YouTube juxtaposition exposes National’s Enviroschool hypocrisy

In preparing our graduates for careers as sustainable practioners we’ve been grateful for the work going on before us in schools. The Enviroschools programme in particular has been doing amazing work with a whole school approach to education for sustainability. But no more.  John Key has cut the funding for Enviroschools from the end of the year (google news).    The Greens call this “sabotaging success” and “a disaster for our future“.

Perhaps more powerful than the political statements though, is the juxtaposition of two clips on YouTube.   Here’s a short video from Dunedin’s “frodesnz” on this decision:

and, here, courtesy of YouTube’s related videos, is John Key himself talking to the Enviroschools Youth Jam in 2007.   In it he says

Most of all, we know that the environment is something that New Zealanders have for a long time taken for granted. We’re at a point we can no longer afford to do that, it is certainly very important for the future of our country.

He talks about the important question of how to get New Zealanders to engage in the issue. He highlights the role of the Enviroschools youth leaders:

a lot of New Zealanders see it (sustainability) as something the government can work on but don’t see it as something they can personally make a real difference to. You can play a leadership role in getting that message out there to the community.

It is a shame now that this government is neither working on it themselves nor working to prepare New Zealanders to make a real difference.

I’ve been shocked before at how short sighted this government is towards the environment but they are seeming increasingly barefaced.

Here’s Metiria Turei trying to get a straight answer from Key in the house (via scoop)

Metiria Turei: How does cutting the budget for education for sustainability on, for example, the MātaurangaKuraTaiao programme, education for sustainability advisers, and Enviroschools enhance our brand; or are eco-literate children not part of the Prime Minister’s vision of New Zealand’s future brand?

Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the last part of the question: yes.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree that New Zealand’s clean, green reputation—indeed, New Zealand’s “clean, green” brand—is worth billions of dollars to the New Zealand economy and to thousands of struggling New Zealand businesses, and that during a recession we should be doing more, not less, to protect our environment on which our economy is based?

Hon JOHN KEY: I certainly agree that part of New Zealand’s important brand is the “clean, green” image, and that is one of the reasons why funding in the Budget has been as excessive as it has; it is very important we maintain that brand. But it is equally important that we realise we have to live within our economic means, and I do not think that a very modest reduction in expenditure is out of the question for any Government department at the moment.

 

Green as a verb

Our Simple Pledge is subtitled “towards sustainable practice”.   In explaining what we’re up to, I often use the line: “this is a journey and we might never reach the destination”.

There’s similar thoughts in Daniel Goleman’s Ecological Intelligence (Amazon).  In an extract in SciAm “Green is a mirage“, Goleman explores the Life Cycle Analysis.   He describes the impact of the manufacture of glass and finds an incredibly complex process with a multitude of impacts.  This leads to some really insightful observations:

This transforms our notions of “green” from what seems a binary judgment—green or not into a far more sophisticated arena of fine distinctions, each showing relatively better or worse impacts along myriad dimensions.

…

Every small step toward green helps, to be sure. But our craze for all things green represents a transitional stage, a dawning of awareness of ecological impact but one that lacks precision, depth of understanding, and clarity. Much of what’s touted as “green” in reality represents fantasy or simple hype. We are past the day when one or two virtuous qualities of a product qualify it as green.  To tout a product as green on the basis of a single attribute—while ignoring numerous negative impacts—parallels a magician’s sleight of hand.

…

But those green choices, helpful as they are, too often lull us to more readily ignore the way that what we now think of as “green” is a bare beginning, a narrow slice of goodness among the myriad unfortunate impacts of all manufactured objects. Today’s standards for green ness will be seen tomorrow as eco- myopia.

I particularly like this conclusion:

Green is a process, not a status—we need to think of “green” as a verb, not an adjective.

In an interview also on SciAm, Goleman describes the radicial transparency enabled by industrial ecology:

The most vital lie is that a given product is green. “Green” is an illusion once you understand life cycle analysis. Anything made has impacts all along its way. You can make a T-shirt from organic cotton and then you call it green. Maybe out of 1,000 ecological impacts you’ve improved one. What about the other 999?

He points to GoodGuide as boiling this down for us:  ”If you really want to know the numbers, they also show the basis for their ratings. There’s a hidden layer and then there’s the layer that faces us. Luckily, the layer facing us is friendly”.

Goleman advocates compassionate consumption.   He argues that we should follow three principles:

1. Know impacts

2. Favour improvements

3. Share what you know.

Perhaps the most important statement Goleman’s parting “I’m really just at the beginning of a long, rich journey into this”.     We all are, and need to remember this.

 

The SimPa story in words

Looking back (and forward!), SimPa is quite different to how we first conceived it. Despite these differences,  or perhaps because of them, it has far exceeded our expectations.  Here’s the first stab at the words to follow the SimPa pictures (these are my personal thoughts, Tori is doing the same, tomorrow they join forces to become a real paper).

At the start of the project we proposed a process of participatory development for each Runaka. For each group we saw a process of helping the community identify important stories and then converting these stories to a game-based environment. Of primary importance was the “SimPa toolkit”. We hoped that the resultant GamePa would be used in engaging and educating the community. “Sustained interactivity” would be the use of these GamePa with Runaka work with schools and possibly in tourism ventures etc. We saw a new field, that of the “Maori digital education specialist”.

So, how did we do?     SimPa is better than we expected, different yes, but better:

- the linear flow of the Simpa development has been very much more organic.

- the SimPa toolkit has been much more about process – partnerships of ideas and capabilities – than about the technology.

- the partnership has evolved significantly.  The most important change was a realisation that to achieve the outcomes the SimPa team had to be indistinguishably both Otago Polytechnic and Iwi.   The most successful capacity building has been of this evolving team.  We see this as a very positive outcome.

- the intended target for the project “the teenagers dis-engaged from both their culture and education” proved hard to hit.  We  had most success with people in with young families (widely recognised as crucial for cultural development), the very young, and the more mature.   Some of the Runaka, though, are actively using SimPa to connect with their youth.

- the use of SimPa as recruitment tool for students into computing did not occur.   There is a role for the “Maori digital education specialist” but it is difficult to see a predictable career path into this.

- the project has taken far more partnership negotiation than we ever imagined.  This has been constant and evolving.   We believe that this model of engagement could be the model for further partnership.

- the development of each GamePa has been quite different to what we expected.   None of the five runaka GamePa could be considered “games”.  All, though have made extensive use of the 3d gaming environment.

- the recreation of the landscapes (the first stage on the original process) had a fundamental impact on the runaka.   Without exception, the engagement at that stage was sufficient that further development (of the game environment) was unnecessary.  No groups developed characters with scripted behaviour, in all, the landscape is the foundation of the story.

- runaka have had some extremely interesting debates about digital representation of images.  For landscapes the debates are sometimes pragmatic – how to represent an area one group insists was always grassland whereas other families remember playing in the forest that once stood there.  For people and stories, we need to recognise that there is rarely an objective truth.  As the stories become older, the representation of a single image in a digital setting becomes problematic – just what did this ancestor look like?   In part this was avoided by not having direct characters, but also by recognising that this is “our” version of the story, it is quite acceptable for you to tell another version.

- every runaka saw the potential for combining the game environment with other digital media – primarily audio and video.  This occurred in both directions, the incorporation of audio narratives in the game environment, and, completely unexpectedly, with the use of the game environment as “film sets” for telling more complex narratives.  While the stories are hosted in the game environment, this was used a platform for further engagement.

- while we were explicitly funded on the promise of game-based narratives, we have spent a very great deal of time engaged in wider knowledge – and wider applications of digital technology.  For, example, one runaka has a long held a special role as archivists for the Iwi.    They saw the potential for SimPa to help with this role.   Before we could sensibly talk game environments, we spent a very long time helping the runaka with editing and sustaining existing media.

- every runaka produced a “GamePa”.   In the original funding application the GamePa were described using deliberately ambiguous terms.  This was to allow each Runaka to tell their own stories.   We did not expect the form of the GamePa to vary so much.

- we expected the project to focus on the original GamePa.  We expected these to be developed as robust products (along the lines of a packaged game).  We expected any further benefits to come from the use of the GamePa in marae-based teaching etc.   These benefits did occur (despite the lack of polish), with most of the runuka actively using their GamePa for “virtual tours”.

- we have been surprised by the surprise shown nationally and internationally that we were leaving the stories with the respective Papatipu Runaka.   The assumption is that a project such as ours results in a contribution to a central archive.   We have taken a very different approach:  we have helped the Runaka retell their stories to themselves.    In their new form they are still knowledge transitted and retained within each Runaka.   Even as project manager, I have not seen several of the GamePa.

- the best thing to come from the SimPa is the initiatives beyond the original GamePa.  This demonstrates a very successful community adoption of digital media.   These initiatives have included both game environment form and video form of GamePa, but put to quite unexpected uses.

-  the subject matter has extended beyond the traditional stories to include contemporary narratives: the story of Puketaraki’s new carvings, and Moeraki’s expedition to Te Papa.

- the relationship between SimPa and landscape was further explored by the Otakou runaka who used it in visioning wetland restoration to reform mahika kai.

 

The SimPa story in pictures

SimPa is our project working with Maori communities to build capacity in digital content to benefit the culture.  Close to the end of the funding from the Digital Strategy,  we’re awash in reports and milestones.

Amidst all the words, we’ve spent time this week developing a visual comparison of where we thought the project would go and where we’ve been.  I think it tells quite a story (words are coming…).

Here’s the original overview:

The image below demonstrates that SimPa is quite different to how we first conceived it.  Despite these differences  - or perhaps because of them – it has far exceeded our expectations:

(full size version)

 

Signing the Simple Pledge

To celebrate World Environment Day we’ve taken the opportunity to formally launch the book Simple Pledge: Otago Polytechnic’s Journey Towards Sustainability .

The book is intended to reinforce the message that this the journey Otago Polytechnic is on, that means you, and yes you can.   But we need to do more than simply hand out the book and hope that people a) read it b) realise it is about them, c) keep it in mind so they do something about it.

So…we’ve spent the day rolling out an actual Simple Pledge:

As a member of the Otago Polytechnic community, I pledge to become an ambassador for sustainable practice

 We hope that by signing to the simple version of the pledge, people will take note, take some ownership of the messages of the book, and hopefully some commitment.

At the launch Phil Ker talked about the importance of Otago Polytechnic’s sustainability journey.   Hayden Montgomerie from NZ National Commission UNESCO talked about the Polytechnic’s role in developing communities of sustainable practitioners. 

 Leadership team and all of the Polytechnic Council signed the pledge and so far about 150 staff have added their personal commitment to the one already made signed the pledge.   There’s also a stand at the student centre and OSPA is encouraging students to sign.      

Yet again, our design students (Craig and Simon) have done stunning work.  Thank you also Paula, Anna, Ella, Mark and Katie.