteen years ago conference decided it needed to create exclusive time and space to explore environmental education research. The Research Symposium was born, it is now in its 13th year.  It is a packed programme. Around 150 researchers from right across North America and around the world were here today.  Bearing in mind that researchers deliberating about how they research is pretty niche, I'm not going to dwell on those discussions too much here.  I am instead going to highlight two pieces of innovative practice that I came across.

Climate Change and Me - Southern Cross University Australia

Empowering learners as educators and 'the researched' as researchers was discussed several times today. Climate Change and Me is a good example of this. This is how the project runs:

Today’s children and young people require new kinds of knowledge, skills and experience in order to effectively respond to rapidly accelerating social and environmental changes.  The Climate Change and Me Stage 2/3 curriculum addresses this pressing need for a research-based and student-driven climate change curriculum in Australian primary schools.  As it stands, climate change has been cut from the Australian National Curriculum for children under 14 years of age.  International studies have also indicated that didactic, science-based approaches to climate change education have not been effective in changing the environmental attitudes and behaviours of students.  The Climate Change and Me research found that students were much more likely to engage with the topic of climate change through creative, student-driven and experiential project-based learning activities which were structured into a collective inquiry.  The Climate Change and Me Curriculum, Southern Cross University.
This is an example of what seems to be a growing trend in Education for the Environment - a science based approach to climate change education (and sustainability education more broadly) is giving way to approaches that recognise the need and effectiveness of engaging learners on an emotional level.  ..."

There's much more of this thoughtful stuff; just use the link above.


Another day; another Manchester symposium

📥  Comment, Talks and Presentations

I see that there's another dodgy-sounding symposium in Manchester next March.  Its prolix title is:

Symposium on Implementing Sustainability in the Curriculum of Universities: teaching approaches, methods, examples and case studies

The dreary blurb says:

"One of the major barriers to the wide incorporation of matters related to sustainable development at higher education institutions, is the fact that sustainability is seldom systematically embedded in the curriculum.  Yet, proper provisions for curricular integration of sustainability issues at part of teaching programmes across universities is an important element towards curriculum greening.  Despite the central relevance of this topic, not many events have specifically focused on identifying ways of how better teach about sustainability issues in a university context.  It is against this background that the symposium is being organised.  It will involve researchers in the field of sustainable development in the widest sense, from business and economics, to arts and fashion, administration, environment, languages and media studies.

The core premise is just not true.  There are endless seminars and conferences about this, all of which have one thing in common: nobody who really matters in a university ever goes, and the faithful talk to each other about how hard life is for evangelists and those who've seen the true light.  This will be another one.  There will also be yet another tedious, peer-reviewed book published by Springer.  Further details are here.  I'd say by all means go to Manchester, but there are much better things to do when you're there.


Every Tam, Dougie and Hamish is working on the SDGs it seems

📥  Comment, News and Updates

There's evidence that our friends in North Britain are slowly getting up to speed on the Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs].  Learning for Sustainability Scotland [LfSS] says it is now working with members to develop a new task group focusing on supporting the Goals "through learning".

The aims of this Task Group are to:

  • Influence policy through advocating for learning as a fundamental aspect of the SDGs, in Scotland and beyond
  • Raise Awareness and understanding of the scope of learning within the SDGs (within and across formal, informal and non-formal contexts)
  • Engage and Represent members; and partner with other organisations and individuals in Scotland and UK; and collaborate with relevant international partners (UNESCO, UN RCEs) to help deliver on GAP and the SDG s
  • Contribute to monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of the SDGs in Scotland and beyond

Oddly for a group that prides itself on being ahead of the game in such matters, it looks to me as though LfSS is playing catch-up.  The first meeting is not until late November ...