The Configuration of Environmental Education:
Approaches to Establishing a Recycling-Oriented Society
(From "APEC Symposium on Environmental Education towards Sustainable Cities")
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　
Morihiro  AOKI
　　Examining the current status of environmental education and stating　the points to be noticed when considering a natural resource circulation-based society as the countermeasure for urban life environmental problems.
　　There is probably no one who would deny that environmental education is both necessary and beneficial. In fact, it seems almost as if environmental education has a social correctness that cannot be argued against. Just as democracy and pacifism are norms of 20thcentury society, we may be able to say that "environmentalism" was born as a new social norm at the turn of the 21st century. We hear the slogan "environmentally friendly" rising in a grand chorus everywhere: at schools, in local communities, even in industry and the distribution market. There is so much noise being made that we seem to be in the　middle of something of a boom in caring about the environment. However, while we understand the importance of the issue in principle, when trying to come up with a decisive solution we simply face the dilemma between the ideal and the reality and have yet to carry　 out any effective action.
　　One important point about environmental education is that -- whether　the setting for it is school, home or community -- different approaches should be taken in accordance with the age and stage of personal development. Rather than trying to confront people abruptly with environmental problems and nature conservation, it is more important to first try to create an appreciation at the more fundamental level of　ecosystems and the global environment in general in which human society　is based, and present the issues in the context of the broad relationship between the three elements of human beings, other forms of life, and the earth. In the case of very young children, the early approach should call their attention to a part of nature with which they are already familiar -- insects, flowers, and grass -- and lead them　through the relationships between these to an understanding of more complex natural systems such as forests. The common pitfall is to immediately present children with a list of problems the world currently faces, such as global warming and acid rain, which involve a complex web of global issues. This abrupt approach results in a one-sided style of teaching that reverts to the old emphasis on knowledge acquisition, becoming nothing more than a shift from the former "true"/"false"-type of lesson to a "goodies"/"baddies" one and not environmental education.
　　We receive wonderful reports from every corner of Japan about　actions children are involved in, such as sorting garbage into cans, PET bottles and other material. We certainly have immense admiration for the　teachers' splendid efforts in guiding these children. Yet, even while appreciating the efforts being made by schools and communities, these　reports also leave me with a sense of futility. It is certainly true　 that government and industry are working on the problems, but I cannot help having the somewhat radical view that the children and local authorities are being left to clean up the results of insufficient action on the part of government and industry. To make matters worse,　even though environmental education should be provided at every stage of personal development, it comes to a standstill in our schools at the junior high and senior high school level where it is met with cold　 indifference by educators who, at least in my opinion, will not allocate　time for things such as environmental education because they have to prepare their students for the battle to pass entrance examinations.

　　Now, while becoming a resource recycling-oriented society sounds quite simple, how effectively can we solve environmental problems by these efforts? It is true that attracting students' attention to resource recycling is not all there is to environmental education ? it is merely one of many goals. At the same time, Nature is not infinite. The Earth is a closed system, one in which a finite inventory of materials circulates in the environment of the earth's surface. We must understand that in this circulation system we call the Earth, large　cities -- concentrations of human population, pursuing intensively the human activities of production, consumption and disposal in order to maintain city life -- enjoy a privileged existence. The balances that existed at various levels in the natural system have been ruined by the development of modern industrial technology in the cities and the continued expansion of those cities as production bases through the　 intensive consumption of energy resources. Even though we sing the　praises of reducing the burden on the environment, of living harmoniously with nature, of having an amenable relationship with nature　-- we must remain conscious of the fact that maintaining the city　function is in itself a stress on the natural environment.
　　We human beings are sometimes too egotistic and pursue technological and economic efficiency too much. These attitudes cause environmental problems which need solution for beyond our scientific ability. We must now shift our production activities to forms which operate on low-material and low-energy input. At the same time, we citizens must　also change our attitudes to consumption. While much has been said, for instance, about the dangers of soft drinks, the reality is that we still see soft-drink vending machines everywhere, and there is a vast variety of drinks sold in aluminum cans, steel cans, PET bottles and so on. Do we really need such a huge variety of soft drinks? The fact is that sales competition is driven by purely commercial motives, luring consumers to buy more drinks than they really need. The result is a huge amount of garbage. The beverages business is, after all, a profitable one, and that means that it has been allowed to expand with virtually no　controls over it. In effect, the industry is consuming mineral resources with no regard for the consequences, and an enormous amount of　taxpayers' money is spent on treating the waste it generates. Whether the cans are steel or aluminum, a huge amount of effort and energy goes into excavating the rock, extracting the mineral, and processing the metal of which they are made. Consumers need to be educated in these basic facts.
　　Of all the environmental problems arising from city life, the most serious is the problem of industrial and domestic waste. We may develop state-of-the-art treatment facilities, but until people's attitude to generating garbage has changed there will be no fundamental solutions. It has become natural for the average citizen to sort the paper out of their household garbage and put it out for collection separately. Surprisingly, however, at the incineration plant the two are burnt　 together: dry garbage, consisting of nothing but paper, is mixed in with kitchen garbage with dirty water dripping from it -- a most unpleasant sight. It does not seem right for the paper we discarded so carefully to be treated like that. But, I suppose, this is a result of technological　innovation: in modern incineration systems the paper is deliberately　moistened with the liquid from the garbage. It seems to me an obvious waste of energy. I wonder if I am the only one who finds this development none too convincing?

　　"Eliminate Household Garbage" -- when I saw that slogan in the newspaper, I could not help exclaiming, "What a fraud!" Where does most of the household garbage come from? Most of it comes from the supermarkets and other shops. A home produces as much dry garbage,　mostly paper and plastic, as it buys products. When you think about it, we are actually paying our own money to buy that garbage and support the package manufacturers, who in effect specialize in producing garbage. While we are trying to introduce the concept of a recycling-oriented　 society through efforts such as sorting household garbage, the garbage itself is being mass-produced with the usual mindless fixation on economic efficiency.

　　Although we talk about moving to a resource recycling-oriented society as if it were a simple matter, urban environmental problems are deeply rooted in the fact that in order to maintain city life and keep industry going, we rely on intensive agriculture for raw materials and food. This is the cause of our environmental problems. If, then, we want our cities to have a low environmental impact, merely working on matters　such as recycling and re-use -- which can occur only at the very last stage of the cycle of production, consumption and disposal -- is not the　　 direction to take. We should, rather, be looking to establish a principle that constrains anything that generates garbage from being released in the market.
　　So long as we continue to approach city building by constructing　concrete jungles, so long as populations continue to be concentrated in　cities -- the path to solving all our environmental problems will be much　too long. We need to find an appropriate size and structure for our cities that takes full account of environmental assessments. Governments should begin to consider reducing pressure on the environment, so that cities will function, as early as when transportation routes, the　 arteries of production, for new developments are being planned. Regulations to reduce our impact on the environment should be put in　place at that level. This will take some time to achieve, but I believe that it is necessary to educate citizens now so that they can adjust their lifestyles to comply with the shift when it does take place.
　　Environmental education should, therefore, especially in the schools, be more than a mere campaign. It should be a well-designed course of basic teaching materials with the issues presented on a sound scientific basis. I believe, furthermore, that the current school curriculum should be further examined and brought up to date where necessary.