As a geographer, I find myself utterly befuddled by the recent public discourse regarding the proposed content for the new Leaving Cert subject focused on climate action and sustainable development. It seems there is a significant disconnect between the contemporary perception of geography and geographers’ roles, and the perception that the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment (NCCA) seems to present.
Norma Foley, the Minister for Education, along with NCCA, appears to be reintroducing decades-old geographical practices under the guise of a “new subject”. Additionally, they’re proposing to incorporate into this new subject a set of skills, which ideally should be imparted to all secondary school students across disciplines.
Why the sudden need to launch a new Leaving Cert subject focusing on climate action, when this has been the core of what we geographers have been teaching for years?
My confusion doesn’t seem to be solitary, as it resonates with my colleagues and students alike, both in Ireland and the UK. In fact, those who studied geography like me might attribute the confusion to similar origins. I hail from the 1970s era when our atmosphere held 325 ppm (parts per million) of CO2.
From that time until now, we have witnessed an additional 30 per cent increase in atmospheric CO2. Back then, in my birthplace – Germany, the importance of understanding the symbiotic relationship between our natural environment and human-induced climatic effects was gaining ground. Issues like acid rain damaging our vital forests were at the forefront.
The subsequent decade brought attention to nuclear waste and river pollution. The devastating Chernobyl disaster in 1986 urged society to shift focus from maintaining the status quo to understanding the impending risks and losses.
I concluded my Leaving Certificate equivalent in the late 1980s in Belgium, with geography at its heart. I was fervently contemplating, “what should be my next step” in order to comprehend these challenges better and contribute towards making the world a better place.
Sadly, we haven’t made significant strides since then.
As we witness the atmospheric carbon dioxide levels surge to 421 ppm, integral questions become ever more intricate. What motivates us to seemingly perpetually engage in the destruction of our own environment? We confront more pointed questions: why does society turn a blind eye to clear warning signs and scientific proof indicating the deterioration of our habitat? What causes a state of denial about ongoing harmful effects?
The resolution to these queries isn’t embedded in mainstream sciences and technology to which we are accustomed to seeking answers. I understood this then as I comprehend it now. These complex problems cannot be solved solely through superior technological advancements. Our situation is not one we can simply ‘engineer’ our way out of.
The key is probably hidden elsewhere. To find the answer, one needs to understand not only the physical, chemical and biological principles in nature but also human behaviour – the societal, economic, and political influences that guide our decision-making process.
Moreover, the responses we seek are not universally applicable. It dawned on me, as it remains clear now, that the solutions need to be tailored to each unique location, culture, and social structure, honouring their diversity.
My wisdom is based on my education and current experience in geography. I was trained to have a firm grasp of the environment and human interplay, and how the relationship between them varies according to location and space.
Despite the completion of global mapping and explorations of “terra incognita”, geography endures and flourishes as it attempts to fully comprehend our existence’s human-nature-landscape and the impact we exert on the earth.
Alexander von Humboldt, who passed away over 160 years ago, excelled in this field. His South American Andes journeys made him recognise the early connection between human-led deforestation in the Amazon and changes in the regional climate.
Geographical science, over the past two centuries, has evolved and gained strength, reinforcing this understanding.
Indeed, I am referring to the field of geography in this context, a subject that covers everything included in the newly proposed syllabus for the Leaving Cert focal point on climate action and sustainable development. The NCCA is presently in consultation about this matter.
During my decision to continue exploring geography at university level, carbon dioxide levels had already soared to 353 ppm, yet the global community was far from reaching an agreement on environmental protection issues, let alone global warming.
However, I was absolutely sure that in order to formulate effective solutions to these challenges, comprehension of the problem in its entirety was essential. Geography was the way to achieve this. A critical perspective on the evolution of modern society, our economic and social structures, coupled with an understanding of the mechanics behind physical phenomena such as soil erosion, flooding of rivers, coastal variation, ice creation and dissolution, and rise in sea levels is required.
It is sheer necessity for at least a handful of us to comprehend the human and physical interactions on our planet, so as to guide the squads that must be gathered to construct solutions to our self-induced plight.
Geography has presented me and countless others who have dabbled in it with this aptitude. Those individuals now occupy roles of leadership within prominent global and national organisations, funding agencies, and think tanks, dedicated to bringing about change and enhanced methods of progress. As geographers, we never overlook the interconnected aspect of everything, across various spaces and timelines. There couldn’t be a more fitting subject for this purpose.
Why then, in our senior curriculum, are we inserting geographical themes into a novel subject, thereby risking unnecessary repetition of subjects and potentially curtailing a rich and profound history of finding solutions that dates back over two centuries and still has much to teach us?
Even if the purpose of this “new” subject lies less in the accumulation of knowledge and more in honing skills, why do we attempt to limit valuable skills like critical thinking, active listening, independent research and teamwork (skills that should be imparted to all students) to a single “new” subject?
This opinion is shared by Prof. Iris Möller, head of the Geography Department at Trinity College, Dublin.