When my child came home from her recent science class, she vividly captures one of the greatest challenges in teaching climate science. She excitedly exclaimed: “I learned today why our playground is so hot in summer, compared to our home farm! At school, every kid breathes out CO₂, which is heating up our cement playground! And since the school chopped down Mother Earth [the name students gave to the giant maple tree that was recently removed because teenagers were spotted vaping beneath it], the concrete now gets even hotter because trees take up CO2!” Her enthusiasm was real, though the science wasn’t quite accurate. When I explained that greenhouse gases from breathing aren’t responsible for heating their cement playground, but rather, that concrete directly absorbs solar energy, and the tree previously cooled the area through transpiration and shading, she was visibly startled. Her immediate response: “Are you a climate denier?”
Her reaction perfectly illustrates the challenge educators face when communicating climate change. Complex scientific truths often become oversimplified, losing accuracy and nuance. Climate systems are astonishingly intricate—far more so than many of us appreciate. They involve a delicate dance of factors: solar energy absorption, vegetation transpiration, cloud formation, greenhouse gases, and much more. For instance, did you know low clouds generated by forests typically have a regional cooling effect, while high clouds tend to warm drier regions? Teachers often face significant challenges in effectively conveying these complexities within the constraints of classroom time, curriculum, and their own training.
Oversimplification causes problems when simplifications turns into misunderstandings of cause-effect-chains, and if those misunderstandings become ingrained narratives in people, and entwined with the identity of individuals. When challenged, these simplified narratives can trigger defensive reactions, as my daughter demonstrated. Her immediate response—”Are you a climate denier?”—reflects a broader societal tendency to dismiss complexity or nuance in the climate discourse. This dismissal arises from a well-meaning but incomplete climate education; soon groups adopt oversimplified narratives and tribal thinking: anyone questioning details must belong to the “opposing side.” Such tribalism hinders meaningful dialogue and learning.
As we learn openly about an immensely complex system such as Earth and it’s climate regulation, we are not necessary becoming more certain about anything – our awareness of uncertainties and knowledge gaps expands much faster than our firm knowledge. With every new discovery about the Living Earth’s complex climate regulation, our awareness of unknowns expands as well! Yet, despite this complexity, educators and climate communicators often feel pressured to present simplified messages that convey urgency and provoke clear action.
Unfortunately, the way that the climate narrative is being taught already has consequences at global scale. Our oversimplified understanding of the Earth’s changing climate has already coaxed the climate movement to support very harmful policies. These were highlight in a recent NFU University that laid out a new report Green Grabbing ([1]) by the International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food). The report highlights how climate change narratives are driving real ecological destruction and climate dysregulation, via biofuel policies, land grabs, deforestation, and destructive carbon offset projects. Corporate lobbyists had promoted these policies initially to increase their own profits in land speculation and selling agrochemicals, utilizing flawed climate argument to win over progressives ([2],[3]). Just today, lobbyists are again promoting more biofuels for aviation, which a recent NFU study also debunked ([4]). On top of these real issues, far-right campaigns sprinkle fake stories on how climate activism supposedly destroy forests – it is increasingly difficult to understand what’s real and what is fake, what is genuine and what is flawed greenwashing. This is the reality that young and old climate activists now have to navigate – they have to distinguish real opportunities for meaningful action, dangerous policies promoted by interest groups and disguised as climate action, and utter nonsense invented by spin-doctors and artificial intelligence.
When educators feel compelled to project absolute certainty to their children, and obscure the genuine complexity and uncertainties inherent in our Earth’s climate system – what do kids learn? In my opinion and observation, teaching based on false certainty has left a climate movement dependent on one-eyed experts, vulnerable to corporate greenwashing and outright lies. The external neutral observer perceives this inconsistency as hypocrisy, and looses trust. And rightfully so, I would add.
Perhaps it is time to embrace greater humility when teaching and discussing climate change. Earth System sciences require ample knowledge – geochemistry, oceanography, atmospheric physics, geomicrobiology, soil-plant dynamics, ecology, numerical mathematics, and software engineering. Let alone the human dimension – social sciences, engineering, sociology, history, political sciences, and psychology. Few people are qualified to talk with authority – and those who can are humbled and horrified. So let’s share what we concretely understand and admit openly what we don’t. For example, we know for certain that asphalted landscapes absorb and retain much more solar energy than living vegetation; that urban concrete causes local heat islands; trees cool their surroundings through transpiration; forest clouds reflect sunlight and moderate day temperatures. We are confident that greenhouse gases (GHG) naturally warm our planet, creating conditions suitable for life—but we also know that excessive GHG emissions are disrupting this delicate balance, risking climate shifts that are irreversible on human timescales ([5]). On the other hand, we need to help our kids to think critically, see beyond oversimplification, and question narratives. As a parent or teacher, my job is certainly scary – I am successful once my kids use rigorous methods to question whatever I tell them! Yet, only such critical thinking can empower our children an era of fake news, social media, and AI bots. And such critical thinking cannot stop at my climate preaching.
Learning and teaching humility alongside urgency may empower future generations to engage with each other constructively rather than defensively. After all, acknowledging the complexity of living beings isn’t denial—it’s a foundation for deeper understanding, wiser action, and healthier dialogue about our shared planetary future. It would also be the basis of coming together across political divides, fostering true listening, and agreeing on nonpartisan action beyond our tribal boundaries.
References
[1] https://ipes-food.org/green-grabbing-a-growing-threat-to-biodiversity-and-communities/
[2] Mitchell, D. (2008). “A Note on Rising Food Prices“, The World Bank Development Economics Group.
[3] Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R. A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., … & Yu, T. H. (2008). “Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change.” Science, 319(5867), 1238-1240.
[4] NFU (2024), Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF): A Critical Analysis, with a Focus on Agriculture, Land, and Food. https://www.nfu.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Sustainable-Aviation-Fuel-NFU-for-website.pdf
[5] Lenton TM, Held H, Kriegler E, Hall JW, Lucht W, Rahmstorf S, Schellnhuber HJ. Tipping elements in the Earth’s climate system. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences. 2008 Feb 12;105(6):1786-93.
Leave a Reply