Environmental education

Environmental education should therefore be reinforced in schools, as Clément, 24 years old said:

Q: And in general what do you think of environmental education?

A: “It’s bad, very bad. In middle school, I was part of a student association. We called it the Club Planet Action, we made recycling boxes, but apart from that, I never had any education on sustainability at school, I didn’t have any either at uni, I trained myself, by taking an interest in the subject.

And it is very bad for the younger generations because today there are such complex and infinite questions, like for example nuclear energy. I saw a poll the other day, the majority of French people think that nuclear energy emits CO2, whereas the problem with nuclear energy is waste management and not the management of global warming. Nuclear power is, actually, an aid against global warming but then serves the cause of circular economy, waste, and everything. And on issues as important as, for example, the link between Covid and the health crisis, or the link between waste in groundwater and the consumption of vegetables that come from Brittany, we cannot have an ignorant population on these issues. And that is awful.”

A: “It depends on the person I’m talking to, it also depends on the subjects, but in fact when I talk about environmental issues, often I don’t present from the angle that one would hear the most: “Look, the small fauna and flora”, I focus on the social aspect, the environmental justice aspect, and the systemic aspect. I’ll take the example of my father-in-law, he is from Cameroon, I say to him: “Look, the first affected by environmental problems are the poor countries”, because on the one hand they are in the wrong place climatically, and on the other hand they don’t have the necessary resources to be able to cope. And so, it will accentuate the problem of environmental injustice. So, it’s a lot on this social aspect, if this person is more concerned with this vein. If it’s someone more scientific, I’m going to give them scientific arguments instead, IPCC reports, degrees, etc., etc. If it’s someone a little more philosophical, it will be more moral arguments, isn’t it a duty to protect our environment since it’s something fragile, and as a powerful being, who has a capacity for action, we have this moral duty of protection because we have a capacity for harm but also for protection.

Do we have the ability to destroy the living when we have the ability to protect it? And the last point that often hits the mark, in fact no, if I tell you to protect the environment it’s not to protect nature, it’s really to protect yourself, it’s very selfish to say to yourself: “But in fact, the consequence of climate change is that you will die younger, that your children will die younger, that you will live in very bad conditions, and that will be your fault because you will not have acted. and you will be responsible.” Responsible, okay, for pollution, but there it is, it’s also a form of responsibility to tell yourself that it’s not a question of fate, it’s that you have an action, and you have a reaction, and you suffer the consequences of your own actions, and these are the consequences, this is what you have done, it is up to you to take responsibility. I intend to live in a liveable world, at least for my generation and that of my children, that’s why I act, and you, if you want to behave selfishly, feel free to, but you have to think about the common good at some point.”

Julien, 24 years old, eco-engaged

This interview excerpt is particularly relevant for observing the flexibility of ecological discourse; depending on the sensitivity and character of the person targeted, the arguments differ enormously. For our respondents, this strategy makes it possible to make as many people as possible aware of the ecological cause.