Essentials for Teaching Climate Change

To view the photo-rich magazine version, click here.

Originally appears in the Fall 2019 issue.

By Seth Wynes

Teachers are mandated with covering the curriculum, but what should you do when curriculum guidelines get out of date? The study of climate change is a field transforming as rapidly as our warming planet, and high school teachers may have to cover some of the gaps left by ageing instructions. But because of polarization in the media and society, it can be difficult to know which sources to trust and how to walk the line between being alarmist and underselling the severity of this problem. Fortunately, we can look at research to decide on some key points that every student should leave school understanding. For instance, studies have shown that a few key messages are critical in motivating action from the public:

• The Earth is warming
• It’s Bad
• It’s because of humans
• Experts agree
• We can fix it

Covering these basics doesn’t need to use up a lot of time, but it does require some initiative from teachers because curriculum documents tend to focus on the first couple of points, while missing the latter ones. Many science teachers go to great lengths to ensure that students understand things like ocean currents and the greenhouse effect — concepts which would be useful and uncontroversial even if our planet wasn’t in the midst of a climate crisis. But there are opportunities to address other important scientific ideas, while also teaching the five key points. For instance, the process of achieving consensus is vital to the scientific endeavour, and this process can be described while explaining that that 97% of climate scientists have come to agreement on the causes of climate change¹.

Addressing Controversy
Some curriculum guidelines advise “teaching the controversy.” There is an effective way and an ineffective way to do this:

• Effective: Inoculation theory
• Ineffective: Holding debates

Let’s start with the ineffective way: holding debates. A science curriculum document from Newfoundland and Labrador in Canada reads, “Research and try to find opposing arguments to climate change. Take one side of the issue and debate it with another student with an opposing viewpoint.” It makes sense to debate issues that scientists have NOT settled, where students have a valid opportunity to come to their own conclusions. But you wouldn’t hold a debate on whether DNA holds hereditary information, because scientists have agreed on the answer. The same is true for climate. Encouraging debate prompts students to consider the issue of what is causing climate change to be up for debate, when it is not.

The alternative to this is to make use of “inoculation theory.” Educators can help students anticipate arguments that are based on deliberate attempts to misinform them, thereby “inoculating” students against those misinformation attempts. Research has shown this to be an effective way of protecting the public from politically motivated misinformation campaigns.

If detecting bias in the media and preparing students for online misinformation sounds out of the scope of a science classroom, this may be an opportunity for cross-curricular engagement. English or social science teachers have a lot of experience in this area and could be enlisted to come up with a joint activity or assignment. John Cook, one of the researchers responsible for the widely cited 97% figure, draws cartoons that illustrate the logical fallacies of climate skeptics’ arguments. Students could be tasked with designing their own illustrations along the same vein.

Additionally, students can play the online “Fake News Game” where they try to amass followers by using misleading tactics, thereby learning to spot misinformation strategies for themselves. Researchers have shown that playing the game acts as a type of inoculation, making players more resistant to future misinformation².

Teachers following ageing curriculum guides or textbooks can also be led to teach climate change in a way that is inconsistent with the values practiced in other subjects. A science textbook written for the current Ontario curriculum reads, “Not all the projected effects of climate change are negative… As the sea ice on the Arctic Ocean melts, the Northwest Passage shipping route will be open water every summer… Cruise ships can sail farther north than before, so tourists can follow in the wake of Arctic explorers such as Henry Hudson and John Franklin”³. While it is true that climate change will create some minor benefits, it is also true that smoking cigarettes will cause minor benefits (weight loss, temporary stress relief, etc.), and yet health teachers are unlikely to deliver these pieces of information to students.

If teachers still intend to discuss the benefits of climate change, it is reasonable, then, to also discuss the harms, so that students are able to make a fair comparison. Presenting the table below would allow students to make up their minds about whether climate change is going to be a net positive for their lives.

We can fix it
The students that I’ve worked with are naturally interested in “We can fix it” — they want to know how they can help solve an issue that will have major ramifications for their own lives. Luckily, it’s fairly straightforward to work solutions into a student-centered classroom. Students can weigh the pros and cons of different mitigation options, evaluating ways to reduce emissions in their own regions, schools, or personal lives.
In the past, educators and governments have focused on low-impact actions like recycling or changing lightbulbs⁸. This approach might have made a lot of sense in 1990, but with our comprehensive understanding of the urgency of the climate problem, these minor actions (though beneficial) are no longer sufficient.
Teachers looking to engage students with the actions that make the most difference should focus on communicating high-impact actions:

• Eating a plant-based diet
• Avoiding air travel
• Living car-free

My research has found that eating a plant-based diet is four times more effective at reducing climate change than comprehensive recycling and eight times more effective than changing household lightbulbs⁸. These high-impact actions are not only beneficial for the climate but come with a host of co-benefits. For instance, plant-based diets are associated with reduced risk for cancer and Type II Diabetes⁹, and less time traveling in cars is associated with a lower Body Mass Index¹⁰.

Discussing these high impact actions is a great place to make connections with other important learning goals. For example, plant-based diets require less resources and produce fewer greenhouse gases, largely because energy is wasted as it flows up the food chain. In Geography classes, car-free living can be used to talk about urban design, specifically the way in which cities designed for personal vehicle use require more parking spaces, roads, and highways — and therefore more urban sprawl.

But simple knowledge alone is unlikely to lead to large shifts in behaviour. Educators willing to take the next steps can teach skills that reduce the psychological barriers of change. Teachers can go beyond telling students that plant-based diets have lower emissions by giving them a long list of ingredients and their respective carbon footprints¹¹ ¹², and then having students design and prepare their own low-carbon meals. (Bonus points if they can figure out the footprint of the meal when they finish. You can make this easier by having them download the IdematLightLCA app on their phones.) If you’re teaching at a rural school that has a field trip in the city, introduce your students to public transit by hopping on a bus, subway, or light-rail. In shop class, students can learn not just how to fix cars, but how to do basic repairs on a bicycle.

Wrapping it all up
Climate change will require huge shifts in our society. We need to change the way we eat, the way we move and the way we create energy if we want to avoid the dangerous levels of warming that would be catastrophic for our futures. This is not a small challenge; it involves changes to our culture and our ways of thinking, and few people are better positioned than educators to help make these changes possible.

Seth Wynes is a PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia. He studies the ways that we can mitigate climate change through personal behaviours, education, and policy. His book SOS: What you can do to reduce climate change is available from Penguin Random House.

Endnotes:
1. Cook J, Oreskes N, Doran PT, Anderegg WR, Verheggen B, Maibach EW, et al. Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. Environmental Research Letters. 2016;11(4):048002.
2. Roozenbeek J, van der Linden S. Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Communications. 2019;5(1):12.
3. Sandner L, Ellis C, Lacy D, Little C, Mace HA, Nowikow I, et al. Investigating Science 10. Ensor L, editor: Pearson Education Canada; 2009.
4. Urban MC. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science. 2015;348(6234):571-3. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa4984.
5. Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, Roberts D, Skea J, Shukla P, et al. Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. In: IPCC, editor. Geneva, Switzerland: World Meteorological Organization; 2018.
6. Frieler K, Meinshausen M, Golly A, Mengel M, Lebek K, Donner S, et al. Limiting global warming to 2 C is unlikely to save most coral reefs. Nature Climate Change. 2013;3(2):165.
7. Reidmiller D, Avery C, Easterling D, Kunkel K, Lewis K, Maycock T, et al. Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume. US Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA. 2018.
8. Wynes S, Nicholas K. The Climate Mitigation Gap: Education and Government Recommendations Miss the Most Effective Individual Actions Environmental Research Letters. 2017;12(7). Epub June 12, 2017.
9. Tilman D, Clark M. Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health. Nature. 2014;515(7528):518-22.
10. Frank LD, Andresen MA, Schmid TL. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2004;27(2):87-96. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2004.04.011. PubMed PMID: WOS:000222893100001.
11. Poore J, Nemecek T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science. 2018;360(6392):987-92.
12. Hoolohan C, Berners-Lee M, McKinstry-West J, Hewitt C. Mitigating the greenhouse gas emissions embodied in food through realistic consumer choices. Energy Policy. 2013;63:1065-74.

Feature photo credit: pixabay.com/omar1848