Challenging climate hypocrisy in higher education learning and teaching 

By Dr Adrian Gonzalez (@AGonzalez05) Senior Lecturer in Sustainability and Director of Learning and Teaching, Department of Environment and Geography at the University of York.

Climate hypocrisy in Higher Education

The climate crisis and global attempts at strengthening the sustainable and low-carbon transition is arguably the most critical issue we face and there is clear evidence to show strong Higher Education (HE) support for this twin approach. However, HE, particularly in the Global North, faces increasing scrutiny and critique over its implementation of the sustainability agenda. This has led to accusations of greenwashing, in which universities (willingly or perhaps erroneously) overmarket and/or underdeliver their sustainability policies, and climate hypocrisy, where an internationalist agenda frames student recruitment (the drive towards overseas markets), research activities and partnerships. For example, in UK tertiary education (further education and higher education), the largest sources of travel emissions are student flights, but there has been limited focus on the emissions stemming from learning and teaching, particularly fieldtrips, which this post is keen to reflect on.

Destination long haul; Higher Education residential undergraduate student fieldtrips

Outdoor education, particularly fieldtrips, offer a wide array of learner benefits and can be integral to different undergraduate programmes such as Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences (GEES), archaeology, history and classics. However, the competitive UK higher education market has helped generate an internationalisation of undergraduate fieldtrips which are now used as a critical marketing tool to attract prospective students, who as ‘consumers’, are increasingly keen on knowing where these trips go to inform applications. For example, a brief internet search of UK GEES departments shows undergraduate trips heading to exotic locations such as the Amazonia region, Colombia (BSc Environmental Science), Bahamas (BSc Ocean Science and Marine Conservation) and Malawi (BA Human Geography). 

Climate hypocrisy is evident here; students are studying programmes that acknowledge and grapple with the climate crisis and the need for transformational structural changes, yet at the same time will be enrolled on degrees that facilitate long-haul international learning opportunities without significant acknowledgement or reflection of the environmental impacts. Whilst there is no reliable publicly available data on the level of carbon emissions generated by GEES and other subject fieldtrips in UK higher education, I can give an indication by drawing on a case study of the department I work in.

Department of Environment and Geography, University of York

The department runs a wide variety of one-day and residential fieldtrips across its undergraduate and postgraduate programmes. It is the undergraduate residential trips that, owing to their design, have particularly significant carbon emissions and were made the focus of the subsequent investigation. Until 2022-2023, the department ran several residential fieldtrips that encompassed both UK and overseas destinations for its four undergraduate programmes (BSc Environmental Science; BSc Physical Geography and Environment; BSc Environment, Economics and Ecology; BA Human Geography and Environment). 

I used the University of York’s carbon calculator, which draws upon the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs greenhouse conversion factors to calculate the carbon emissions stemming from travel and accommodation and the offsetting requirements. The table below shows the residential fieldtrips and carbon emissions from travel (including coach and flights where relevant) and accommodation on a per-person and 50-person basis. For four 50-person trips, this generated 108,521.85 kg CO2e (or 109 metric tonnes rounded up), equating to a carbon offsetting cost of £3,437.97 for the Department on an annual basis.

Table 1: Department of Environment and Geography, University of York fieldtrips up to 2022-2023

What does this total figure equate to? A good comparison is the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), an international non-profit that focuses on environment and development challenges and employs 170 staff working across several international regional centres. At the time of these fieldtrips operating, SEI’s 2020 annual report indicated that its air travel emissions were almost 550 metric tonnes CO2e (in 2019). So these department fieldtrips made up the equivalent of almost 20% of the total air travel emissions of a major international research organisation.

Conclusion: a call to action

These figures indicate the scale of the socio-environmental impacts caused and the urgent need for UK higher education learning and teaching operations, particularly in GEES given the subject areas, to be seen as ‘walking the talk.’ There have been recent efforts to address this issue through the work of the RGS-IBG who have developed a list of voluntary principles to guide geography fieldwork, including the adoption of ‘sustainable fieldtrips’ which acknowledge the need to recognise and justify the resulting carbon impacts. Whilst it is positive to see 31 institutions signed up, this is less than half of the UK GEES departments and does not incorporate any wider disciplinary commitments. 

This article raises a call to action for all learned institutions and UK HE departments operating residential fieldtrips to adopt sustainable fieldtrip principles and operations. Without system-wide change, climate hypocrisy remains unchallenged in UK higher education learning and teaching. 

To support academic staff and departments, several steps towards sustainable fieldtrips can be taken:

• Conduct a carbon audit of fieldtrips to ascertain the impacts as undertaken at the Department of Environment of Environment and Geography, University of York; 
• Using this data, consider revising long-haul fieldtrip locations to relevant localised destinations that can be reached through low carbon (i.e. no flights) transport; 
• Publish the carbon costs on the department or university website to support wider debate and discussion of sustainable fieldtrips;
• Implementing sustainable fieldtrips can lead to multiple Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) benefits, particularly around accessibility and inclusivity. Use this opportunity to review and seek to strengthen the EDI agenda. 
• Disseminate best practice guidance through research and conference outputs;
• Lobby learned institutions to adopt sustainable fieldtrip principles that align with those adopted by the RGS-IBG;

Through these steps, UK higher education can begin to create a more holistic, robust and transparent sustainability and decarbonisation agenda. 

However, these actions cannot happen in isolation or nullify wider critical discussions around the UK HE sustainability agenda. One of the most significant discussion points is the impact of international students studying in the UK, a country which is the second most popular study destination in the world. Whilst these students provide significant economic benefits to the UK economy (£41.9 billion between 2021/22) and are vital to the UK higher education business model (one in six universities get over a third of their total income from overseas students), the carbon footprint far surpasses the UK higher education fieldtrip contribution. A 2023 report from 21 UK further education and higher education providers concluded that student flights accounted for 2.2 metric tonnes of CO2e or 12% of total emissions, whilst globally, student mobility is estimated to generate at least 14 megatones of Co2e per year (14 million metric tonnes). It is clear therefore that in the UK context, there is an urgent need for a robust policy debate on UK higher education funding and student mobility, otherwise the sector’s decarbonisation agenda will remain only partially addressed through sustainable fieldtrips.