Education and the Environment

Education, Entitlement, E-waste and Environment: We are killing this planet, Earth

By Natasha Mansouri (William Lyon Mackenzie C.I.)

Some years ago, education in our schools became a follower of trends in society, economy, media (imitation of television shows about fashion, singing, dancing, etc.) and politics. Despite all the posters and symbolic demonstrations—such as for Earth Day/Week— consumer mentality thoughtlessly advocates continued pollution of the environment under the arrogant tenet that humans have the right to use the planet’s resources as they see fit. This tenet has been adopted by many institutions and organizations, as well in the educational field.

As life and learning are inseparable, I believe that education should lay the foundation in any society and culture. Education should lead the way of life and instill higher levels of thinking and higher valuation of nature and our only living space: the planet Earth.

Our economy has shifted from a focus on manufacturing industries to a focus on service industries. This transformation cost society many job losses and made a huge impact because service industries rely more heavily on retailing. As a result, this service economy relies more directly on end-user consumers. Therefore, the best way to guarantee that the service industries will continue growing and the corporations will make profit is to find ways of assuring that the end-user population is well-trained to become dependent consumers with limited consciousness of the result of their purchases.

As in any training process, the most effective approach is to begin training at a very young age. How could the industries reach the children and youth easily and efficiently? This is, of course, accomplished by targeting their parents and schools. So, less than three decades ago with a push from industry, the ban of advertisement to children was revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S.

Since then, media and advertisement campaigns have bombarded parents. The campaigns start by targeting what parents care about most for their children: safety and education (from toys such as Leap Frog to the use of cell phones for safety and control). In order to influence educators, the industries cleverly use convincing terms such as paperless, thinking green, 21st-century learner, digital native, tech savvy, integrating technology to enhance learning and so on. Of course, there is some truth to these terms but the question is do we realize how much pollution and environmental damage is increased by these practices?

Industry has found a very profitable market: schools. The student population will guarantee a long-term steady stream of consumers; computers, net books, smart boards, clickers, cell phones, tablets, etc. are taking over like a contagious disease.

Obviously, there are undeniable benefits, necessity and advantages of electronic and digital technology as part of progress and growth of civilization (which itself is destructive to nature). The increase in environment pollution due to the use of electronic and digital technology is also undeniable—during production, usage and at end-of-life (from cradle to grave).

Consuming has a direct relationship to pollution. One does not need accurate statistics to acknowledge that the amount of paper used and wasted in our schools and society (just the number of flyers we receive weekly will prove this) is notably much higher than the pre-copy, pre-computer age. Realistically, the recycling industry is not the solution and can hardly keep up with our waste. Recycling has been a mainstream practice in our country for only a few decades. We can not regard this as progress. As with any industry, the recycling industry also depends on energy sources to operate and therefore itself creates waste and pollution. A few decades ago, people did not frequently dispose of electronic components or equipment (computers, cell phone batteries, etc.) and did not waste the huge amounts of paper we do now. A few decades ago, taking notes in class was a common practice and an excellent strategy for learning. Today some teachers distribute handouts or students print them from a pick-up box, just a click away. In addition, for legal reasons our professions involve more paperwork to complete, more signatures to obtain, and more documented information.

Computers were introduced as tools to reduce waste by focusing on ideas such as “paperless”. However, one of the real effects of increased computer use is the tremendous increase in the number of communications; consequently the amount of data available increases. Much of this information is printed. Also, because of the system of planned obsolescence, the computer age undoubtedly can be described as the age of electronic waste.

Has converting our method to “paperless” and using technology-based equipment reduced education’s share in pollution?

It is estimated that manufacturing a 2-gram computer chip produces some 50 pounds of waste, including toxic waste (Tim Lehnert). To produce a 2-gram, 32-megabyte memory chip and its plastic package, about 70.5 pounds of water is used. The water used in this process must be purified before it can be used. It has also been calculated that the equivalent of 3.5 pounds of fossil fuels are used in the production of a memory chip and its package (the Environmental Literacy Council).

Even worse, in order to produce “tin”—which is used in all kinds of electronic devices as well as cell phones—industry must access the mines and resources of countries such as Congo. During the past 15 years, over five million people have died and estimated 300,000 women have been raped as a consequence of civil war in Congo. The United Nations has reported financial links between the war and trading of Congo’s natural minerals that are used in the mobile communications industry. Forests and their inhabitants have been destroyed; children  labours in extremely harsh conditions. These are only some of the terrible costs incurred. Why and when did costs such as these become acceptable for the sake of providing conveniences?! (Director Frank Piasecki Poulsen).

Product end-of-life is another hazardous situation caused by the increase in production and usage of electronic technologies. Much of our computer waste is shipped to third world countries—polluting the same areas where our armed forces are sent in aid! These landfills and incinerators release heavy metals such as lead, cadmium and mercury into the air in ashes (the EPA 2006-2007). It is estimated that only 15 to 20% of e-waste is recycled.

Throughout history, no other creature on Earth has done so much damage and produced so much waste and pollution as humans. There is absolutely no waste in nature. Any creature’s waste is another creature’s food. However, humans think and believe that their existence and convenience is more valuable than the existence of the other species that we share this planet with. We fail to acknowledge that our existence actually depends on the existence of this planet and its other inhabitants. Yet our schools have environmental clubs, science textbooks about pollution, highly intellectual conversations, posters, banners, PowerPoint presentations and celebrations of Earth Day/Hour. These are merely symbolic gestures that cannot hide what is really happening every day. Our actions are in contrast with what we claim; we are not walking the talk.

In the name of education, we are killing this planet, we are contributing to global warming, we are officially producing e-waste and we are proud of it (the more we rely on technology the higher our score as a teacher/school)! Worst of all, we are raising a generation of dependent consumers—their sense of entitlement and their need for convenience, instant gratification and feeling good in the moment is dangerously destructive to their own environment and the future of the only home we have: Earth.