Perspectives on Teaching Climate Change: Two Decades of Evolving Approaches

Abstract

Since 1996, Columbia University and Barnard College have required that undergraduate environmental majors take “Earth’s Environmental Systems: Climate.” The class is co-taught by 2–3 professors and is offered by different teams in fall and spring semesters. As one of the longest, continuously running, required classes on climate in the world, tracing changes in the content of this class, as well as the perspectives of its professors and students, provides insight into the evolution of climate change from a component of Earth’s system, to an international crisis. This chapter discusses the experiences of teaching undergraduate students - both science majors and non-majors - about Earth’s climate system and the risks facing the planet and society. Drawing on 845 student course evaluations and 20 survey responses from co-teachers and teaching assistants, we trace how the course, students, and faculty have evolved over two decades (1996–2018) as the earth warmed, environmental and ecosystems changed, projections of future impacts became more robust, demand for adaptation strategies and mitigation actions increased, and public discourse became polarized. We reflect on how, as we adjusted to these trends, we moved beyond our scientific training to discuss decision-making and actions within an increasingly charged national discourse.

1 Setting the Stage

Since 1996, Columbia University and Barnard College have required that all undergraduate environmental majors take a course called “Earth’s Environmental Systems: Climate.” (EES: Climate). Over time, the EES: Climate course content has changed, reflecting changes in the science as well as shifting perspectives of both faculty and students on critical aspects of climate systems. As one of the longest, continuously running, required higher education courses on climate, mapping these changes within the larger context of the evolving climate change issues is valuable. To set the stage for understanding our changing perspectives we first step back to take a broader look at the climate change issue.

Over the past two decades there has been a major shift in the academic community’s approach to teaching about climate. At first, since most scholars working on climate came from the physical and earth sciences, we focused on the Earth’s natural energy balance, then increasingly we addressed how human activities are altering that balance (See Fig. 19.1). From there the academic community began to explore the impacts of climate change, which raised questions of justice: emissions are primarily from developed countries, but developing countries will face major impacts without resources to manage them (i.e., Rosenzweig & Parry, 1994). That analysis naturally leads into actions that could be taken to reduce warming. Actions imply behavior change, on the part of individuals, governments, businesses, etc. Each of these changes in framing required broadening of the disciplines involved, for example, biology is needed to understand impacts, and the social sciences and humanities are required to consider the values that are behind the choices that lead to decision-making and action. Because all of the people who taught the EES: Climate class were trained in the natural sciences, we had to decide what was authentic to us in terms of presenting and discussing material beyond our professional training (see also Chap. 6 Rivera Maulucci, Pathways).

Fig. 19.1

Evolution of the perspective of the academic community on climate change, as reflected in the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); modified and updated from Tariq. (Banuri et al., 2001)

At the same time that perspectives in the scientific community were changing, so were public perspectives, but in a different way: towards politicization of the issue. In the mid 1990’s when we first started teaching the class, surveys indicate that about 40–50% of those surveyed thought that scientists believed that global warming was occurring (Fig. 19.2). While there was a divide along party lines even then, this polarization has grown over time to 87% of Democrats and only 44% of Republicans now thinking that global warming is occurring (Gallup, 2021). Over time, expressing concern about the climate issue effectively became seen as expressing a Democratic political view (Dunlap & McCright, 2008; McCright & Dunlap, 2011). “… [P]articularly in 1997 when the United States signed (but did not ratify) the Kyoto Protocol on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, conservatives began to critique not only the proposals for reducing carbon emissions but also the evidence for global warming itself” (Dunlap & McCright, 2008, p. 1). Furthermore, Lawrence Hamilton (2008) found “… that ideology can be a powerful filter. More educated people have greater confidence that they understand climate change science, and that this science supports their political predispositions.” (p. 677).

Fig. 19.2

Percent of the public that thinks scientists believe that global warming is occurring. Note increasing consensus until 2008 after which politicization takes place and the curves separate along party lines. Gallup data reproduced with permission (10/29/2021)

This politicization and polarization is felt by teachers in classrooms at all levels, from primary and secondary schools through colleges and universities. Responding to an online poll by the National Science Teachers Association, 82% of science educators answered that they had faced skepticism about climate change and climate change education from a student (NSTA, 2011).

It is a longstanding norm that scientists avoid advocacy in both research and teaching. Edwin Seligman et al. (1915), in the Report of the Committee on the American Association of University Professors on Academic Freedom and Tenure, stated that

The teacher should be especially on his guard against taking unfair advantage of the student’s immaturity by indoctrinating him with the teacher’s own opinions before the student has an opportunity to fairly examine other opinions upon the matters in question. (p. 117)

For many of us teaching about climate change, starting around 2007, we realized that we needed to change from explaining how and what we understand about what is happening, to addressing what we can do about it. We were hearing from students that they wanted to know more about actions, and we were asked to provide actionable advice related to our research as well. While most of us did not realize it at the time, this represented a shift from our scholar role to a scholar-practitioner role. For example, a report on the legacy of the 2007–2009 International Polar Year (IPY), stated,

While the community survey run by this committee revealed concerns when there is a ‘mixing of advocacy with science’ there is a growing sense in the polar research and education community that IPY has made ‘knowledge to action’ a proper domain for scientists—in the past it was often disregarded as ‘activism.’ (National Research Council, 2012, p. 102)

However, as seen in these quotes, while ‘knowledge to action’ and practice grew in community acceptance, advocacy and activism still raise concerns.

Beyond the individual, activism is an issue of concern for the entire scholarly community. Government funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, are prohibited from using federal funds for lobbying. However, during the study period back in 2012, according to Brett M. Baker, the NSF Assistant Inspector General for Audit, who analyzed potential advocacy in climate education proposals,

there are no such restrictions pertaining to the use of federal funds for public policy advocacy that falls short of affirmative efforts aimed at influencing legislation. As discussed below, NSF does not have any Foundation-wide restrictions pertaining to public policy advocacy. (p. 1)

Thus, Baker (2012) found “a lack of policy, guidance and criteria on this issue” (p. 1). Furthermore, concerning the specific topic of climate education, Baker noted, “it is not clear how one would know the difference between delving into advocacy for a particular response and presenting evidence so that an informed decision can be made” (p. 2). Thus, at the time, the climate education and research community was left without clear-cut guidance for the difference between knowledge for action, informed decision-making, and advocacy.

While scientists teaching about evolution have long had to face these issues, the rest of the scientific community was largely distanced from being confronted with questions about their opinions or positions versus facts or a scientific consensus. For those teaching about climate, this was an unusual and sometimes uncomfortable situation. We realized that an inclusive classroom entails openness to diverse perspectives and values, which means that we would have to engage in negotiating conflict, if not within the classroom, then with respect to the larger politized context for the issue. As articulated by Jonathan Haidt (in Sara Wanous, 2019), people on the political left value issues such as intergenerational equity and are concerned about the vulnerability of the global poor, while those on the right resonate more with stewardship and patriotism. Those of us working on climate change needed to learn how to address these differences with authenticity—congruent with who we are and our own values—both in the classroom and beyond. Here we explore how faculty who taught EES: Climate over the years responded to this shifting landscape of both external context and internal responses.

2 History of Earth’s Environmental Systems: Climate

In 1994, Columbia University faculty from the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences joined with faculty from Barnard College’s Department of Environmental Science to create three new integrated Earth System introductory courses: EES: Climate, EES: Solid Earth, and EES: Life. With support from a grant from the National Science Foundation and the Columbia Vice Provost at the time, Michael Crow (now President of Arizona State University), a team of faculty brainstormed ideas for the content and approach for the three classes. This process included adapting an online global data access tool, originally developed for research (Hays et al. 1998, 2000), to form the backbone of the corequisite 3 hour labs.

All Columbia and Barnard environmental majors are required to take these classes and the labs. In addition to majors, some students take the classes to fulfill the minor concentration, their general education requirements, or for personal interest. Enrollment increased gradually in 2006–08, and more dramatically in 2009, from about 35–50 to more than 80 students per year (Fig. 19.3). While we are not exactly sure what caused this increase, in 2004, Columbia University introduced a new core requirement called “Frontiers of Science.” Part of this one-semester class addressed the issue of climate change, and all students were required to take an additional science class as well. Once students were introduced to the subject of climate change through Frontiers, they may have chosen to fulfill the second part of their science requirement through the EES: Climate class. Other factors that might have contributed are the 2006 release of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and the dramatic Arctic sea ice decline in summer 2007, as well as the awarding of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which caught the attention of scientists and students on our campuses and elsewhere.

Fig. 19.3

Annual enrollment in Columbia/Barnard’s Earth’s Environmental Systems: Climate course from initiation to 2018

The goals of the class are to provide the fundamentals needed for understanding the Earth’s climate and the climate change issue. We focus on providing physical explanations rather than mathematical derivations of the climate system laws. There is a three-part structure to the class, where first students explore the role of the atmosphere, then they explore the role of the ocean, and then in the last section, they develop an integrated understanding of climate with a focus on climate change (Fig. 19.4). It is this third part, the last section, which has experienced the most change over time. In 1997, the last 2 weeks of the course started with teaching about greenhouse gases and ended with modeled projections of the impacts of future climate change. By 2011, these topics doubled to 4 weeks, including impacts on food and health and mitigation as well as adaptation. As of spring 2018, these issues were covered over 5 weeks, representing 38% of the course (Fig. 19.4).

Fig. 19.4

Evolution of Earth’s Environmental Systems: Climate syllabus over time

The increasing emphasis in this third section of the course on future projections and adaptation, as well as choices regarding mitigation, reflects what is felt to be important by the climate community (Fig. 19.1). Also, there was pressure from students to connect the class more with actions. For example, a student responding to a spring 2006 course evaluation noted:

It would be nice if the atmosphere and ocean portions of the class include[d] a bit more information on what type of legislation and what is being done to protect these systems to keep them working in the future.

As we discuss below, and as the NSF Inspector General noted above, because these topics connect with choices through policies and actions, they have the potential to be perceived as political advocacy or activist.

3 Student Perspectives

From the students’ perspective, this class has stood the test of time. During senior exit interviews, when we ask our undergraduate environmental majors, “what was the most valuable class you took as a major?” EES: Climate is consistently the course that comes to mind. When asked why it was the most valuable class, students state that it has a good balance of breadth and depth and lays a strong foundation for their future studies.

Analysis of 845 student evaluations from the 28 semesters spanning Spring 1999–2017 (data are missing for nine semesters) indicates similarly positive student experiences. From the early days of the class up to 2017, they note in course evaluations that they appreciate applying what they learned in this class both to their other coursework and to their daily lives. For example, a student wrote, “I loved applying principles of science to the real world, and learning all about the climate.” (Fall 1998, Casey, pseudonyms used for students throughout). Another student explained:

In this course, I was able to learn a lot about how Earth’s Climate System works, and how there are many factors and phenomena that play into effect. I was also able to become very familiar with basic physics and chemistry concepts for me to better understand the class. I am now able to tell others and teach others about why we experience different climatic events and weather patterns. (Spring 2016, Blair)

Both of these responses show how students were making connections between the course content, the real world, and their daily lives, even to the point of teaching others about “climatic events and weather patterns.”

For students, the last section of the course on climate change, global warming, impacts, and mitigation seems to have the most relevance. For example, many students noted that the best part of the class was “the last third—greenhouse gas mitigation and climate change” (Spring 2006, Sidney). One student explained that they appreciated “The more discussion-oriented lectures at the end of the course [and] the subjects that applied to human impacts and future predictions” (Fall 2007, Adan). Part of the interest and relevance for students was that this section of the course focused more specifically on real-world issues. In addition, students appreciated learning about “how and why” actions on climate change were important:

I learned a lot about how and why climate change is important as well as the different mechanisms which go into climate change. I gained the insight into how and why it is important to mitigate carbon emissions and protect the atmosphere and ocean. (Fall 2015, Lee)

Beginning in Spring 2006 and continuing, we see a few comments (8 out of 845) from students asking for more information about actions. Surprisingly, there were only two student comments regarding politicization or a lack of inclusiveness. Both of these comments were from the 2007 to 2008 transition period described above, where politics began to be increasingly associated with the issue of climate change.

One thing that I thought of throughout the semester was that … [the] lectures treat climate change global warming as something that will most definitely happen and … [don’t] give a lot of time to explain the positions of reputable scientists including people who participated in the IPCC who have different ideas about what the future world will look like. I do not think that … gives a balanced perspective on the topic of climate change. I personally believe that climate change is real but I’m not as alarmist as the IPCC. In … explanations we are made to believe that the IPCC is the sole authority on projecting climate change and that their reports present the definitive idea of what the world will look like in the future. However, there are many other reports by institutions and individual scientists who have different perspectives about climate change. The IPCC itself has a lot of institutional problems that we never discussed, which could have a profound impact on the reports that it issues. … never gave much credence to alternative opinions about climate change and I think that … [they] should because like all other important matters today there is not only one perspective on this issue. I’m not saying that … [they have] to endorse them—only that … [they] should mention that there are lots of people out there who do not fully agree with what the IPCC is saying or who do not agree with the way that the IPCC has worked to publish its reports—including several scientists who have become so frustrated with the single-mindedness of the IPCC that they have quit. All I ask is that … lectures [present] information that is not solely based on the IPCC reports. I understand that they are important documents and present really important information about science but I think it is unfair and unwise to base so much of the information we learn in this class on the results of a single reporting group. (Spring 2007, Riley)

Regarding our use of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as a teaching foundation, while the Third Assessment Report (2001) largely addressed climate change impacts and adaptations, the Fourth Assessment Report of (2007) was associated with taking action to mitigate climate change for development and sustainability (Fig. 19.1). Mitigation is always more politically charged than adaptation as it requires being proactive rather than reactive. Another factor is that because of the long-standing media emphasis on balance (Boykoff & Boykoff 2007), what students were hearing outside of the classroom distorted the extent of disagreement among scientists, leading many to believe that there was stronger scientific evidence against projected warming than there actually was. As Boykoff & Boykoff (2007) stated:

However, one underconsidered factor—the very norms that guide journalistic decision-making—plays a crucial role in the failure of the central messages in the generally-agreed-upon scientific discourse to transmit successfully into US-backed international policy to combat global warming. (p. 12–13)

The same student (Riley, Spring 2007) continued:

I also think that it is inappropriate to bring up recent political events such as Al Gore’s movie without presenting the other side of the argument or presenting the opposition that many scientists have had to both his science and his tactics. Whenever politics was mentioned in this class it was quite obvious that the professor[s] felt a certain way and wished to inform the class about that viewpoint alone. Just because most of the class may happen to agree with you doesn’t mean that you can only sing the praises of Al Gore and his personal environmental crusade. Something that I think would be much more memorable, effective and relevant to students’ lives would be to analyze the science he presented and then discuss from there without indicating agreement or disagreement with anything that he says. I know that this is a politically charged issue, and it’s an issue that is important to bring up but I think that the way it was done this semester was inappropriate because the other side was never presented or given a chance to speak. (Spring 2007, Riley)

Similarly, Jesse Spring 2008, noted:

The only thing I didn’t like … is that … lectures are consistently politically charged and … clearly pushing … [their] own agenda in the class rather than focusing on the actual science. (Spring 2008, Jesse)

These two students were clearly uncomfortable with what they saw as politics entering the classroom. At the time, we—the professors—did not see Al Gore’s film as political, but rather as a high-profile attempt to engage the public with the science. Through its inclusion, we thought we were making the class more relevant to the students. This input from students led to discussions and reconsiderations among the EES: Climate faculty about how to handle issues such as the perceived credibility of sources and different perspectives held by different scientists—including us!—as well as our students.

By 2011, the following comment from a student recognizes that the faculty have opinions, and the student does not feel that they are inappropriate to represent but rather wants to convey that we should consider how time in class is used.

Sometimes … [they] really inserted a lot of … [their] own opinions on the lectures, but not in jarring ways. (Spring 2011, Cody)

The only other comments regarding political aspects of the course that we saw in our review of the 845 student evaluations were in 2016, and they also refer to balance. But this student says that we can move on from making the argument that humans are causing climate change:

I also felt that the balance of lecture topics was a little off. We spent the entire second half of the course on showing that anthropogenic climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans—while I appreciated the detail, I don’t think anyone in the class was in any doubt that climate change is real, and I would have preferred to go into more depth about other climate topics. (Spring 2016, Taylor)

This comment from the same semester is noteworthy in that the student is more interested in the fundamental science, where we started with the class back in 1996, rather than the projected impacts and potential actions that we focused on increasingly over the years.

“The second half of the course is extremely dry. The very fundamental understanding of the climate system we acquire in the first half does not allow for a smooth translation into the largely policy- and forecast-based lectures we had in the second half. The material in this class is obviously hugely important and could inform students’ major declarations—and while I understand this kind of policy maneuvering and forecasting is what climate scientists spend a lot of time doing, I would suggest deemphasizing the bureaucratic image. It’s a tiresome introduction to a vital subject. (Spring 2016, Shawn)

4 Professor Perspectives

Originally Earth’s Environmental Systems: Climate was taught by 3–4 professors, with periodic rotation in and out of co-teachers. Thus, as of spring 2018, a total of 32 different professors had co-taught the class. The course is now co-taught in the fall and the spring semesters by two professors each semester. From 1996 to 2008, Stephanie Pfirman taught the critical third part of the syllabus. In 2009, Gisela Winckler took over teaching it and continued through the spring 2018 study period.

4.1 Pfirman Perspectives

I (Stephanie) came to this class with a background in climate science through my Arctic research and my experience with public-oriented climate change education. I was co-PI of the first major (>$1 million) National Science Foundation climate education grant, in 1991, for an exhibition on climate change: “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast” jointly produced by the American Museum of Natural History and the Environmental Defense Fund. The exhibition largely followed the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 1990) and dealt with historic climate change, causes, and impacts of climate change, ending with a section called “What Can be Done.” Both Al Gore and Charlton Heston spoke at the exhibition’s opening in 1992, reflecting the lack of politics around this issue at the time (Fig. 19.5).

Fig. 19.5

Charlton Heston and Stephanie Pfirman at the opening of “Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast,” American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York, 1992

After the exhibition opened, I moved to Barnard and Columbia. One of the first things that I did was to work with Jim Hays at Columbia to develop the three Earth’s Environmental Systems courses as a foundation for environmental majors (Hays et al., 1998, 2000). As the leader of the spring EES: Climate class, when the IPCC reports began to emphasize future scenarios, as well as adaptation and mitigation, we expanded their scope in the course (Fig. 19.4).

I also remember students increasingly asking about actions. I have a vivid memory of teaching about projected climate impacts and saying something along the lines that “For the first time in human history, we have a pretty good idea of how our future will play out.” Students were completely quiet—and then asked me directly, “What are you doing about it?” My response was to get back into public education—trying to change the public discourse towards action. This public outreach coincided with the 2007 Arctic sea ice loss. My research is on Arctic sea ice, and when I saw that the September minimum was 23% below the average, I thought to myself, “Oh no! It’s going.” With such dramatic ice loss, I knew that the Arctic sea ice was likely to be more vulnerable to future warming and that the whole region was in danger much sooner than we had thought it would be.

I recall being shocked to see the two student comments in 2007 and 2008 course evaluations (quoted above) that criticized the political content of the course. As the lead professor, I was responsible for the overall student experience. The co-teachers had agreed that the course needed to address reducing warming through actions, such as switching to non-fossil fuel energy sources. This content must have been what the students referred to as pushing a political agenda. The comments from students really had a defining impact on me as a teacher and made me think about the difference between informing decisions versus advocating. At the same time, I was upset that a co-teacher, when asked what should be done about global warming, said that they were not a politician and so they would leave it up to politicians to make that decision. It felt to me that this stance was abdicating our responsibility as scientists (See also Chap. 6 Rivera Maulucci, Pathways, this volume). Would an infectious disease researcher who was asked what should be done in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic not talk about vaccines?

When I moved on to teach other classes, these mixed feelings stayed with me. I felt that it was wrong to be political in the classroom, and I wanted to be inclusive, acknowledging diversity in student perspectives. At one point, I had a student in another class who came from a very conservative, fundamentalist religious background. I found myself choosing my words and becoming tense and vigilant not to sound political. I watched all the students carefully to see their reactions. At the same time, to be authentic and true to the science, I felt that I needed to be strong about articulating actions that would reduce impacts.

Reading back through the EES: Climate evaluations in writing this chapter, I was surprised to see that in the entire history of teaching the class, these two comments in 2007 and 2008 were the only ones of the total of 845 responses regarding politicization and lack of inclusiveness. This fact made me wonder if the comments were representative of the changing public discourse or because of the way the class was taught? The comments came just after the release of Inconvenient Truth (May 2006), and when public opinions about climate change also became more politicized (Fig. 19.2). The reference to Gore in the 2007 comment is perhaps the key. This reference was made right during that transition when concern for the climate was just beginning to be thought of as synonymous with being a Democrat. Some students may have thought that expressing the need to mitigate warming was the same as advocating for the Democratic agenda. Perhaps students taking the class after this time of transition accepted a political framing for the issue. Also, given the growing evidence regarding warming, they may have expected when they enrolled in a class about climate to encounter professors referring to the scientific consensus on the issue coupled with the need to take action.

4.2 Winckler Perspectives

I started teaching Climate System in the spring of 2009. I had no prior experience teaching undergraduate students other than occasional guest lectures. Like many of my co-teachers in the class, I have a background in science (physics in my case) and no formal education in public climate change education or policy.

When I started teaching the class, the main challenge was introducing a robust and thorough understanding of the climate system and climate change, with minimal math, as the class is open to non-science majors. Though initially challenging, I quickly started to embrace that concept and appreciate how this very idea of a systems class opens up the dialogue within the class and between the students and the professors.

Over the years, we have increasingly tried to incorporate modules in the lectures and lab that encourage exchange and discussion between the students. For instance, I have the class do a homework exercise based on the Princeton Carbon Mitigation Initiative: Stabilization Wedges (Princeton University, 2021). Students pick their high-priority strategies to mitigate climate change and write about the motivation behind their strategies. I compile the data from their responses and use a graphical illustration of their choices to trigger discussions in the ‘Climate Mitigation and Adaptation’ class. This graphical representation leads to lively and inspiring discussions in the classroom that often extend after the end of class. It also translates the material to the students as relevant. I find these discussions the most interesting part of teaching the class. In the words of one of the students, “I especially enjoyed Gisela’s lectures on mitigation strategies and global health impacts. She effectively got the class to participate in a discussion of different techniques and made this course all the more applicable to the real world.”

Reading back through the evaluations, I realize that my perspective has changed. An increasing number of students express interest and demand information beyond ‘just’ learning about the scientific basics of the physical climate system. They regard climate change as a given and are more interested in comprehending potential solutions concerning policymaking and technological options. This demand has led me to define my teaching role to improve basic scientific literacy and a deeper general understanding of the challenges related to sustainability and potential solutions. It is also my realization (or hope) that while not every student taking EES: Climate may opt to major in Earth or Environmental Science (and in fact, most do not), those who do not may be inspired to turn their attention towards developing decision-making and/or technologies required to mitigate the societal impacts of a rapidly changing climate.

5 Other EES: Climate Professor and Teaching Assistant Perspectives

To expand beyond our own experiences as professors in the Climate class, we conducted a Survey Monkey poll in spring 2018 of all professors who taught the class (besides ourselves), plus six Teaching Assistants (TAs), for a total of 36 invitations. We received 20 responses representing a 56% response rate. We asked six content-based questions, and due to several non-answers to specific questions, we received 112 responses. We found a surprisingly wide range of perspectives on what people thought was appropriate to teach in this introductory class. To represent this range, we selected responses categorized on three themes: integration of so-called climate “deniers” perspectives, consideration of issues relating to justice, and how to handle teaching about actions. We present the selected responses followed by a section that summarizes our views about their responses.

5.1 Integration of “Denier” Perspectives

Regarding the issue of whether or not to tackle climate “denier” perspectives head-on, some professors and TAs decided to focus on the science, while others addressed this through a consideration of varying values. Most of the comments below are in response to the question, “Is there anything that you would like to share with us about teaching climate change related to the issue of inclusion—for example, reference to “denier” perspectives?”

5.1.1 Focus on the Science

• It is worthwhile to discuss why the deniers’ claims are unfounded when they are and what issues they raise that are worth investigating.

• I will, where relevant, bring up common denier talking points and explain why they are incorrect or incomplete. The students really like this, I think because they feel ready to engage with friends and family who do have this perspective.

• Every year I conduct a poll (by using clickers) to probe the students’ views on climate change before the class. There are always some who are unconvinced that climate change is an issue and that it belongs as a topic in an Earth Science degree. They tend to have a more informed view by the end of the class and enjoy learning about the topic.

• I didn’t want to suggest that scientists were “split” on the climate issue like some anti-climate-change advocates try to claim. So I wasn’t worried about being too political because it was important for me to show that the science is robust regardless of what is said by politicians.

5.1.2 Consideration of Values

• The opposition of the deniers is rarely rooted in a scientific disagreement, but more so in their basic value system—that is where I try to lead the discussion. With respect to deniers who may speak up in a group, I try to discover whether their stance is based on mistrust of information vs. ideology. If it is mistrust of modeling, for example, I encourage them to skip modeling altogether, and just review the historical data in order to draw their own conclusions. If it’s ideology, I try (briefly) to see if there’s a possibility to find common ground based on values. If it doesn’t look like it, I’ll note that such a stance has more place in a policy discussion and move on.

5.2 Considering Justice

With respect to justice, again, there was a range of responses, with some professors feeling that this was outside of their area of expertise or outside of the appropriate scope of the class. In contrast, others addressed the social justice aspects of impacts and responses, and still others addressed the complexity of the issue. Most of the comments below are in response to the question, “Is there anything that you would like to share with us about teaching climate change related to the issue of justice—for example, differential impacts on vulnerable populations?”

5.2.1 Outside class scope or personal expertise

• No, in my day we did not deal with this in the climate class. We just hoped to help the students understand the natural climate system and the possible impacts man could have on it.

• I don’t really discuss this much. Most of my classes focus on the scientific issues since that is my area of expertise.

• Important topic, but not one I would consider myself to be an expert in.

5.2.2 Social Justice of Impacts and Responses

• I think that quantifying the impacts of global climate change is the most important thing for the issue of justice—for example, quantifying the people who will die from flooding or famine, etc. can put the social impacts into better perspective.

• I mentioned disparate impacts as a social justice issue, but beyond that tried to stay away from anything political.

• That never came up in my part of the course. Certainly, the idea of differential impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations is an important one. But it is only fair to also recognize that responses to climate change will also have differential impacts on different populations, and I think this is one reason for some of the resistance to doing anything about the problem. I’d like to think we can design climate mitigation policies to account for the different degrees of hardship such policies will impose on different segments of the population. But I don’t have much confidence that our and other governments will actually take such things into account.

• Engineering fixes might be good for some regions, bad for others. Countries that can control the climate might do so for their own good, not the good of the whole planet. This is a great challenge.

• Should have more weight in the class. I addressed this more explicitly in [an upper-level class].

5.2.3 Cultural/Intergenerational Complexity

• …justice is a complex concept that is maybe one that goes beyond this class. Just think of justice in a country, between generations, or globally between regions of different development. And the issue of justice also has adaptation and mitigation dimensions...

• I think it’s important not to generalize. All regions, countries, and cultures have different values and combinations of factors that matter with respect to environmental stress, security, and justice. Climate change can be a very personal issue, I feel.

• I’m not teaching in a formal classroom setting now, but when I talk to groups of students, I try to make the issue relatable on a more personal level through a discussion of financial resources. I invite them to think about impacts they’ve heard about—“slow-motion” (like a drought) vs. catastrophic (like a heavy rainfall event and flooding). How do people caught up in the impact cope, and what is the personal cost? What should people be expected to handle on their own, and when is there a line crossed to where community and/or government help is required? Because it’s a discussion, people have the chance to share their opinions, and perhaps think through their stances more with additional input from their colleagues.

5.3 Teaching about Actions

We also asked professors and TAs about the degree to which they incorporated actions in their teaching. Most mentioned that while they initially focused on science, increasingly, they taught students to understand actions. One noted that “some students like to talk after class about climate change issues and how we can respond to that.” As the issue is developing into a crisis, many have now moved on to also recommending actions. Most people teaching the class are also climate researchers and perceive the issue as important to address. Milman et al.’s (2017) survey of the motivations of interdisciplinary climate change (IDCC) scholars found that “Respondents’ decisions to conduct IDCC research are driven by personal motivations, including personal interest, the importance of IDCC research to society, and enjoyment of interdisciplinary collaborations” (no p. #). In fact, “92% conduct IDCC research to address issues of societal importance” (no p. #). Most of the comments below are in response to the questions:

• Has your approach to talking about actions changed since when you first started teaching about climate change in general, not just in this class?”

• In teaching the EES: Climate class, did you encounter any issues regarding teaching about mitigation actions? Did you feel that it was appropriate or inappropriate for you to discuss actions? For example, did you have concerns about being “political” or being perceived as an advocate? Did you consider being inclusive to different perspectives on climate action?”

• Is there anything else that you would like to share with us about teaching climate change in general?”

5.3.1 Focus on Understanding Climate Science

• I began my quest to understand the climate system because I found it interesting. Now it’s obvious that it is critical in developing a sustainable environment. This makes the understanding an urgent matter...

• When I taught this subject in [another class] I got positive feedback from the students for making it all about the science and leaving out the politics.

• No [teaching has not changed], but this may be because I still feel like a bit of an outsider to the field, so I wouldn’t feel comfortable promoting actions as an “expert”.

• I would not say that I have concerns about being “political” or perceived as an advocate. I would instead say that it is my strong preference not to use the position of instructor to try to shape political views in a class about science. In my section of the class, I repeatedly emphasize my belief that the students can form and hold whatever opinion they prefer on the decisions that our government and society should make, but that their opinions about climate should be grounded in scientific understanding.

5.3.2 Understanding the Science of Actions

• If one sticks to the natural science facts (which this class should) there is enormous consensus as articulated by the IPCC process. If one talks about adaptation and mitigation measures one can show the natural science dimension of these ... again not so controversial. But when going into recommendations for political actions I would think one should be more inclusive ...

• Yes. I have been dismayed at how the perception of the science of climate change has been contaminated by people’s views about whether something should be done about it. I try to separate the science from the possible policy response. And for the latter, although I strongly favor action, I am willing to accept the view of others that they may be the losers in any action that is taken to mitigate climate change, as long as they are willing to consider the possible ramifications of not doing anything and to realize that uncertainty about the magnitude of climate change goes in both the “not as bad as predicted” and “worse than predicted” directions.

• I found that the students were very interested in the discussion of future climate change and adaptation vs. mitigation, to the point that some of them expressed the wish that I’d spent more time on that topic. I tried to steer clear of political discussions, and instead relied on information … to allow the students to come to their own conclusions about what the effects of continued increasing CO₂ emissions might be. I was also careful to note that there is a difference between what we can do to adapt/mitigate climate change, and what communities decide to do, based on risk assessments, financial abilities, other social priorities—where there is certainly plenty of room for discussion.

• Certainly, the specific agreements that I discuss have changed. For example, Paris accords didn’t exist. Also, the landscape for renewables (wind and solar) has changed significantly over the years, and my teaching has reflected this.

• Yes, my approach has evolved to focus much more strongly on mitigation and resilience rather than on prevention.

• Yes, I would now much more deeply consider avoiding direct advocacy. Talking about advocacy is something I would consider but I would stop short of advocating for my position.

5.3.3 Recommending Action

• I believe the response side should be (more) prominent...maybe by now, it is...

• I feel it is appropriate to discuss mitigation. I presented a range of proposed ideas, including those I didn’t agree with. I did try to be cautious about presenting my own opinion but did express my opinion when asked.

• I think of myself as welcoming towards all perspectives on climate *action* and I consider the science to be very clear about the consequences of *inaction*. I no longer think of things as political on that level.

• The impact of anthropogenic climate change is of increasing concern. We have to do something.

• Yes—my focus has certainly shifted somewhat towards solutions, and I don’t hesitate to provide my viewpoint after discussing the various aspects of a potential remedy.

• Yes, I had a paper published that got a lot of attention and forced me to more prominently voice my opinions, and this affected my approach.

6 Outlook

We found that Columbia and Barnard professors have a wide range of perspectives on teaching about climate change. They are thoughtful in crafting their classroom strategies to navigate a commitment to students and society on this critical issue. We also found that students—mostly—accept this range of engagement and approaches from professors. Why might this be the case? Potential explanations are (1) that the political values of the students largely align with those of the professors or fellow students, (2) students respect the authority and/or authenticity of the professors, and (3) the facilitation style of the professors. Regarding political alignment, April Kelly-Woessneor and Matthew Woessner (2006) found that almost 90% of students believe that they know their professors’ political leanings. As the climate became politicized over the years, students who do not align with the largely Democratic association with the issue may not become environmental majors. As noted by Diana Hess (2018), “… my students suggested ... [t]hey had conservative friends who simply avoided courses with an environmental or climate-related theme. ... some also did not want to be in courses that they perceived to have a liberal agenda.”

The facilitation style of the EES: Climate professors varied widely, ranging from intentional integration of controversial material to avoidance. Several of the Climate class professors were explicit about leaving politics and political action out of the class. One professor considered varied student responses as a normal part of being a professor, noting, “I receive mixed reviews every year about every aspect of my teaching, including how students feel about these issues.” Hess and Paula McAvoy (2009), in their study of high school teachers and students, similarly found a continuum of disclosure of opinions on controversial subjects on the part of teachers, ranging from pure neutrality to sharing views when asked, to explicit disclosures. Alan McCully’s (2006) study of community educators reported that such disclosures could come from a desire for authenticity and avoid risking their students’ trust.

Several professors commented that they felt that issues like climate justice and recommendations for action were outside their areas of expertise. However, many respondents described an evolving approach to teaching about climate. Sometimes, they learned from experiences gained through their research, other classes, or public speaking that they could handle conflicting responses and become more comfortable talking about other aspects of this issue. As Sabine Roeser (2010) observed, leaving out ethical issues leads to “complexity neglect.” Roeser (2012, p. 4) argues that to motivate action, educators and communicators should incorporate “appeals to emotions such as feelings of justice and sympathy for victims of climate change, in the present and future generations.”

In 2020, many colleges and universities provided forums to address systemic racism. Workshops and other professional development helped train people to deal with conflict, emotions, and discomfort and improve classroom discussions on values and justice. Perhaps climate educators can learn from these experiences and push themselves and their colleagues to move beyond their comfort zones. If we do not grapple more directly with teaching the complexities of the climate issue, who will? In the words of the EES: Climate course professors:

The issue became more urgent.

… the science more definite.

… the need for action became more pressing.

… we have to do something.