Climate Change Education and Research Possibilities and Potentials Versus Problems and Perils

Environmental Education Research
ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20
Climate change education and research:

possibilities and potentials versus problems and
perils?
Alan Reid
To cite this article: Alan Reid (2019) Climate change education and research: possibilities and
potentials versus problems and perils?, Environmental Education Research, 25:6, 767-790, DOI:
10.1080/13504622.2019.1664075
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1664075
Published online: 24 Sep 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 20620
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 18 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ceer20
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH
2019, VOL. 25, NO. 6, 767–790
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1664075
Climate change education and research: possibilities

and potentials versus problems and perils?
Alan Reid
Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article introduces key features to the background, themes and Received 1 June 2019
implications of three collections available in Environmental Education Accepted 8 September 2019
Research that focus on climate change education and research. The
KEYWORDS
problems and perils of scholarship and inquiry in this area are high-
Climate change education;
lighted by contrasting these with some of the possibilities and poten- UNFCCC Article 6; action for
tials from a broad range of studies published in this and related fields climate empowerment;
of study, for example, in understanding who is doing the teaching and environmental and
learning in climate change education, and in identifying the conceptual, sustainability education;
policy and economic drivers and barriers related to its uptake. Key environmental education
points for debate and action are identified, including for so-called research
‘pyro-pedagogies’ and ‘practice architectures’, and the various philo-
sophical, political and phenomenal aspects of climate change education
that are likely to affect its prospects, at this moment and into the imme-
diate future.
The need of the hour

The notion that climate change education is crucial to redirecting teaching and learning in the
face of today’s climate emergency is now widely established and accepted (see UNFCCC 1992;
UNESCO 2009, 2010; UNESCO and UNFCCC 2016).
Yet despite broad agreement among experts, citizens, educationalists and activists about:
a. its necessity within a suite of prevention, mitigation and adaptation strategies (see
Berkhout, Hertin, and Gann 2006; Stern 2006; Schlesinger et al. 2007; Anderson 2010;
Kagawa and Selby 2010; UNESCO and UNEP 2011; Jickling 2013), and
b. a need to focus on ensuring strategic (rather than piecemeal) action (IPCC 2014, 95–96, 108,
UNFCCC 2012; UNESCO 2019a),
… there can appear to be little consensus in public, political and academic spheres about:
what should and shouldn’t happen in climate change education, be that day-by-day or over
the longer term,
who is responsible for ensuring quality climate change education takes place,
how to bring about change in educators’ practices to ensure climate change education is
educational, fit for purpose, and effective,
CONTACT Alan Reid alan.reid@monash.edu Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia
ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
768 A. REID
the intended and unintended outcomes of the currrent provision and reach of climate
change education on those involved in it, as well as those beyond it, and
what and how to assess, evaluate and research climate change education
(see Hicks and Bord 2001; Schreiner, Henriksen, and Kirkeby Hansen 2005; Selby 2009;
Swim et al. 2009; Bangay and Blum 2010; Taber and Taylor 2009; Marcinkowski 2009;
Pruneau, Khattabi, and Demers 2010; Anderson 2012; Selby and Kagawa 2013; Chang 2014;
Wibeck 2014; Shepardson et al. 2017; Young 2018; Busch, Henderson, and Stevenson 2019;
Gleason 2019; Krasny and DuBois 2019; McKenzie 2019, UNESCO 2019b; Monroe et al. 2019;
Reid 2019a, UNESCO 2019b).
In this issue of Environmental Education Research, we highlight a suite of responses
to these challenges from environmental education research and researchers, as well as
their colleagues and critics. We start with a broad sketch of climate change education in
this essay, highlighting aspects of the contemporary moment, and then introduce some of
the key contributions and challenges raised by recent scholarship on environmental, sus-
tainability and climate change education.
Why ‘climate change education’ isn’t simply ‘climate education’

To grasp something of the origins, drivers and dynamics of the situation outlined above, we
should identify some of the hard truths about climate change education that must be faced in
and beyond 2019.
First, it is now over a quarter of a century after the agreement of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC 1992).
Article 6 of the Convention established the necessity of climate change action in multiple sec-
tors, including education, training and public awareness (UNFCCC 1992, p.10). Alongside Articles
4—e.g., in 1.i, to ‘Promote and cooperate in education, training and public awareness related to
climate change and encourage the widest participation in this process, including that of non-
governmental organizations’—5 (on research and systemic observation) and 6 (on education,
public awareness and training, in a.i and a.ii), the UNFCCC prioritised 6 key areas of activity: edu-
cation, training, public awareness, public access to information, public participation, and inter-
national cooperation (Figure 1).
Together, these 6 areas for action would be supported primarily through various levels
of government tasked with directing and supporting educational standards and provision,
public goods and services in the non-formal and informal education sectors, and last but
not least, voluntary action. However, the lack of substantial progress on these tasks and
fronts over more than two decades has to be recognised as a key factor in both the frus-
tration felt and deliberations undertaken, which lead to Article 12 of the Paris Accord
(UNFCCC 2015, 10). Therein, the key need was restated, namely that:
Parties shall cooperate in taking measures, as appropriate, to enhance climate change education, training,
public awareness, public participation and public access to information, recognizing the importance of these
steps with respect to enhancing actions under this Agreement.
Article 6 of the 1992 Convention was also refocused at Paris, and purposefully so, to stress
‘Action for Climate Empowerment’ (ACE) (UNESCO and UNFCCC 2016). Climate change educa-
tion (CCE) efforts were brought into the spotlight too via the COP meetings through
‘Education Day’, in parallel with those for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For the
latter, these included specific attention to Target 13.3, climate action, with its focus on
improving education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change
mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning, and to a lesser extent, targets and
indicators for 4.7 on education for sustainable development, 16 on peace, justice and strong
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION RESEARCH 769
Scope Objectives
Educaon Change habits in the long- Foster a beer

term understanding of, and
ability, to address climate
Training Develop praccal skills
change and its effects
Public Awareness Reach people of all ages and

Promote community
walks of life
engagement, creavity and
Public Access to informaon Make informaon freely knowledge in finding
available climate change soluons
Public Parcipaon Involve all stakeholders in Engage all stakeholders in

decision-making and debate and partnership to
implementaon respond collecvely to
climate change
Internaonal Cooperaon Strengthen cooperaon,
joint efforts and knowledge
exchange
Figure 1. Action for climate empowerment guidelines—scope and objectives (Source: UNESCO and UNFCCC, 2016, p. 3, based
on UNFCCC, 2005, Article 6).
institutions, 12.8 on information provision, and 13.1 on strengthening resilience and adaptive
capacities. In addition, we should note a range of wider proposals and programs, which are
either related (e.g. a ’Global Action Programme’ (GAP) on ’Education for Sustainable
Development’ (ESD), UNESCO 2017a), separate (e.g. ‘Climate Change Education for Sustainable
Development’, Mochizuki and Bryan 2015) or composite (e.g. ‘Education for Sustainable
Development Goals’ (ESDGs), UNESCO 2017b) to the above.
As argued in the foreword and introduction to UNESCO’s (2017b, 1, 7) ‘Education for
Sustainable Development Goals’:
The momentum for ESD has never been stronger. Global issues—such as climate change—urgently require
a shift in our lifestyles and a transformation of the way we think and act. To achieve this change, we need
new skills, values and attitudes that lead to more sustainable societies.
ESD does not only integrate contents such as climate change, poverty and sustainable consumption into
the curriculum; it also creates interactive, learner-centred teaching and learning settings.
Indeed, in supporting the promotion of the ACE Guidelines at the COP23 meeting in
Bonn, and in order to signal how ‘Climate change is a thematic focus across all five Priority
Action Areas of the Global Action Programme (GAP) on ESD,’ under the banner of
‘Changing minds, not the climate: the role of education,’ UNESCO (2017c, unpagi-
nated), stated:
770 A. REID
Education is a key vector to prepare societies for global changes. It plays a critical role in
achieving sustainable development goals and putting into practice a global agreement on climate change.
Education plays a paramount role in raising awareness and promoting behavioural change for climate
change mitigation and adaption. It helps increase the climate change mitigation and adaptation capacity of
communities by enabling individuals to make informed decisions.
The heads of UNESCO and UNFCCC agree that education provides the skills people need to thrive in the new
sustainable economy, working in areas such as renewable energy, smart agriculture, forest rehabilitation, the
design of resource-efficient cities, and sound management of healthy ecosystems. Perhaps most important,
education can bring about a fundamental shift in how we think, act, and discharge our responsibilities toward
one another and the planet. [emphasis added]
Yet, when progress is reviewed at events such as the UN’s ACE Dialogues (e.g. McKenzie
2019) or is highlighted and scrutinized in evaluations of the Doha Work Programme on
Article 6 (e.g. https://unfccc.int/event/7th-dialogue-on-action-for-climate-empowerment), it is
clear that provision of CCE nationally, regionally and internationally is found wanting in
many regards.
First, it remains far from being a requirement or capability of core educational institutions or
professionals, starting with those that claim their work is aligned with advancing this particular
work or that of the Sustainable Development Goals more broadly, let alone every institution or
professional living in and through ‘climate chaos’ (see also Hicks and Bord 2001; Jickling 2013;
Laessøe and Mochizuki 2015; Wynes and Nicholas 2017; Verlie 2019).
Equally, we can recognise the vast majority of beginning to experienced educators are (still)
not required to engage in professional preparation or learning related to CCE (e.g. Berger,
Gerum, and Moon 2015; UNFCCC 2018; UNESCO 2019; Benavot et al. 2019). Compounding this,
the focus of most educators’ professional accreditation, development, evaluation, and research
and development over recent decades has remained on other matters, the legacy and promulga-
tion of which, it has been widely argued, continues to contribute to the deepening climate crisis,
as do the funding and policy priorities of many education ministries, providers, practitioners, and
research associations (Fortner 2001; Kagawa and Selby 2010; Hamilton 2011; Blum et al. 2013;
Branch 2018; Busch, Henderson, and Stevenson 2019; cf. OECD 2019).
In the meantime, public debate about climate change action intensifies, and paradoxes persist,
including about the roles of education and educators in contributing to both the problems and any
solutions to the climate crisis. These challenges are familiar to environmental educationalists, edu-
cators and researchers, the crux of which is often framed as a reflexive question: namely, whether
education is the best means to address socio-ecological issues, including when local and national
sectors and provisions are so often ill-thought, underfunded, overstretched, and undervalued
already (Jensen and Schnack 2006; Stevenson 2007; Hayden et al. 2011; Bieler et al. 2018)?
For some, such considerations will essentially boil down to hard choices, such as, on
what education policymakers (still/should) have to put on the back burner, so to speak, if
the energies and passion of educators and learners are to be focused on the task at hand
(Moser and Dilling 2004; Laessøe et al. 2009; Stevenson et al. 2014; Krasny and DuBois
2019)? For others however, such consultations and their considerations risk wasting yet
more time: aren’t they also/really a part of a heady mix of displacement activities, double
think and bad faith (Foster 2008; 2015; Selby and Kagawa 2010; Waldron et al. 2019), relay-
ing a broad-based and deep-seated reluctance to unlearn and relearn the purposes and
practices of education in the face of a climate crisis (Lotz-Sisitka 2010; Marcinkowski 2009;
Shepardson et al. 2012)? In other words, we have to ask, what have we come to believe,
experience and expect of education, while global warming has advanced—or rather, is it
ultimately a question of a change of many hearts, minds and actions that is required, and
urgently so? Surely it is time for radical change, some argue, not accommodation and cer-
tainly not ‘business-as-usual’ either in or beyond these times (McCaffrey and Buhr 2008;
Selby and Kagawa 2013; Huckle and Wals 2015)? While put very differently, is an end-in-
view actually that of working towards ensuring we can imagine and experience a time when
CCE is no longer necessary, for young to old, apart from as a form of history?
Of ‘pyropedagogies’ and ‘practice architectures’

The trope, ‘Our House is on Fire’, is regularly invoked by Greta Thunberg, the Swedish teenager
€r klimatet] movement since August
and public face of the School Strike for Climate [Skolstrejk fo
2018. The slogan signals a vivid sense of both the necessity for action and attributions of respon-
sibility for the current predicament. It can also be used to raise direct questions about the
adequacy of strategies of action and inaction, including in education about climate change, be
that intra-generationally or inter-generationally framed.
On 25 January 2019, at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Thunberg
(2019, 24) ended her speech by saying:
Adults keep saying we owe it to the young people to give them hope.
But I don’t want your hope.
I don’t want you to be hopeful.
I want you to panic.
I want you to feel the fear I feel every day.

And then I want you to act.
I want you to act as if you would in a crisis.
I want you to act as if the house was on fire.
Because it is.
At the EU Parliament, 16 April 2019, Thunberg reworked the metaphor to embrace the need
for concerted and collective action, suggesting:
Our house is falling apart. The future, as well as what we have achieved in the past, is literally in your
hands now. But it’s still not too late to act. It will take a far-reaching vision. It will take courage. It will take
a fierce determination to act now to lay the foundations where we may not know all the details about how
to shape the ceiling. In other words, it will take ‘cathedral thinking’.
In invoking both burning and building, there is some pertinence to the ironies of both the
timing and allusions in this reasoning for education, and climate change. Note, for example,
that the day before this speech, a catastrophic fire engulfed Notre Dame de Paris Cathedral. In
the immediate aftermath, many rallied to promise support to redress the loss of an architec-
tural feat and (inter)national treasure. A building founded and renewed over centuries for a
clear purpose, Notre Dame has supported a community and remained a focal point dear to the
hearts, lives and imaginations of many over generations, near and far. Billionaires were quick
to make huge pledges to help fund any rebuilding, while the Catholic Church, individuals and
various groups in and beyond France lined up to make other donations and offers of support,
in preparation for the government’s decisions about what to fund and prioritise. At least in
theory, and at time of writing, this particular feature and symbol of Paris now has a ‘pledge
pot’ currently in excess of 1 billion US$—even if some dispute whether this is enough to fund
a rebuild, where monies directed at ‘Paris’ should really be spent, and whether the money will
actually materialise (Cerullo 2019).
The analogy, of course, is crude. But it serves to ask will similar degrees, orders and path-
ways of commitment happen for climate change education, as a key feature of ‘climate
action’ or ‘action for climate empowerment’? In fact, to a planet some would claim has always
required an environmental education for living justly and sustainably in ‘our common home’
772 A. REID
(Pope Francis, 2015), the case should be clear about educators ensuring a broader and deeper
sense of relationship with oikos (cf. Pachamama), in ways that supplant the focus and metrics
of economic thinking in the education sector to those capable of responding to the current
climate crisis too (see Pope Francis, 2015, 209–215, on ‘educating for the covenant between
humanity and the environment’). In fact, in June 2019, Pope Francis addressed the leaders of
some of world’s biggest multinational fossil fuel companies in the Vatican (Harvey and
Ambrose 2019, unpaginated), ... and another irony emerged?
Pope Francis has declared a global climate emergency, warning of the dangers of global heating and that a
failure to act urgently to reduce greenhouse gases would be ‘a brutal act of injustice toward the poor and
future generations’.
‘Future generations stand to inherit a greatly spoiled world. Our children and grandchildren should not
have to pay the cost of our generation’s irresponsibility’, he said, in his strongest and most direct
intervention yet on the climate crisis. Indeed, as is becoming increasingly clear, young people are calling for
a change.
As noted in this newspaper report, there were again, ‘no pledges to reduce their greenhouse
gas emissions, and [they] set no timetable for action’ (ibid.).
Intergenerational ethics and education: necessary but insufficient?

Such gaps and disconnects between ethics, awareness, intention, beliefs, commitments and
action, also call into question whether any sense of ‘progress’ is unduly influenced by news-
worthiness and pledges (Corner and Randall 2011; Jickling 2013), be those of the devout, billion-
aires or for that matter, national non-binding commitments for climate change education during
the COP meeting process. The situation is also a familiar story for environmental educators and
education researchers too, e.g., on gaps and disconnects between environmentally-related emo-
tions, beliefs, meanings and convictions (Maiteny 2002), or attitudes and behaviours (Kollmuss
and Agyeman 2002; Marcinkowski and Reid 2019). So, in this and related collections, we include
examples of how these may be understood, limited and/or reconciled, and whether action
through education might sometimes be better approached through other means (e.g., Wibeck
2014; Stevenson, Peterson, and Bondell 2019; Topp, Thai, and Hryciw 2019 Dillon 2019). While
given the rhetorics associated with Thunberg and Francis, this might also include probing con-
comitant initiatives and effects that develop and articulate both a hope and a vision for how cli-
mate change and education can be brought into productive alignment, such that actions do
speak louder than words (e.g., Fortner et al. 2000; Nisbet 2009; Ojala 2012a).
Three collections
Working backwards, in this issue, we explore some of the possibilities and potentials, as well as
problems and perils that researchers have raised about this in Environmental Education Research.
While preceding this collection are two other distinct, but related collections of research articles
published over recent years, many of which illustrate some of the ‘edifices of education’ that
may need to burn to the ground before more sustainable ‘practice architectures’ can emerge
(Kemmis and Mutton 2012)?
In brief, the first of our collections was a Virtual Special Issue on climate change and educa-
tion in 2017, drawing on key and (then) forthcoming research articles addressing aspects of their
intersection in the journal, since 2010 (Box 1). The Virtual Special Issue was launched on
Education Day (16 November) at the UN climate change conference in Bonn (COP23, 6–17
November 2017), by Alan Reid (Editor) and Marcia McKenzie (Associate Editor) from the journal.
Met with healthy levels of interest in person and online in the studies and implications of the
work, our response at the Journal was to curate two follow-up collections in the journal, both
published in Volume 25. Some (marked with ) from the Virtual Special Issue, are included in
this issue, whereas others which were either in review or subsequently accepted, can be found
here too or in Volume 25, Issue 5.
Box 1. Table of contents for the Virtual Special Issue—Climate Change and Education, Environmental
Education Research
Balancing the tensions and meeting the conceptual challenges of education for sustainable development and climate
change—Blum et al. (2013)
Responses to climate change: exploring organisational learning across internationally networked organisations for devel-
opment—Boyd and Osbahr (2010)
A review of the foundational processes that influence beliefs in climate change: opportunities for environmental educa-
tion research—Brownlee, Powell, and Hallo (2013)
Development and validation of the ACSI: measuring students’ science attitudes, pro-environmental behaviour, climate
change attitudes and knowledge—Dijkstra and Goedhart (2012)
Harnessing homophily to improve climate change education—Monroe et al. (2015)
Understanding and communicating climate change in metaphors—Niebert and Gropengiesser (2013)
Beyond individual behaviour change: the role of power, knowledge and strategy in tackling climate change—Kenis and
Mathijs (2012)
Normalizing catastrophe: an educational response—Jickling (2013)
Development and validation of the anthropogenic climate change dissenter inventory—Bentley, Petcovic, and
Cassidy (2019)
Identifying effective climate change education strategies: a systematic review of the research—Monroe
et al. (2019)
Textbooks of doubt: using systemic functional analysis to explore the framing of climate change in middle-school science
textbooks—Roman and Busch (2016)
Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change—some lessons from recent litera-
ture—Wibeck (2014)
Geographical process or global injustice? Contrasting educational perspectives on climate change—Waldron
et al. (2019)
Hope and climate change: the importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people—
Ojala (2012b)
Significant life experiences, motivations and values of climate change educators—Howell and Allen (2019)
Conceptualizing climate change in the context of a climate system: implications for climate and environmental educa-
tion—Shepardson et al. (2012)
Together, the historic studies, those collated in Issue 5 and the current issue, help illustrate a
range of questions researchers and scholars have been pursuing over the last decade. Such ques-
tions were initially flagged by Reid at the launch of the Virtual Special Issue, and have been
redeveloped and republished here as Reid (2019b). Running the gamut of why climate change
education has emerged, where to look for critical analysis of practice and new directions in the
philosophy, policy, and practice of this and cognate areas, and what research and researchers
have to offer debates about capacity building, awareness, participation and action strategies, we
trust all three collections offer a timely and provocative call to reflection and action about cli-
mate change and education, and help us address the questions noted in Box 2. These might
include in discussions and responses to COP meetings, critique and planning at ACE Dialogues,
as well as in local and regional events to address climate change and education priorities1.
Box 2. Examples of key questions about climate change education (Source: Reid 2019b)
a. What is climate change education expected to accomplish?
b. Are current approaches to climate change education sufficient to the task?
774 A. REID
c. What can be said about climate change education based on research evidence?
d. What hasn’t yet been researched adequately, or enough, in relation to climate change education?
e. On what grounds should climate change education be assessed and evaluated?
In more detail, the articles in the Virtual Special Issue were selected to illustrate how
some of the design principles, actual forms and substance of climate change education pro-
grams have come into being, as well as vary tremendously. In the current issue, Monroe and
colleagues (2019) take stock of this plurality, using a literature review to distil whether some
CCE strategies are more effective than others. They argue those that increase ’program
success’, are:
1. focused on making climate change information personally relevant and meaningful

for learners
2. have activities or educational interventions designed to engage learners.
Their review also identifies four additional themes in teaching strategies (p. 801), ‘that may
help move learners beyond the basics of climate science:
1. Educators used deliberative discussion to help learners better understand their own and
others’ viewpoints and knowledge about climate change.
2. Learners were given the opportunity to interact with scientists and to experience the scien-
tific process for themselves.
3. Programs were specifically designed to uncover and address misconceptions about cli-
mate change.
4. Learners were engaged in designing and implementing school or community projects to
address some aspect of climate change’.
They conclude their review stating:

Very few articles in our collection, however, embraced the goal for climate change education articulated
by Kagawa and Selby (2010, 4): ‘the learning moment can be seized to think about what really and
profoundly matters, to collectively envision a better future, and then to become practical visionaries in
realizing that future.’ In addition, we identified very few educational programs that intentionally
approached climate change from both social and science disciplines (multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or
transdisciplinary).
The analysis offered by Monroe et al. (2019) is echoed in some of the latest round of
publications offered by environmental educators and researchers to practitioners, particu-
larly those trying to establish a quality evidence base for practice and guidance in this area.
As Henderson (2019) notes in a book review including in this issue on two examples of
recent texts (Communicating Climate Change: A Guide for Educators, by Armstrong, Krasny,
and Schuldt (2018), and Young’s (2018) Confronting Climate Crises through Education:
Reading Our Way Forward), educators and researchers have sought ‘to move climate change
education away from earlier and simplistic versions of information transmission and toward
a more socially complex form. They accomplish this by rooting climate change education
practices in findings from environmental psychology and communication that suggests that
how people understand climate change is related to their individual values and the framing
narratives of their broader social communities’ (p. 989). As Henderson concludes, we are
now witnessing the expansion of ‘the conception of climate change education away from
what’s broadly seen as a failed emphasis on the notion that individual action alone is suffi-
cient for dealing with climate change at scale’, coupled with an increasing use of ‘education
to stimulate a broader stirring of an ecological consciousness in learners [ … ] using that

newfound understanding to affect change beyond individual actions and instead toward
broader climate impacts at scale’ (p. 989).
Such points made by Monroe, Henderson and colleagues are typical of a deeper questioning
in this field of research and practice regarding whether any form of CCE can be uniformly
assumed to be a good thing, sparking further questions of what environmental educators have
to bring to the table and might well need to leave behind, in a range of formal and informal set-
tings, when responding to the climate crisis (see also Monroe, Oxarart, and Plate 2013, 2015;
Lambert and Bleicher 2014; Stylinski et al. 2017). This is because, as expressed in other contribu-
tions to the collections (e.g. Brownlee, Powell, and Hallo 2013; Kunkle and Monroe 2019; Howell
and Allen 2019), education and educational researchers must consider why different approaches
to CCE seem to take root, blossom and/or whither, and in this, maintain a focus on whether and
how they actually foster learning (see also McBean and Hengeveld 2000; Walsh and Cordero
2019; Lawson et al. 2019; Ignell, Davies, and Lundholm 2019; Topp, Thai, and Hryciw 2019;
Ouariachi et al. 2019). This may also be contrasted with those programs or initatives feeding,
generating or disrupting climate inaction, despair or amotivation (Pruneau, Khattabi, and Demers
2010; Dillon 2019), be that at the time of the ’educational event’, and/or within lifelong or life-
wide learning, such as when we consider research on the short and longer term effects of the
capacity or limitations to a program, activity, life experience or the action competence it prom-
ises (Busch, Henderson, and Stevenson 2019).
As noted in Box 3, for UNESCO (2017, 11), a starting point might be to view learning out-
comes for CCE as framed by the ‘cognitive, socio-emotional, and behavioral’. Nevertheless, these
terms should not be treated as a universal prescription: as Monroe et al. (2019) note, good edu-
cation practice often recognises the value of engaging in deliberative discussions, addressing
misconceptions, and implementing school or community projects, and of course, likely varies
depending on ‘audience segmentation’. Or as Brownlee, Powell, and Hallo (2013) note, we can’t
ignore the effects of psychological, human-evolutionary, and social–ecological processes. They
also highlight the significance of place as a connector for climate change learning (see also
Schweizer, Davis, and Thompson 2013), while Howell and Allen (2019) emphasise the significant
of place, relationships and significant life experiences within and beyond educational settings, in
the forming or reforming of climate change educators, especially in relation to their motivations
and valuing of social justice and/over the biosphere. (The argument might also be extended to
consider experience of and with disciplinary, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary approaches to
education, Ho and Seow 2017).
Box 3. Learning objectives for SDG 13 ‘Climate Action’ (Source: UNESCO 2017b, 36–37, Table 1.2.13, Box
1.2.13a. Box 1.2.13b)
Table 1.2.13 j Climate Action j Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
Cognitive learning objectives
1. The learner understands the greenhouse effect as a natural phenomenon caused by an insulating layer of
greenhouse gases.
2. The learner understands the current climate change as an anthropogenic phenomenon resulting from
increased greenhouse gas emissions.
3. The learner knows which human activities—on a global, national, local and individual level—contribute most
to climate change.
4. The learner knows about the main ecological, social, cultural and economic consequences of climate change
locally, nationally and globally and understands how these can themselves become catalysing, reinforcing fac-
tors for climate change.
5. The learner knows about prevention, mitigation and adaptation strategies at different levels (global to individ-
ual) and for different contexts and their connections with disaster response and disaster risk reduction.
776 A. REID
Socio-emotional learning objectives
1. The learner is able to explain ecosystem dynamics and the environmental, social, economic and ethical impact
of climate change.
2. The learner is able to encourage others to protect the climate.
3. The learner is able to collaborate with others and to develop commonly agreed-upon strategies to deal with
climate change.
4. The learner is able to understand their personal impact on the world’s climate, from a local to a global perspective.
5. The learner is able to recognize that the protection of the global climate is an essential task for everyone and
that we need to completely re-evaluate our worldview and everyday behaviours in light of this.
Behavioural learning objectives
1. The learner is able to evaluate whether their private and job activities are climate friendly and—where not—
to revise them.
2. The learner is able to act in favour of people threatened by climate change.
3. The learner is able to anticipate, estimate and assess the impact of personal, local and national decisions or
activities on other people and world regions.
4. The learner is able to promote climate-protecting public policies.
5. The learner is able to support climate-friendly economic activities.
Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives
1. Learning objectives for achieving the SDGs

Box 1.2.13a. Suggested topics for SDG 13 ‘Climate Action’
Greenhouse gases and their emission
Energy, agriculture and industry-related greenhouse gas emissions
Climate change-related hazards leading to disasters like drought, weather extremes, etc. and their unequal social
and economic impact within households, communities and countries and between countries
Sea-level rise and its consequences for countries (e.g. small island states)
Migration and flight related to climate change
Prevention, mitigation and adaptation strategies and their connections with disaster response and disaster risk reduction
Local, national and global institutions addressing issues of climate change
Local, national and global policy strategies to protect the climate
Future scenarios (including alternative explanations for the global temperature rise)
Effects of and impacts on big eco-systems like forests, oceans, glaciers and biodiversity
Ethics and climate change
Box 1.2.13b. Examples of learning approaches and methods for SDG 13 ‘Climate Action’
Perform a role-play to estimate and feel the impact of climate change related phenomena from different perspectives
Analyse different climate change scenarios with regard to their assumptions, consequences and their preceding
development paths
Develop and run an action project or campaign related to climate protection
Develop a web page or blog for group contributions related to climate change issues
Develop climate friendly biographies
Undertake a case study about how climate change could increase the risk of disasters in a local community
Develop an enquiry-based project investigating the statement ‘Those who caused the most damage to the atmos-
phere should pay for it’
What next for climate change education and research, when and in what ways?
Returning to some of our opening themes, reflecting on these studies should open up a host of
questions about what educators have learnt and might need to (un)learn as a profession, as well
as what needs investing in, and divesting.
Some of the conversations with work published here and in other scholarship might be with
those engaged in researching ‘edutainment’, social movements, social marketing, and other
pseudo- or para-educational spheres of action. For Cantell et al. (2019), key questions that need
to be addressed concern the adequacies of models, structures, programs and communications
for capacity building on CCE (see again, Figure 1). Earlier, Blum et al. (2013) identified that educa-
tion policy and practice for CCE at state, national, regional and international levels works better
together than in silos or when one level pulls against the other, and that too may require differ-
ent senses of scope and approaches to modelling and building CCE, testing it, enactions, evalua-
tions—and research. On reviewing and appraising current provision (e.g. Chang and Pascua
2017; McKenzie 2019), in asking whether CCE activities foster learning and assessing efforts to
embed that, we might also consider do/must they also displace teachers’ own prior or ongoing
curriculum development efforts attuned as these are, perhaps, to local conditions and needs? In
other words, will transforming local education into a CCE aligned with, say, multinational or
international concerns, be what ‘best practice’ in education (only?) means, particularly if it is
largely with an eye to what is sanctioned as such by some external (or distant) body, e.g. the
UN’s CC:Learn (https://www.uncclearn.org/), or the Alliance for Climate Education (https://ace-
space.org/)?
Ways to address such conundrums have included attempts to draw on and apply Biesta’s (2013)
account of the three functions of education and the domains of educational purpose, to reflect on
these and related challenges for education (Figure 2) (see Nguyen 2019; Singer-Brodowski et al.
2019). (In fact, we drew on this too, when launching the Virtual Special Issue at COP23.)
To elaborate briefly, for Biesta (2013), the content, weighting and intersections matter for the
three domains:
1. The qualification domain concerns ‘the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and dispositions.’
In the context of CCE, qualification might involve providing participants with the knowledge,
skills, and dispositions that allow them to ‘do something’—e.g., knowing why climate change is
something important to address in their lives, and those of others.
2. The socialization domain is about ‘the ways in which, through education, we become part
of existing traditions and ways of doing and being.’
Figure 2. Three functions of education, and their intersections (Source: Biesta, 2013).
778 A. REID
In the context of CCE, socialization, whether explicitly or implicitly, might be concerned with
integrating individuals into existing social, cultural and political orders through the transmission
of norms and values—e.g., learning to work with others to advance solutions to climate change
problems in the local to wider communities they are a member of.
3. The subjectification domain refers to the ‘subjectivity’ or ‘subject-ness’ of those we edu-
cate.
In the context of CCE, subjectification might focus on positioning students as ‘subjects of initia-
tive and responsibility rather than as objects of the actions of others’—e.g., appreciating how
climate change challenges affect the horizons for justice in my/your life, and the choices I/you
can make to take action, mindful of the dynamics and context of my and others’ lives too.
Biesta (2013) maintains that all three domains are important for education, but he is par-
ticularly concerned with how educators, educationalists and education policy makers treat the
subjectification function. In fact, he defines any ‘education worthy of the name’ as ‘education
that is not only interested in qualification and socialization but also in subjectification’ (p.
139). This is because the process of subjectification is pregnant with the promise of bringing
something radically new into a broken world. The new is something that cannot be foreseen
or legislated; by its very nature it will require risk-taking and draw on the weakness inherent
in education to afford anything radical. Thus for CCE, it might well mean: not just knowing
the facts about climate change or how people feel in the face of it (one part of the qualification
function), but rather, ensuring climate change education addresses people’s rights to be free of
oppressions created by climate injustices, including being able to live lives they have good rea-
son to imagine and choose, i.e. that will foster rather than inhibit sustainability, equity, and
authenticity in their lives as well as those in their communities. This is because in addressing
the relationship among the three domains, Biesta (2013) suggests, ‘Even if we are “just” try-
ing to give our students some knowledge, we are also impacting on them as persons—to
have knowledge will, after all, potentially empower them—and, in doing so, we are also rep-
resenting particular traditions, for example by communicating that this particular knowledge
is more useful or valuable or truer than other knowledge’ (p. 78).
Thus one way of interpreting the intersections in Figure 2 for CCE, is to note that more envir-
onmental knowledge on its own, does not lead to changes in attitudes or behavior (Dijkstra and
Goedhart 2012), while as Wibeck (2014) shows, understanding for qualification or socialisation is
not necessarily the same as its engagement and possible transformation through subjectification.
(This has echoes in the findings of Kenis and Mathijs (2012), in evidence of ‘strategy skepticism’
among their study participants: as a consequence of a lack of confidence in individualistic
actions, learners may omit strategic reflection on broader spheres and possibilities of collective
and emergent forms of agency or actions.)
So to return to Box 3, it isn’t controversial for advocates or educators to ask that we ‘unite
behind the science,’ as Greta Thunberg argued in her recent speech to the National Assembly
in Paris (23 July 2019). But considering the functions of education, the focus might shift to
which senses and practices of science, the social sciences, humanities and/or arts? And which
should count in CEE objectives, topics, approaches and methods (Reid 2019b)? For instance, in
terms of learning objectives and topics, social and educational research has already highlighted
the critical role of learning about social norms and framings in directing curriculum and rela-
tionships to the more-than-human world (e.g. Norgaard 2006; Doherty and Clayton 2011; Ojala
2012b, Jickling 2013; Marshall 2014). In light of this, on the one hand, it shouldn’t be surprising
to find ‘collective avoiding’ and ‘emotion management’ associated with fears of ontological
insecurity, experiences of trauma, helplessness and guilt, or in threats to individual and collect-
ive senses of identity. On the other though, what was, is and could become norms and frames
are also implicated and ripe for (re)consideration when increasing ecological literacy and sense
of place, or in the widening of ethical responsibility to challenge consumerism, or in promoting

emotional resilience and empowerment at individual, community and systems levels (Hung 2017).
Because as Ojala (2012b, 625) notes, for the joint livelihood of people and planet, ‘hope is not only
a pleasant feeling but could also work as a motivational force, if one controls for denial’?
Equally, for Maslin (2013, 138 and 140), what’s needed in collective approaches to education
and capacity building through and beyond our cultural and socio-political institutions is clear:
We must not pin all our hopes on global politics, clean energy technology, and geoengineering—we must
prepare for the worst [ … ] and adapt. If implemented now, much of the cost and damage that could be caused
by changing climate can be mitigated. However, this requires nations and regions to plan for the next 50 years,
something that most societies are unable to do due to the very short-term perspective of political institutions.
This means our climate issues are challenging the vary way we organize our society. Not only do they challenge
the concept of the nation-state versus global responsibility, but also the short-term vision of our political leaders.
To answer the question of what we can do about climate change—we must change some of the basic rules of
our society to allow us to adopt a much more global and long-term sustainable approach.
We return to these points below, but meanwhile, with Morton (2013), it might even become more
a matter of aligning educational leadership with ontology, and engagement with epistemology, to
ensure good edugovernance strategies rather than shaming tactics, when he states (p.183):
Reasoning as the search for proof only delays, and its net effect is denial. … the trouble with the …
reason-only approach … is that human beings are currently in the denial phase of grief regarding their
role in the Anthropocene. It’s too much to take in at once. Not only are we waking up inside a gigantic
object, like finding ourselves in the womb again, but a toxic womb—but we are responsible for it. And we
know that we are really responsible simply because we understand what global warming is. We don’t really
need reasons—reasons inhibit our responsible action, or seriously delay it.
Indeed, Morton (2013) has also noted: ‘I am one of the entities caught in the hyperobject I
here call global warming’, (p.3), that ‘Hyperobjects provoke irreductionist thinking’, (p.19) and
the situation we find ourselves is akin to ‘the feeling that we humans are playing catch-up with
reality’ (p.21) (see also Saari and Mullen 2018, on implications for research in this field).
Climate change and an ethics of education 1 an education in ethics?

Chang’s (2015, 183) relatively recent editorial on climate change education and research though,
eschews any conceptual or theoretical privileges, concluding with the observation that how
one approaches:
teaching climate change would need to balance between developing learners who can critically engage
new information about the phenomena as well as being empathic individuals who are committed to take
action to make their living environment a better one.
Yet for Kagawa and Selby (2010, 241) this position is unlikely to do sufficient justice to what
is at stake: ‘In the face of runaway climate change nothing short of a lived paradigm shift is
needed’. Their edited collection is a watermark in thinking about CCE, arguing (pp. 241–243)
among other things that:
Education can only help allay a threatening condition by addressing root causes
Climate change education needs to happen within interdisciplinary and multidisciplin-
ary frames
There can be no ethical and adequately responsive climate change education without global
climate justice education
The educational response to climate change needs to be both local and global
Wherever it takes place, climate change education needs to be a social and holistic learn-
ing process
There is the need for educators to urgently and radically rethink through the implications of
the invisibility and uncertainty of climate change.
780 A. REID
In one of the contributions to that collection, Hoffmann (2007, 7) is cited to warn:

Global warming needs a response that isn’t only at the level of managing an environmental problem to
ensure the planet is just about liveable on in the years to come—it needs one that addresses the essential
un-freedom, suffering and misery within the present global system.
[used as an epigraph to Lotz-Sisitka, 2010, 71]
Education then, will have a clear role in ‘net zero’ intiatives (as flagged by the SDGs and
UNFCCC), but we cannot avoid the ethical and questions about the ethics of education (again,
see Jickling 2013). For Simovska and Prøsch (2016), the urgency of addressing climate change
though, shouldn’t be treated as a trump card to corral education into a particular form or direc-
tion. Rather, what is at stake when treating education as a ‘silver bullet’ or ‘panacea’ for the cli-
mate crisis is the further risk of it becoming ‘un-educational’ too (p. 644), as can be found in
other rapid responses to ‘crisis’ that then seem to result in an often singular or narrow educa-
tional response, e.g. a focus on behaviour change:
It is not the task of schools to solve societal problems. However, within the logic of critical perspectives on
education, educational work with key societal issues (Klafki, 2005), including health and sustainability
(Schnack, 2000, 2008), does belong within the domains of schooling. Moreover, if the purpose of education is
more than formal qualification and socialization (Biesta, 2006, 2013) and also includes ‘rupture in the order of
things’ (Ranciere cited in Biesta, 2013, 84) to allow space for subjectification, real-world oriented aims and
participatory pedagogies, i.e., those related to … sustainability education … are worth considering.
It is our view that the articles in this journal on the issue of CCE are some of those worth consider-
ing in 2019, as they offer a diversity of scholarly thinking and research about climate change and edu-
cation that supports both a pluralistic and experimental approach. Taken together, they illustrate a
range of possible foci and approaches to education and education research too (Busch, Henderson,
and Stevenson 2019), from what may be regarded as the ’traditional’ (e.g. measurements and surveys
of conceptions and practices, construct analysis, policy evaluation and critique, ethnographies and
interviews, applications of theory, model development, action research) to the ’avant garde’ (e.g.
post-human inquiries and others with other-than-anthropocentric ends-in-view). While in spiralling
across a variety of scales of time and space, power and personhood, and methods and methodolo-
gies, they variously touch on, nudge and rework aspects of the following:
educator and learner questions, concepts, beliefs, values, adaptive capacities, networks,
actions, interactions and intra-actions, and contexts for climate change education (e.g. Boyd
and Osbahr 2010; Shepardson et al. 2012; Brownlee, Powell, and Hallo 2013; Shealy et al.
2019; Devine-Wright, Devine-Wright, and Fleming 2004; Sezen-Barrie, Miller-Rushing, and
Hufnagel 2019a; cf. Dove 1996; Leiserowitz 2006; Whitmarsh 2009; Porter, Weaver, and Raptis
€
2012; Blum et al. 2013; Ohman €
and Ohman 2013; Plutzer et al. 2016; Kolleck et al. 2017;
Verlie and CRR 15 2018),
the influence of everyday life, cultural to transcultural and subcultural norms, class, gender,
age, personal beliefs, emotions, imagery and metaphors, information seeking and representa-
tions, consensus claims, risk perception, coping strategies, friends, parents and family in
building or dissipating concern (Stern€ang and Lundholm 2012; Boyd and Osbahr 2010; Kenis
and Mathijs 2012; Niebert and Gropengiesser 2013; Stevenson, Peterson, and Bondell 2019;
cf. Bord, O’Connor, and Fisher 2000; Leiserowitz 2004; 2006; Moser 2007; Hulme 2009;
Leiserowitz, Maibach, and Roser-Renouf 2009; Myers et al. 2012; Adger et al. 2013; Cook
et al. 2013; Otieno et al. 2014; Byrne et al. 2014; Meeusen 2014; Capstick et al. 2015;
Theobald et al. 2015; Pearse 2017; Kunkle and Monroe 2019),
the role of evidence, argumentation, reasonableness, ideologies such as climate change
denial, mental models and biases, cognitive challenges in comprehending visual representa-
tions and metadata projections, and expertise in designing and evaluating educational
activities and communications about climate change (Shepardson et al. 2012; Bentley,
Petcovic, and Cassidy 2019; Sezen-Barrie, Shea, and Borman 2019b; Waldron et al. 2019;
Hestness, McGinnis, and Breslyn 2019; cf. CRED 2009; Taber and Taylor 2009; Dunlap and
McCright 2011; Mo €ser and Dilling 2011; Whitmarsh 2011; Kahan 2013; Niebert and
Gropengiesser 2013; Moser 2016),
strategies to identify ’leadership’ in thought, education and politics, polarizations, discon-
nects, skepticism and obstacles (Boon 2010; Stevenson et al. 2014; Ojala 2015; cf. Forter
2001; Nisbet and Kotcher 2009; Gonzalez-Gaudiano and Meira-Cartea 2010; Hoffman 2011;
Sterman 2011; Whitmarsh 2011; Kahan et al. 2012),
niche and common constructs and foci, such as climate literacy, climate justice, carbon
footprints, human and more-than-human rights, communication frames, professional prep-
aration and development, instructional designs and experiments, textbooks and materials,
and adaptive designs for diverse participants (Roman and Busch 2016; Siegner and Stapert
2019; Stapleton 2019; cf. Pruneau et al. 2003; McCaffrey and Buhr 2008; Whitmarsh 2008;
Maibach et al. 2010; Akerlof, Bruff, and Witte 2011; Corner and Randall 2011; Hart 2011;
Skamp, Boyes, and Stanisstreet 2013; Hestness et al. 2014; Busch and Roman 2017; Drewes,
Henderson, and Mouza 2018; Meehan, Levy, and Collet-Gildard 2018),
education policy development, and barriers and critique, when faced with climate change as
a ‘wicked problem’, ‘super wicked problem’, or ‘hyperobject’ (McKenzie 2019, Saari and
Mullen 2018; cf. Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole, and Whitmarsh 2007; Hamilton 2011; Morton
2013; Laessøe and Mochizuki 2015; Moyson, Scholten, and Weible 2017; UNFCCC 2018).
To return to a point raised by Jickling (2013, 174), stepping back from the manifold complex-
ity, options and detail will require addressing not just the ‘science and technology’ but also the
‘art and humanity’ of recent inquiries and activities in this space, as CCE speaks to a complicated
phenomenon (even a ‘hyperobject’, in Morton’s terms):
In a certain way, environmental researchers and/or educators are also involved in [these] ideological
struggle[s], whether they want it or not. Their position is not easy. On the one hand, they cannot claim to
make ‘objective’ judgments. On the other hand, they cannot neglect this terrain either, as they then risk
allowing for it to be occupied by movements, governments or companies that also have other interests
than the ‘common good’. Maybe the task of researchers and/or educators can be to try to make the range
of possible analyses, visions and strategic options visible and to make their assumptions, effects and
implications explicit.
Resonating with themes raised by Biesta, Jickling (2013) goes on to state (ibid.):
Good education that can enable change, and that can transcend the status quo, requires non-conformism
and risk. … ‘We should not regret our inability to perform a feat which no one has any idea how to
perform. Having performed one, it is there as an example’ (Richard Rorty, cited in Saul 2001, 77). And, with
such examples, we may enable learners to tackle the ‘impossible’.
Some studies that represent the ‘low hanging fruit’ of CCE inquiry, are argubly small-scale
studies of educator and learner concepts and perceptions, use simplistic Knowledge-Attitude-
Behaviour models, or don’t check embedded assumptions that might need to be set to one side
(see Reid 2019a). On the latter, for example, guidelines that draw on NOAA’s version of climate
literacy will likely and largely remain those of a subset of science literacy, and are both framed
and languaged as such (see also Box 3); the obvious question to ask is can the humanities, arts and
social sciences help reimagine a ’climate literacy’ for these times (Reid 2019b, Siegner and Stapert
2019), or even rework this with notions drawn from contemporary concepts of emotional literacy,
maturation and intelligence in ‘self formation’ (e.g. Powell et al. 2019, Verlie 2019)?
Equally, Wibeck (2014, 387) recommends that ‘scholars of environmental education focus crit-
ical attention on how practice addresses senses and spheres of agency; sociocultural factors; and
the complexities of developing scientific literacy given the interpretative frames and prior
782 A. REID
understandings that are brought to bear by the public in non-formal education settings’. So to
achieve this, we might also need to move away from a single to multiple sense of literacy, from
concerns with micro to macro scales, and from relying on short to longer term studies. While as
these collections show, there are plenty of single program evaluations to wider phenomeno-
logical and policy-level critiques (including their intersections and interactions) available, and
they do illuminate the multipliers and diminishers for the (dis)connections between education,
economic and environmental policies and practices (Busch, Henderson, and Stevenson 2019).
As a further case in point, the journal has yet to receive a research study on the economics of
climate change education, or on the various conditions of ‘security’ for it to take place, or those
that track its impacts on the very conditions often treated as the horizon for evaluation, i.e. cli-
mate change and education (see Lotz-Sisitka 2010). In this, it might not simply be a question of
determining how much is invested in CCE in comparative terms (as with the indicators for the
IPCC, UNFCCC or SDGs), but could be in relation to budgets and budgeting as a whole, in educa-
tion and environment, or for sustainability? Take, for example, the global valuation of ecosystem
services. If these are valued at approx. $145 trillion per year for 2011 (using 2007 $US), but are
declining in value by 2-14% (Costanza et al. 2014), this trend will multiple and magnify experien-
ces of precarity, especially in the context of a climate crisis. Yet noting that these services
‘contribute more than twice as much to human well-being as global GDP’, then strategic action
in conservation, social justice and education could work hand-in-hand to mitigate such trends?
This might be through concerted action in relation to ACE, SDG4.7 and climate change educa-
tion, but also in treating education and training as central to any ‘Green New Deal’, and so forth.
To conclude, as Kenis and Mathijs (2012, 58) put it:
closing the ‘gap’ between knowledge and action does not in the first place—at least not in the case of
environmentally aware citizens—require a further raising of people’s knowledge of the environmental
problem as such. What seems to be needed, is the knowledge of root causes, visions on alternatives and
especially strategies to reach these.
While Zylinska (2014, 9) in her ‘Minimal Ethics for the Anthropocene’, is perhaps less circumspect:
Life typically becomes an object of reflection when it is seen to be under threat. In particular, we humans
have a tendency to engage in thinking about life (instead of just continuing to live it) when we are made
to confront the prospect of death: be it the death of individuals due to illness, accident or old age; the
death of whole ethnic or national groups in wars and other forms of armed conflict; but also of whole
populations, be it human or nonhuman ones.
Buildings burn, as do forests. How one responds to these events is a measure of what educa-
tion we have had, what we’ve been schooled in, and what we want to contribute to in this
world. Our last words go to environmental educators and researchers. Laessøe et al. (2009) note
that some CCE scholars and researchers see themselves (or like to be regarded as) innovators
and critics, while for others, it is largely as experts, documenters and/or agents. For the first, as we
trust we show in these collections, their quest is unlikely to be that of deferring judgement or
action until comprehensiveness in CCE research is secured, but using current evidence well to
find and pursue renewed purposes for education in and for these times.
The role of the expert too, can be reimagined, particularly if it is at risk of folding back into
being too narrow, arm-chairish or esoteric. Fires on the margins can soon spark major events, as
with the SDGs and ESDGs, but also quite literally in the case of Notre Dame and this summer’s
fires in the forests of South America. For researchers-as-documenters, dwelling on the state of
the art and new possibilities could serve to generate ’subjectifications’ in ways that could culmin-
ate in ‘new wine’ that can’t be contained by ‘old skins’, particularly if ‘pyro-pedagogies’ and
‘practice architectures’ are brought into consideration too? Finally, we have researchers-as-agents
in interactive knowledge development with other stakeholders. On this, Wallace-Wells argues
that in confronting the climate crisis ‘we need to fight to make the world the one we want to
live in rather than giving up hope before the fight is really over’ (Tucker 2019). With this in
mind, because education is always-already about learning organisations, learning systems, learn-
ing from experience and inquiry, and new horizons for learning and teaching, then perhaps it is
to Wallace-Wells’ horizon, relying as it does on translational, mediational and relational values in
practice, that will prove most crucial in mobilizing and improving research and practice in CCE?
Note
1. For example, “Action on Climate Change Through Education,” EECOM 2019, advertised as Canada’s ‘first
national environmental education conference with a focus on climate change education’ (https://eecom.org/
eecom-2019/).
Acknowledgements
Ideas and themes for the three collections have emerged from various conversations and presentations over the
past decade, starting with a series of workshops reflecting on education’s role in responding to the ‘menace of glo-
bal warming’ (Monbiot 2006). Initial thematics were presented in ‘Nobody ever rioted for austerity: education and
the climate change debate’ during the author’s sabbatical from University of Bath, UK, hosted by Monash
University, Australia (2009). They were further crystallised in the AHRC’s ‘Site, Performance and Environmental
Change symposium’ (http://performancefootprint.co.uk/documents/glascove/alan-reid/), and the first climate
change education symposium at the American Educational Research Association (2015) in Chicago, on ‘The Failure
to Act: Climate Change Injustice, Denial, and Education’ (http://tinyurl.com/k8obvg8). The broadening of the work
then took shape during a second sabbatical, hosted at Nicole Ardoin’s Social Ecology Lab, Stanford University (April
2017), and ongoing work with her on NAAEE’s eePRO research and evaluation and climate change education
groups, and throughout the co-convening of the research strand of the World Environmental Education Congress,
Vancouver (September 2017) and research symposium of the North American Association for Environmental
Education Conference, in Washington DC (October 2017). This work, and especially comments from members of the
Global Environmental Education Partnership, all contributed to the launch of, and follow-up to, the Virtual Special Issue
at COP23 Bonn (November 2017), with additional inputs from Marcia McKenzie. Special thanks for sparks and steers
along the way go to Essi Aarnio-Linnanvuori, Soraya Bozetto, KC Busch, Chew-Hung Chang, Justin Dillon, Jo Ferreira,
Rachel Forgasz, Dee Heddon, Julia Heiss, Joe Henderson, Martha Monroe, Mahesh Pradhan, Kartikeya Sarabhai, Bill Scott,
Venka Simovska, Kathryn Stevenson, Adriana Valenzuela Jimenez, Blanche Verlie, and Hilary Whitehouse.
Notes on contributor
Alan Reid edits the international research journal, Environmental Education Research, and publishes regularly on
environmental and sustainability education (ESE) and their research. Alan's interests in research and service focus
on growing traditions, capacities and the impact of ESE research. A key vehicle for this is his work with the Global
Environmental Education Partnership, and via NAAEE's eePRO Research and Evaluation group. Find out more via
social media, pages or tags for eerjournal, and his ORCID entry.
ORCID
Alan Reid http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2954-6424
References
Adger, W. N., J. Barnett, K. Brown, N. Marshall, and K. O’Brien. 2013. “Cultural Dimensions of Climate Change
Impacts and Adaptation.” Nature Climate Change 3(2): 112–117. doi:10.1038/nclimate1666.
Akerlof, K., G. Bruff, and J. Witte. 2011. “Audience Segmentation as a Tool for Communicating Climate Change.”
Park Science 28(1): 56–64.
Anderson, A. 2010. Combating Climate Change Through Quality Education. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution.
Anderson, A. 2012. “Climate Change Education for Mitigation and Adaptation.”Journal of Education for Sustainable
Development 6(2): 191–206. doi:10.1177/0973408212475199.
Armstrong, A. K., M. E. Krasny, and J. P. Schuldt. 2018. Communicating Climate Change: A Guide for Educators. Ithaca,
NY: Comstock Publishing Associates.
784 A. REID
Bangay, C., and N. Blum. 2010. “Education Responses to Climate Change and Quality: Two Parts of the Same
Agenda?” International Journal of Educational Development 30(4): 359–450. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2009.11.011.
Benavot, A., M. McKenzie, C. Chabbott, A. Smart, M. Sinclair, J. Bernard, J. H. Williams and N. Chopin. 2019.
The Transitions Project: Education for sustainable development and global citizenship, From pre-primary to second-
ary education. Technical Report (August). Paris: UNESCO.
Bentley, A. P. K., H. L. Petcovic, and D. P. Cassidy. 2019. “Development and Validation of the Anthropogenic Climate
Change Dissenter Inventory.” Environmental Education Research 25(6): 867–882. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.
1250150.
Berger, P., N. Gerum, and M. Moon. 2015. “Roll up Your Sleeves and Get at It!” Climate Change Education in
Teacher Education.” Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 20: 154–173.
Berkhout, F., J. Hertin, and D. M. Gann. 2006. “Learning to Adapt: Organisational Adaptation to Climate Change
Impacts.” Climatic Change 78(1): 135–156. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9089-3.
Bieler, A., R. Haluza-Delay, A. Dale, and M. McKenzie. 2018. “A National Overview of Climate Change Education
Policy: Policy Coherence between Subnational Climate and Education Policies in Canada (K-12).” Journal of
Education for Sustainable Development 11(2): 63–85. doi:10.1177/0973408218754625.
Biesta, G. 2006. Beyond Learning: Democratic Education for a Human Future. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Biesta, G. 2013. The Beautiful Risk of Education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
Blum, N., J. Nazir, S. Breiting, K. Chuan Goh, and E. Pedretti. 2013. “Balancing the Tensions and Meeting the
Conceptual Challenges of Education for Sustainable Development and Climate Change.” Environmental Education
Research 19(2): 206–217. doi:10.1080/13504622.2013.780588.
Boon, H. J. 2010. “Climate Change? Who Knows? A Comparison of Secondary Students and Pre-Service Teachers.”
Australian Journal of Teacher Education 35(1): 104–120. doi:10.14221/ajte.2010v35n1.9.
Bord, R. J., R. E. O’Connor, and A. Fisher. 2000. “In What Sense Does the Public Need to Understand Global Climate
Change?” Public Understanding of Science 9(3): 205–218. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/301.
Boyd, E., and H. Osbahr. 2010. “Responses to Climate Change: Exploring Organisational Learning across
Internationally Networked Organisations for Development.” Environmental Education Research 16(5–6): 629–643.
doi:10.1080/13504622.2010.505444.
Branch, G. 2018. Climate Education Funding in Washington. Oakland, CA: National Center for Science Education.
https://ncse.com/news/2018/03/climate-education-funding-washington-0018732.
Brownlee, M. T. J., R. B. Powell, and J. C. Hallo. 2013. “A Review of the Foundational Processes That Influence Beliefs
in Climate Change: Opportunities for Environmental Education Research.” Environmental Education Research
19(1): 1–20. doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.683389.
Busch, K. C., and D. Roman. 2017. “Fundamental Climate Literacy and the Promise of the Next Generation Science
Standards.” Teaching and Learning About Climate Change: A Framework for Educators, edited by D. P.
Shepardson, A. Roychoudhury, and A. S. Hirsch, 120–133. London: Routledge.
Busch, K. C., J. A. Henderson, and K. T. Stevenson. 2019. “Broadening Epistemologies and Methodologies in Climate
Change Education Research.” Environmental Education Research 25(6): 955–971. doi:10.1080/13504622.2018.
1514588.
Byrne, J., M. Ideland, C. Malmberg, and M. Grace. 2014. “Climate Change and Everyday Life: Repertoires Children
Use to Negotiate a Socio-Scientific Issue.” International Journal of Science Education 36(9): 1491–1509. doi:10.
1080/09500693.2014.891159.
Cantell, H., S. Tolppanen, E. Aarnio-Linnanvuori, and A. Lehtonen. 2019. “Bicycle Model on Climate Change
Education: Presenting and Evaluating a Model.” Environmental Education Research 25(5): 717–731. doi:10.1080/
13504622.2019.1570487.
Capstick, S., L. Whitmarsh, W. Poortinga, N. Pidgeon, and P. Upham. 2015. “International Trends in Public
Perceptions of Climate Change over the past Quarter Century.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change
6(1): 35–61. doi:10.1002/wcc.321.
Center for Research on Environmental Decisions (CRED). 2009. The Psychology of Climate Change Communication: A
Guide for Scientists, Journalists, Educators, Political Aides, and the Interested Public. New York: Columbia University.
https://guide.cred.columbia.edu.
Cerullo, M. 2019. “French Billionaires Slow-Walk Donations to Rebuild Notre Dame.” CBS News, 5 July. https://www.
cbsnews.com/news/notre-dame-fire-update-big-donors-delay-fulfilling-pledges-to-rebuild-notre-dame/.
Chang, C. 2014. Climate Change Education: Knowing, Doing and Being. New York: Routledge.
Chang, C. H. 2015. “Teaching Climate Change – A Fad or a Necessity?” International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education 24(3): 181–183. doi:10.1080/10382046.2015.1043763.
Chang, C., and L. Pascua. 2017. “The State of Climate Change Education – Reflections from a Selection of Studies
around the World.” International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 26(3): 177–179. doi:10.
1080/10382046.2017.1331569.
Costanza, R., R. de Groot, P. Sutton, S. van der Ploeg, S. J. Anderson, I. Kubiszewski, S. Farber, and R. K. Turner.
2014. “Changes in the Global Value of Ecosystem Services.” Global Environmental Change 26: 152–158. doi:10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.002.
Cook, J., D. Nuccitelli, S. A. Green, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P. Jacobs, and A. Skuce. 2013.
“Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature.” Environmental
Research Letters 8(2): 024024–024027. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
Corner, A., and A. Randall. 2011. “Selling Climate Change? the Limitations of Social Marketing as a Strategy for
Climate Change Public Engagement.” Global Environmental Change 21(3): 1005–1014. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2011.05.002.
Devine-Wright, P., H. Devine-Wright, and P. Fleming. 2004. “Situational Influences upon Children’s Beliefs about
Global Warming and Energy.” Environmental Education Research 10(4): 493–506. doi:10.1080/
1350462042000291029.
Dijkstra, E.M., and M.J. Goedhart. 2012. “Development and Validation of the ACSI: Measuring Students’ Science
Attitudes, Pro-Environmental Behaviour, Climate Change Attitudes and Knowledge.” Environmental Education
Research 18(6): 733–749. doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.662213.
Dillon, J. 2019. “University Declarations of Environment and Climate Change Emergencies.” Environmental Education
Research 25(5): 613–614. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1646022.
Doherty, T. J., and S. Clayton. 2011. “The Psychological Impacts of Global Climate Change.” American Psychologist
66(4): 265–276. doi:10.1037/a0023141.
Dove, J. 1996. “Student-Teacher Understanding of the Greenhouse Effect, Ozone Layer Depletion and Acid Rain.”
Environmental Education Research 2(1): 89–100. doi:10.1080/1350462960020108.
Drewes, A., J. Henderson, and C. Mouza. 2018. “Professional Development Design Considerations in Climate Change
Education: Teacher Enactment and Student Learning.” International Journal of Science Education 40(1): 67–89.
doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1397798.
Dunlap, R., and A. McCright. 2011. “Organized Climate Change Denial.” In The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change
and Society, edited by J. Dryzek, R. Norgaard, and D. Schlosberg, 145–160. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fortner, R. W. 2001. “Climate Change in School: Where Does It Fit and How Ready Are We?” Canadian Journal of
Environmental Education 6(1): 18–31.
Fortner, R. W., J. Y. Lee, J. R. Corney, S. Romanello, J. Bonnell, B. Luthy, C. Figuerido, and N. Ntsiko. 2000. “Public
Understanding of Climate Change: Certainty and Willingness to Act.” Environmental Education Research 6(2):
127–141. doi:10.1080/713664673.
Foster, J. 2008. The Sustainability Mirage: Illusion and Reality in the Coming War on Climate Change. London:
Earthscan.
Foster, J. 2015. After Sustainability: Denial, Hope, Retrieval. Abingdon: Routledge.
Francis, P. 2015. Laudato Si: On Care for Our Common Home. Papal Encyclical Letter.
Gleason, T. 2019. “Towards a Terrestrial Education: A Commentary on Bruno Latour’s down to Earth.”Environmental
Education Research 25(6): 977–986. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1649369.
Gonzalez-Gaudiano, E., and P. Meira-Cartea. 2010. “Climate Change Education and Communication: A Critical
Perspective on Obstacles and Resistances.” In Education and Climate Change: Living and Learning in Interesting
Times, edited by D. Selby and F. Kagawa, 13–34. Oxon: Routledge.
Hamilton, L. C. 2011. “Education, Politics and Opinions about Climate Change Evidence for Interaction Effects.”
Climatic Change 104(2): 231–242. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9957-8.
Hart, P.S. 2011. “One or Many? the Influence of Episodic and Thematic Climate Change Frames on Policy
Preferences and Individual Behaviour Change.” Science Communication 33(1): 28–51. doi:10.1177/
1075547010366400.
Harvey, F., and J. Ambrose. 2019. "Pope Francis declares ’climate emergency’ and urges action." The Guardian
Friday 14 June. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/14/pope-francis-declares-climate-emer-
gency-and-urges-action.
Hayden, M., R. Houwer, M. Frankfort, J. Rueter, T. Black, and P. Morteld. 2011. “Pedagogies of Empowerment in the
Face of Climate Change Uncertainty.” Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education 3(1): 118–130.
Henderson, J. 2019. “Learning to Teach Climate Change as If Power Matters.” Environmental Education Research
25(6): 987–990.
Hestness, E., J. R. McGinnis, and W. Breslyn. 2019. “Examining the Relationship between Middle School Students’
Sociocultural Participation and Their Ideas about Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 25(6):
912–924. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1266303.
Hestness, E., R. C. McDonald, W. Breslyn, J. R. McGinnis, and C. Mouza. 2014. “Science Teacher Professional
Development in Climate Change Education Informed by the Next Generation Science Standards.” Journal of
Geoscience Education 62(3): 319–329. doi:10.5408/13-049.1.
Hicks, D., and A. Bord. 2001. “Learning about Global Issues: Why Most Educators Only Make Things Worse.”
Ho, L.C., and T. Seow. 2017. “Disciplinary Boundaries and Climate Change Education: Teachers’ Conceptions of
Climate Change Education in the Philippines and Singapore.” International Research in Geographical and
Environmental Education 26(3): 240–252. doi:10.1080/10382046.2017.1330038.
786 A. REID
Hoffman, A. J. 2011. “Talking past Each Other? Cultural Framing of Skeptical and Convinced Logics in the Climate
Change Debate.” Organization and Environment 24(1): 3–33. doi:10.1177/1086026611404336.
Hoffmann, M. 2007. “The Day after Tomorrow: Making Progress on Climate Change.” Radical Philosophy 143: 2–7.
https://www.radicalphilosophyarchive.com/wp-content/files_mf/rp143_commentary1_dayaftertomorrow_hoffman.
pdf
Howell, R. A., and S. Allen. 2019. “Significant Life Experiences, Motivations and Values of Climate Change
Educators.”Environmental Education Research 25(6): 813–831. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1158242.
Huckle, J., and A. E. J. Wals. 2015. “The UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development: Business as Usual in
the End.”Environmental Education Research 21(3): 491–505. doi:10.1080/13504622.2015.1011084.
Hulme, M. 2009. Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hung, R. 2017. “A Critical Trilogy of Place: Dwelling in/on an Irritated Place.” Environmental Education Research
23(5): 615–626. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1182624.
Ignell, C., P. Davies, and C. Lundholm. 2019. “A Longitudinal Study of Upper Secondary School Students’ Values and
Beliefs regarding Policy Responses to Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 25(5): 615–632. doi:10.
1080/13504622.2018.1523369.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Core Writing Team, edited by R. K. Pachauri and L. A.
Meyer. Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
Jensen, B. B., and K. Schnack. 2006. “The Action Competence Approach in Environmental Education.” Environmental
Education Research 12(3–4): 471–486. doi:10.1080/13504620600943053.
Jickling, B. 2013. “Normalizing Catastrophe: An Educational Response.” Environmental Education Research 19(2):
161–176. doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.721114.
Kagawa, F., and D. Selby (Eds.). 2010. Education and Climate Change: Living and Learning in Interesting Times. New
York: Routledge.
Kahan, D. 2013. “Making Climate-Science Communication Evidence-based - All the Way down.” In Culture, Politics
and Climate Change: How Information Shapes Our Common Future, edited by D. Crow and M. Boykoff, 203–220.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Kahan, D. M., E. Peters, M. Wittlin, P. Slovic, L. L. Ouellette, D. Braman, and G. Mandel. 2012. “The Polarizing Impact
of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks.” Nature Climate Change 2(10): 732–735.
doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
Kemmis, S., and R. Mutton. 2012. “Education for Sustainability (EfS): Practice and Practice Architectures.”
Environmental Education Research 18(2): 187–207. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.596929.
Kenis, A., and E. Mathijs. 2012. “Beyond Individual Behaviour Change: The Role of Power, Knowledge and Strategy
in Tackling Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 18(1): 45–65. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.576315.
Klafki, W. 2005. Dannelsesteori Og Didaktik – Nye Studier [General Education and Didaktik – New Studies]. 2nd ed.
A˚rhus: Klim.
€rgen. 2017. “The Power of Social Networks: How the UNFCCC Secretariat Creates
Kolleck, N., M. Well, S. Sperzel, and H. Jo
Momentum for Climate Education.” Global Environmental Politics 17(4): 106–126. doi:10.1162/GLEP_a_00428.
Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Why Do People Act Environmentally and What Are the Barriers
to Pro-Environmental Behavior?” Environmental Education Research 8(3): 239–260. doi:10.1080/
13504620220145401.
Krasny, M. E., and B. DuBois. 2019. “Climate Adaptation Education: Embracing Reality or Abandoning Environmental
Values.” Environmental Education Research 25(6): 883–894. doi:10.1080/13504622.2016.1196345.
Kunkle, K. A., and M. C. Monroe. 2019. “Cultural Cognition and Climate Change Education in the U.S.: Why Consensus Is
Not Enough.” Environmental Education Research 25(5): 633–655. doi:10.1080/13504622.2018.1465893.
Laessøe, J., and Y. Mochizuki. 2015. “Recent Trends in National Policy on Education for Sustainable Development
and Climate Change Education.” Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9(1): 27–143. doi:10.1177/
0973408215569112.
Laessøe, J., K. Schnack, S. Breiting, and S. Rolls (Eds.). 2009. Climate Change and Sustainable Development: The
Response from Education—Cross-National Report. Copenhagen: International Alliance of Leading Education
Institutes (IALEI).
Lambert, J. L., and R. E. Bleicher. 2014. “Improving Climate Change Communication Starting with Environmental
Educators.” Journal of Geoscience Education 62(3): 388–401. doi:10.5408/13-062.1.
Lawson, D. F., K. T. Stevenson, M. N. Peterson, S. J. Carrier, E. Seekamp, and R. Strnad. 2019. “Evaluating Climate
Change Behaviors and Concern in the Family Context.” Environmental Education Research 25(5): 678–690. doi:10.
1080/13504622.2018.1564248.
Leiserowitz, A. 2004. “Day after Tomorrow: Study of Climate Change Risk Perception.” Environment: Science and
Policy for Sustainable Development 46(9): 22–39. doi:10.1080/00139150409603663.
Leiserowitz, A., E. Maibach, and C. Roser-Renouf. 2009. Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: An Audience
Segmentation Analysis. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
Leiserowitz, A. 2006. “Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and
Values.” Climatic Change 77(1–2): 45–72. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9.
Lorenzoni, I., S. Nicholson-Cole, and L. Whitmarsh. 2007. “Barriers to Engaging with Climate Change among the UK
Public and Their Policy Implications.” Global Environmental Change 17(3–4): 445–459. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2007.01.004.
Lotz-Sisitka, H. 2010. “Climate Injustice: How Should Education Respond?.” In Education and Climate Change: Living
and Learning in Interesting Times, edited by F. Kagawa and D. Selby, 71–88. New York: Routledge.
Maibach, E., M. Nisbet, P. Baldwin, K. Akerlof, and G. Diao. 2010. “Reframing Climate Change as a Public Health
Issue: An Exploratory Study of Public Reactions.” BMC Public Health 10(1): 299–309. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-
299.
Maiteny, P. T. 2002. “Mind the Gap: Summary of Research Exploring “Inner” Influences on Pro-Sustainability
Learning and Behavior.” Environmental Education Research 8(3): 299–306. doi:10.1080/13504620220145447.
Marcinkowski, T. J. 2009. “Contemporary Challenges and Opportunities in Environmental Education: Where Are we
Headed and What Deserves Our Attention?” The Journal of Environmental Education 41(1): 34–54. doi:10.1080/
00958960903210015.
Marcinkowski, T., and A. Reid. 2019. “Reviews of Research on the Attitude–Behavior Relationship and Their
Implications for Future.” Environmental Education Research 25(4): 459–471. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1634237.
Marshall, G. 2014. Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains are Wired to Ignore Climate Change. New York:
Bloomsbury.
Maslin, M. 2013. Climate: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McBean, G., and H. Hengeveld. 2000. “Communicating the Science of Climate Change: A Mutual Challenge for
Scientists and Educators.” Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 5(1): 9–23.
McCaffrey, M. S., and S. M. Buhr. 2008. “Clarifying Climate Confusion: Addressing Systemic Holes, Cognitive Gaps, and
Misconceptions through Climate Literacy.” Physical Geography 29(6): 512–528. doi:10.2747/0272-3646.29.6.512.
McKenzie, M. 2019. “Climate Change Education in Global Review: Tracking Progress through National Submissions
to the UNFCCC.” Environmental Education Research (under review).
Meehan, C. R., B. L. M. Levy, and L. Collet-Gildard. 2018. “Global Climate Change in U.S. high School Curricula:
Portrayals of the Causes, Consequences, and Potential Responses.” Science Education 102(3): 498–528. doi:10.
1002/sce.21338.
Meeusen, C. 2014. “The Intergenerational Transmission of Environmental Concern: The Influence of Parents and
Communication Patterns within the Family.” The Journal of Environmental Education 45(2): 77–90. doi:10.1080/
00958964.2013.846290.
Mochizuki, Y., and A. Bryan. 2015. “Climate Change Education in the Context of Education for Sustainable
Development: Rationale and Principles.” Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 9(1): 4–26. doi:10.1177/
0973408215569109.
Monbiot, G. 2006. Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning. Toronto: Doubleday Canada.
Monroe, M. C., A. Oxarart, and R. R. Plate. 2013. “A Role for Environmental Education in Climate Change for
Secondary Science Educators.” Applied Environmental Education and Communication 12(1): 4–18. doi:10.1080/
1533015X.2013.795827.
Monroe, M. C., R. R. Plate, D. C. Adams, and D. J. Wojcik. 2015. “Harnessing Homophily to Improve Climate Change
Education.” Environmental Education Research 21(2): 221–238. doi:10.1080/13504622.2014.910497.
Monroe, M. C., R. R. Plate, A. Oxarart, A. Bowers, and W. A. Chaves. 2019. “Identifying Effective Climate Change
Education Strategies: A Systematic Review of the Research.” Environmental Education Research 25(6): 791–812.
doi:10.1080/13504622.2017.1360842.
Morton, T. 2013. Hyperobjects: Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Moser, S. C. 2007. “More Bad News: The Risk of Neglecting Emotional Responses to Climate Change Information.”
In Creating a Climate for Change: Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change, edited by S. C.
Moser and L. Dilling, 64–80. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Moser, S. C. 2016. “What More Is There to Say? Reflections on Climate Change Communication Research and
Practice in the Second Decade of the 21st Century.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 7(3): 345–369.
doi:10.1002/wcc.403.
Moser, S., and L. Dilling. 2004. “Making Climate HOT: Communicating the Urgency and Challenge of Global Climate
Change.” Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 46(10): 32–46. doi:10.1080/
00139150409605820.
Mo€ser, S., and L. Dilling. 2011. “Communicating Climate Change: Closing the Science-Action Gap.” In The Oxford
Handbook of Climate Change and Society, edited by J. Dryzek, R. Norgaard, and D. D. Schlosberg, 161–174.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Moyson, S., P. Scholten, and C.M. Weible. 2017. “Policy Learning and Policy Change: Theorizing Their Relations from
Different Perspectives.” Policy and Society 36(2): 161–177. doi:10.1080/14494035.2017.1331879.
788 A. REID
Myers, T. A., E. W. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, K. Akerlof, and A. A. Leiserowitz. 2012. “The Relationship between
Personal Experience and Belief in the Reality of Global Warming.” Nature Climate Change 3(4): 343–347. doi:10.
1038/nclimate1754.
Niebert, K., and H. Gropengiesser. 2013. “Understanding and Communicating Climate Change in Metaphors.”
Nisbet, M. 2009. “Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engage- Ment.” Environment:
Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51(2): 12–23. doi:10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23.
Nisbet, M. C., and J. E. Kotcher. 2009. “A Two-Step Flow of Influence? Opinion-Leader Campaigns on Climate
Change.” Science Communication 30(3): 328–354. doi:10.1177/1075547008328797.
Norgaard, K. M. 2006. “People Want to Protect Themselves a Little Bit’: Emotions, Denial, and Social Movement
Nonparticipation.” Sociological Inquiry 76(3): 372–396. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2006.00160.x.
Nguyen, T. P. 2019. “Searching for Education for Sustainable Development in Vietnam.” Environmental Education
Research. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1569202.
OECD. 2019. Main Science and Technology Indicators [MSTI 2019/1]. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development. http://oe.cd/msti.
€
Ohman, €
J., and M. Ohman. 2013. “Participatory Approach in Practice: An Analysis of Student Discussions about
Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 19(3): 324–341. doi:10.1080/13504622.2012.695012.
Ojala, M. 2012. “How Do Children Cope with Climate Change? Coping Strategies, Engagement, and Well-Being.”
Journal of Environmental Psychology 32(3): 225–233. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.02.004.
Ojala, M. 2012. “Hope and Climate Change: The Importance of Hope for Environmental Engagement among Young
People.” Environmental Education Research 18(5): 625–642. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.637157.
Ojala, M. 2015. “Climate Change Skepticism among Adolescents.” Journal of Youth Studies 18(9): 1135–1153. doi:10.
1080/13676261.2015.1020927.
Otieno, C., H. Spada, K. Liebler, T. Ludemann, U. Deil, and A. Renkl. 2014. “Informing about Climate Change and
Invasive Species: How the Presentation of Information Affects Perception of Risk, Emotions, and Learning.”
Ouariachi, T., M. Dolores Olvera-Lobo, J. Gutierrez-Perez, and E. Maibach. 2019. “A Framework for Climate Change
Engagement through Video Games.” Environmental Education Research 25(5): 701–716. doi:10.1080/13504622.
2018.1545156.
Pearse, R. 2017. “Gender and Climate Change.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 8(2): 1–16. doi:10.
1002/wcc.451.
Plutzer, E., M. McCaffrey, A. L. Hannah, J. Rosenau, M. Berbeco, and A. H. Reid. 2016. “Climate Confusion among U.S.
teachers.” Science 351(6274): 664–665. doi:10.1126/science.aab3907.
Porter, D., A. J. Weaver, and H. Raptis. 2012. “Assessing Students’ Learning about Fundamental Concepts of Climate
Change under Two Different Conditions.” Environmental Education Research 18(5): 665–686. 04622.2011.640750.
doi:10.1080/135.
Powell, R. B., M. Stern, J. B. T. Frensley, and D. Moore. 2019. “Identifying and Developing Crosscutting
Environmental Education Outcomes for Adolescents in the Twenty-First Century (EE21).” Environmental Education
Research, 1–19. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1607259.
Pruneau, D., H. Gravel, W. Bourque, and J. Langis. 2003. “Experimentation with a Socio- Constructivist Process for
Climate Change Education.”Environmental Education Research 9(4): 429–446. doi:10.1080/1350462032000126096.
Pruneau, D., A. Khattabi, and M. Demers. 2010. “Challenges and Possibilities in Climate Change Education.” US
China Education Review 7(9): 15–24.
Reid, A. 2019a. “Blank, Blind, Bald and Bright Spots in Environmental Education Research.” Environmental Education
Research 25(2): 157–171. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1615735.
Reid, A. 2019b. “Key Questions about Climate Change Education and Research: ‘Essences’ and ‘Fragrances.”
Environmental Education Research 25(6): 972–976. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1662078
Roman, D., and K. C. Busch. 2016. “Textbooks of Doubt: Using Systemic Functional Analysis to Explore the Framing
of Climate Change in Middle-School Science Textbooks.” Environmental Education Research 22(8): 1158–1180. doi:
10.1080/13504622.2015.1091878.
Saari, A., and J. Mullen. 2018. “Dark Places: Environmental Education Research in a World of Hyperobjects.”
Environmental Education Research, 1–13. doi:10.1080/13504622.2018.1522618.
Schnack, K. 2000. “Action competence as curriculum perspective.” In Critical environmental and health education
edited by B. B. Jensen, K. Schnack, & V. Simovska, 107–126. Copenhagen: Department of education, Aarhus
University.
Schnack, K. 2008. “Participation, education, and democracy: Implications for environmental education, health
education, and education for sustainable development.” In Participation and learning. Perspectives on education
and the environment, health and sustainability edited by A. Reid, B. B. Jensen, J. Nikel, & V. Simovska, 181–211.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Saul, J. R. 2001. On Equilibrium. Toronto: Penguin.
Schreiner, C., E. K. Henriksen, and P. J. Kirkeby Hansen. 2005. “Climate Education: Empowering Today’s Youth to
Meet Tomorrow’s Challenges.” Studies in Science Education 41(1): 3–50. doi:10.1080/03057260508560213.
Schlesinger, M. E., H. Kheshgi, J. B. Smith, F. C. de la Chesnaye, J. M. Reilly, T. Wilson, and C. Kolstad. 2007. Human-
Induced Climate Change: An Interdisciplinary Assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schweizer, S., S. Davis, and J. L. Thompson. 2013. “Changing the Conversation about Climate Change: A Theoretical
Framework for Place-Based Climate Change Engagement.” Environmental Communication 7(1): 42–62. doi:10.
1080/17524032.2012.753634.
Selby, D. 2009. “Degrees That Matter: Climate Change and the University.” Environmental Education Research 15(4):
519–521. doi:10.1080/13504620903132685.
Selby, D., and F. Kagawa. 2010. “Runaway Climate Change as Challenge to the ‘Closing Circle’ of Education for
Sustainable Development.” Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 4(1): 37–50. doi:10.1177/
097340820900400111.
Selby, D., and F. Kagawa. 2013. Climate Change in the Classroom. Paris: UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/
0021/002197/219752e.pdf.
Sezen-Barrie, A., A. Miller-Rushing, and E. Hufnagel. 2019a. “It’s a Gassy World’: Starting with Students’ Wondering
Questions to Inform Climate Change Education.” Environmental Education Research, 1–22. doi:10.1080/13504622.
2019.1610158.
Sezen-Barrie, A., N. Shea, and J. H. Borman. 2019b. “Probing into the Sources of Ignorance: science Teachers’
Practices of Constructing Arguments or Rebuttals to Denialism of Climate Change.” Environmental Education
Research 25(6): 846–866. doi:10.1080/13504622.2017.1330949.
Shealy, T., L. Klotz, A. Godwin, Z. Hazari, G. Potvin, N. Barclay, and J. Cribbs. 2019. “High School Experiences and
Climate Change Beliefs of First Year College Students in the United States.” Environmental Education Research
25(6): 925–935. doi:10.1080/13504622.2017.1293009.
Shepardson, D. P., D. Niyogi, A. Roychoudhury, and A. Hirsch. 2012. “Conceptualizing Climate Change in the
Context of a Climate System: Implications for Climate and Environmental Education.” Environmental Education
Research 18(3): 323–352. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.622839.
Shepardson, D. P., A. Roychoudhury, and A. S. Hirsch (Eds.). 2017. Teaching and Learning About Climate Change: A
Framework for Educators. London: Routledge.
Siegner, A., and N. Stapert. 2019. “Climate Change Education in the Humanities Classroom: A Case Study of the
Lowell School Curriculum Pilot.” Environmental Education Research, 1–21. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1607258.
Simovska, V., and Å. K. Prøsch. 2016. “Global Social Issues in the Curriculum: Perspectives of School
Principals.”Journal of Curriculum Studies 48(5): 630–649. doi:10.1080/00220272.2015.1114150.
Singer-Brodowski, M., A. Brock, N. Etzkorn, and I. Otte. 2019. “Monitoring of Education for Sustainable Development
in Germany – Insights from Early Childhood Education, School and Higher Education.”Environmental Education
Research 25(4): 492–507. doi:10.1080/13504622.2018.1440380.
Skamp, K., E. Boyes, and M. Stanisstreet. 2013. “Beliefs and Willingness to Act about Global Warming: Where to
Focus Science Pedagogy?” Science Education 97(2): 191–217. doi:10.1002/sce.21050.
Stapleton, S. R. 2019. “A Case for Climate Justice Education: American Youth Connecting to Intragenerational
Climate Injustice in Bangladesh.” Environmental Education Research 25(5): 732–750. doi:10.1080/13504622.2018.
1472220.
Sterman, J. D. 2011. “Communicating Climate Change Risks in a Skeptical World.” Climatic Change 108(4): 811. doi:
10.1007/s10584-011-0189-3.
Stern, N. 2006. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. Executive Summary. London: HM Treasury.
Stern€ang, L., and C. Lundholm. 2012. “Climate Change and Costs: Investigating Students’ Reasoning on Nature and
Economic Development.” Environmental Education Research 18(3): 417–436. doi:10.1080/13504622.2011.630532.
Stevenson, K. T., M. N. Peterson, H. D. Bondell, S. E. Moore, and S. J. Carrier. 2014. “Overcoming Skepticism with
Education: Interacting Influences of Worldview and Climate Change Knowledge on Perceived Climate Change
Risk among Adolescents.” Climatic Change 126(3-4): 293–304. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1228-7.
Stevenson, K. T., M. N. Peterson, and H. D. Bondell. 2019. “The Influence of Personal Beliefs, Friends, and Family in
Building Climate Change Concern among Adolescents.” Environmental Education Research 25(6): 832–845. doi:10.
1080/13504622.2016.1177712.
Stevenson, R. B. 2007. “Schooling and Environmental Education: Contradictions in Purpose and Practice.”
Stylinski, C., J. Heimlich, S. Palmquist, D. Wasserman, and R. Youngs. 2017. “Alignment between Informal Educator
Perceptions and Audience Expectations of Climate Change Education.”Applied Environmental Education and
Communication 16(4): 234–246. doi:10.1080/1533015X.2017.1333052.
Swim, J., S. Clayton, T. Doherty, R. Gifford, G. Howard, J. Reser, P. Stern, and E. Weber. 2009. Psychology and Global
Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association. http://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx.
Taber, F., and N. Taylor. 2009. “Climate of Concern-A Search for Effective Strategies for Teaching Children about
Global Warming.” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 4(2): 97–116.
790 A. REID
Theobald, E. J., A. Crowe, J. HilleRisLambers, M. P. Wenderoth, and S. Freeman. 2015. “Women Learn More from
Local than Global Examples of the Biological Impacts of Climate Change.” Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 13(3): 132–137. doi:10.1890/140261.
Thunberg, G. 2019. No One is Too Small to Make a Difference. UK: Penguin Books Ltd.
Topp, K., M. Thai, and D. H. Hryciw. 2019. “The Role of Entertainment in Engagement with Climate Change.”
Tucker, I. 2019. “Interview. David Wallace-Wells: ‘There are many cases of climate hypocrisy.’” The Observer Sunday
25 August. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/25/david-wallace-wells-interview-climate-crisis-
heating-migration-extinction-rebellion-greta-thunberg.
UNESCO. 2009. Education for Sustainable Development and Climate Change. Policy Dialogue 4. http://unesdoc.unesco.
org/images/0017/001791/179122e.pdf.
UNESCO. 2010. The UNESCO Climate Change Initiative: Climate Change Education for Sustainable Development. Paris:
Unesco. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001901/190101E.pdf.
UNESCO. 2017a. Education for Sustainable Development: Partners in Action. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2017b. Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.
unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000247444.
UNESCO. 2017c. Changing Minds, not the Climate: The Role of Education. Paris: UNESCO. https://www.gcedclearing-
house.org/sites/default/files/resources/190248eng.pdf.
UNESCO. 2019a. Country Progress on Climate Change Education. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO. 2019b. ESD and GCED UP Close: Cognitive, social and emotional, and behavioural learning in Education for
Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship from pre-primary to secondary education. Paris: UNESCO.
UNESCO and UNEP. 2011. Climate Change Starter’s Guidebook: An Issues Guide for Educational Planners and
Practitioners. Paris: Unesco. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000211136.
UNESCO and UNFCCC. 2016. Action for Climate Empowerment: Guidelines for Accelerating Solutions Through
Education, Training and Public. Paris: UNESCO and UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/action_for_cli-
mate_empowerment_guidelines.pdf.]
UNFCCC. 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/
conveng.pdf.
UNFCCC. 2012. Article 6 of the Convention. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/sbi/eng/l47.pdf.
UNFCCC. 2015. Adoption of the Paris Agreement. 21st Conference of the Parties. Paris: United Nations.
UNFCCC. 2018. ACE Decision. Ways of Enhancing the Implementation of Education, Training, Public Awareness,
Public Participation and Public Access to Information so as to Enhance Actions under the Paris Agreement.
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cp24_auv_L.3_edu.pdf.
Verlie, B. 2019. “Bearing Worlds: Learning to Live-with Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 25(5):
751–766. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1637823.
Verlie, B. and CCR 15. 2018. “From Action to Intra-Action? Agency, Identity and ‘Goals’ in a Relational Approach to
Climate Change Education.” Environmental Education Research, 1–15. doi:10.1080/13504622.2018.1497147.
Waldron, F., B. Ruane, R. Oberman, and S. Morris. 2019. “Geographical Process or Global Injustice? Contrasting
Educational Perspectives on Climate Change.” Environmental Education Research 25(6): 895–911. doi:10.1080/
13504622.2016.1255876.
Walsh, E. M., and E. Cordero. 2019. “Youth Science Expertise, Environmental Identity, and Agency in Climate Action
Filmmaking.”Environmental Education Research 25(5): 656–677. doi:10.1080/13504622.2019.1569206.
Whitmarsh, L. 2008. “What’s in a Name? Commonalities and Differences in Public Understanding of ‘Climate
Change’ and ‘Global Warming.”Public Understanding of Science 18(4): 401–420. doi:10.1177/0963662506073088.
Whitmarsh, L. 2009. “Behavioural Responses to Climate Change: Asymmetry of Intentions and Impacts.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 29(1): 13–23. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.05.003.
Whitmarsh, L. 2011. “Scepticism and Uncertainty about Climate Change: Dimensions, Determinants and Change
over Time.” Global Environmental Change 21(2): 690–700. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016.
Wibeck, V. 2014. “Enhancing Learning, Communication and Public Engagement about Climate Change - Some
Lessons from Recent Literature.” Environmental Education Research 20(3): 387–411. doi:10.1080/13504622.2013.
812720.
Wynes, S., and K. Nicholas. 2017. “The Climate Mitigation Gap: Education and Government Recommendations Miss
the Most Effective Individual Actions.” Environmental Research Letters 12(7): 074024. http://iopscience.iop.org/
1748-9326/12/7/074024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541.
Young, R. L. 2018. Confronting Climate Crises Through Education: Reading Our Way Forward. Lanham, MD: Lexington
Books.
Zylinska, J. 2014. Minimal Ethics for the Anthropocene. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

Climate Change Education and Research Possibilities and Potentials Versus Problems and Perils

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Climate Change Education and Research Possibilities and Potentials Versus Problems and Perils

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Education Research

ISSN: 1350-4622 (Print) 1469-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceer20

Climate change education and research:

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1664075

Published online: 24 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 20620

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 18 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Climate change education and research: possibilities

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The need of the hour

Why ‘climate change education’ isn’t simply ‘climate education’

Educaon Change habits in the long- Foster a beer

Public Awareness Reach people of all ages and

Public Access to informaon Make informaon freely knowledge in ﬁnding

available climate change soluons

Public Parcipaon Involve all stakeholders in Engage all stakeholders in

Of ‘pyropedagogies’ and ‘practice architectures’

I want you to feel the fear I feel every day.

Intergenerational ethics and education: necessary but insufficient?

1. focused on making climate change information personally relevant and meaningful

They conclude their review stating:

to stimulate a broader stirring of an ecological consciousness in learners [ … ] using that

Socio-emotional learning objectives

Education for Sustainable Development Goals: Learning Objectives

1. Learning objectives for achieving the SDGs

of place, or in the widening of ethical responsibility to challenge consumerism, or in promoting

Climate change and an ethics of education 1 an education in ethics?

In one of the contributions to that collection, Hoffmann (2007, 7) is cited to warn:

[used as an epigraph to Lotz-Sisitka, 2010, 71]

You might also like