Evidence Before Ideology
Why environmental education needs clearer thinking instead of more preaching.
When Nelson Mandela was released from prison, I was in Gaborone, at the University of Botswana, working as an ecology professor.
I lived in a flat a few kilometres from the South African border, and the sense of history was obvious even to a nerdy scientist with his head in his research.
Everyone knew something about the politics of southern Africa.
My student days in England a decade before had been anti-apartheid, boycotting Barclays Bank and Band-Aid concerts.
I was at the national stadium in Harare, Zimbabwe, in 1988 for the 'Human Rights Now' concert sponsored by Amnesty International with Bruce Springsteen, Tracy Chapman, Sting, Peter Gabriel and Youssou N'Dour… but I admit, more for the music than the message.
I knew what was happening and was pleased that it was.
But you do learn something when roadblocks manned by police and army personnel with AK47s are routine, other than to smile and try not to look like a South African insurgent.
You learn that what you think you know often has more to do with your beliefs than reality.
What we value clouds our objectivity.
I'm reminded of this lesson, watching environmental education struggle with a similar challenge. There's what we think we're teaching, and then there's what students learn about our relationship with nature.
Let me share a recent experience that crystallises this problem.
During the COVID lockdowns, I enrolled in two prestigious university environmental courses. As someone who has taught ecology at five universities and spent decades researching everything from soil animals to biodiversity conservation, I was genuinely curious to see how these topics would be presented.
What I found was troubling.
Not because the content was wrong but because it was wrapped so tightly in political ideology that the science could hardly breathe.
This matters more than you think.
The first online MOOC course I looked at was on sustainability. It began, as expected, by exploring the complex interplay between human systems and ecological limits. Then, in a blink, it became a lengthy critique of capitalism.
While there's certainly a place for examining the environmental impacts of economic systems, starting with the conclusion that "capitalism is bad" isn't education—it's indoctrination, whether you believe it's at fault or not.
I tried another course, this time on food security.
It wasn't much better. Instead of diving into the practical challenges of feeding 8 billion people (increasing at 8,000 per hour), we got lectures on wealth redistribution. Again, inequality matters for food access, but you can't feed people with ideology alone.
There were also some fundamentals glaringly absent from both courses, including…
Basic facts about resource use and ecological processes
Objective analysis of different solutions' effectiveness
Recognition of complexity and trade-offs
Clear distinctions between evidence and opinion
Practical frameworks for decision-making
Instead of these essentials, students got ‘normative science’ where value judgments about what ‘should’ be done precede evidence-based understanding of what ‘is’.
Auditing these courses left me feeling that this approach to environmental education might be making our problems worse.
The Problem with Preaching
Environmental challenges are real.
We have 8 billion more making humans increasing in number at over 8,000 per hour.
We're burning through fossil fuels while degrading soils and decimating biodiversity. There are mountains of waste created every day, and our energy use is messing with the planet's metabolism.
These aren't political opinions, they're measurable facts.
But when we teach environmental science through an ideological lens, assuming it’s about policy or economic ideology, we make three critical mistakes…
We confuse consequences with fault
We substitute values for evidence
We replace curiosity with certainty
Climate change is a current example. The atmosphere doesn't care about our political beliefs. The physics of greenhouse gases work the same way regardless of whether you vote left or right. Yet environmental education often spends more time assigning blame than understanding mechanisms.
If it were me, I would emphasise different attributes…
Curiosity about how things work
Critical thinking to evaluate evidence
Awareness of our own biases
Openness to unexpected answers
In other words, I would teach mindful scepticism, along with all the skills needed to generate objective evidence through the scientific method. The subject content could be whatever was topical because the same core principles apply.
Here's what mindful scepticism in environmental education looks like…
Start with questions, not answers.
"How do we get sufficient nutrients into 8 billion people's bodies for a hundred years in a secure way?"
Look for evidence before interpretation.
Instead of assuming industrial agriculture is bad, examine its positive and negative consequences.
Embrace complexity.
Most environmental challenges involve intricate systems with unexpected connections. Simple solutions rarely work as planned.
Separate observation from judgment.
The fact that fossil fuels are finite differs from opinions about how quickly we should stop using them.
We're facing unprecedented environmental challenges that require clear thinking and evidence-based solutions. We can't afford to let ideology from any side cloud our judgment.
Mindful scepticism offers a way forward.
It combines the rigour of scientific thinking with the awareness that humans are emotional beings who care about outcomes. It acknowledges both facts and values while keeping them distinct.
Want to explore these ideas further?
The Mindful Sceptic newsletter examines environmental challenges through this lens each week. We confront evidence while maintaining awareness of human factors. No preaching, just careful analysis and practical insights.
Because sometimes, the most revolutionary act is simply to think more clearly.