The Economics of Climate Change

30 October 2026 marks the 20th anniversary of the launch of The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review at the Royal Society by Prime Minister Tony Blair, Chancellor Gordon Brown and the Secretary of State for the Environment David Miliband, together with Nicholas Stern. A key conclusion from the review was that the cost of inaction on climate change was much greater than the cost of action. The world has changed radically in the two decades since. The science is ever more worrying; the technology has advanced faster than anticipated; the geopolitical context is more complex. This anniversary event will examine what has happened in the intervening years, what we have learnt and where we can go

Nicholas Stern is the IG Patel Professor of Economics and Government, Chairman of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, Chair of the Global School of Sustainability, and Head of the India Observatory at LSE. President of the British Academy, July 2013 – 2017, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 2014.

LSE alumna and Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero Miatta Fahnbulleh along with David Miliband who was Secretary of State for the Environment at the time of the publication of the Stern Review and who is now President of the International Rescue Committee, will both deliver remarks via video.

Elizabeth Robinson is Professor of Environmental Economics at the Department of Geography and Environment, and Director of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. She is also the theme co-lead for the Building Sustainable Societies theme at LSE’s Global School of Sustainability.

https://www.lse.ac.uk/events/climate-change-growth

Preview YouTube video Action on climate change and new approaches to growth | LSE EventPreview YouTube video Action on climate change and new approaches to growth | LSE Event

HUMAN CAPITAL

The Tragedy of the Education Commons by Guy Standing

This is a hugely important book for all those who care about our education system- as I have done for the past 40 years. It will enlighten you to the marketisation and commodification of education at all levels- and it will enlighten you-and anger you about the ways it has been enclosed by the market just as the ancient commons were enclosed by  royalty and the wealthy elite over time. Commoning in general has always been a struggle against waives of enclosure argues Guy in this SOAS lecture he gave earlier this year -at the launch of the book.

It’s about a truth that has not been  widely shared -a belief that the commons and commoning are at the heart of all progressive transformations. The premise of his book is that education is inherently a commons, a public good, belonging to everybody. And education as a commons prioritises access to shared knowledge and respect for truth and aims to encourage independent critical thinking and active participation in the community and wider society.

It rigorously addresses these question-Does the education system make better people? Why are so many – teachers and students alike – stressed and dissatisfied? Do we need to revive real education? Ideally, education is about the pursuit of truth, beauty and morality. But in the last few decades, a perilous fixation with human capital – skills, knowledge and aptitudes required for the labour market – has trampled over curricula, schools and universities.

Rather than learning how to think critically about the world, from cradle to grave students are trained to be more effective workers, to make more money, and to serve a hegemonic ideology. Teachers and researchers are pressed to serve those goals.

In this concluding book in his series on the commons, Guy Standing explores how education – intrinsically a common public good – has been enclosed, privatised, financialised and corrupted, turned into an instrument of societal control, not human emancipation, weakening democracy, not strengthening it. Human Capital charts how the education industry largely serves commercial interests, not its teachers and students, and considers how to revive its lost values, to save society for the common good.

Discussants following the lecture • John McDonnell, MP • Danny Dorling, Professor, University of Oxford • Kate Pickett, Professor, University of York Co-chairs • Christopher Cramer, Professor, Department of Development Studies, SOAS University of London • Patrick Allen, Head of the Progressive Economy Forum

You tube SOAS Lecture 2026: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srWboH2SM0o

image.png

Experienced teachers are quitting or reducing their hours – they’re struggling to cope

by Moira Hulme, Professor of Education, University of the West of Scotland Teacher shortages are affecting school systems in countries across the world. Governments have responded with initiatives to attract graduates into teaching. While much attention has focused on increasing supply, far less attention has been paid to why experienced teachers decide to leave, despite the high costs of turnover in recruitment, training and lost continuity. Administrative data records that a teacher left, not why, or what might have kept them in their job. Leaving is treated as a single event, when for many teachers it is closer to a slow unravelling. Some step back gradually, stepping down from promoted posts or moving to part-time hours before they formally resign. This a shift that workforce statistics may count as a retention success rather than the early stage of an exit. The result is a policy conversation too often weighted towards the front door of the profession, while the back door swings largely unexamined.
  Ireland proposes language testing for citizenship: more demands on already stretched English teaching French school protests: a rite of passage – and the result of genuine concerns
 
My colleagues and I interviewed 63 teachers from publicly funded Scottish schools who had left teaching, or cut their hours or responsibilities, before retirement age. Of these, 36 had left altogether and 27 had reduced their hours, in most cases within the previous 18 months. On average they had around 18 years of teaching experience. We excluded people who left for unavoidable reasons, because we wanted to understand exits that might have been avoided. Although we did not speak to teachers who stayed under similar pressures, the pattern was consistent across accounts and warrants attention. Leaving was seldom sudden. Of the 36 who left, 25 described dissatisfaction building over months or years through rising workload, challenging pupil behaviour and the experience of not being heard by school leaders. Separately, 25 of the 36 were “reluctant leavers”: teachers who wanted to stay but could no longer carry on. Many described exhaustion, disturbed sleep and anxiety. Some reached a health crisis that needed medical help. Sixteen left with no other paid work to go to. Resignations like these are usually recorded as “voluntary”, which implies the teacher chose to go. That label hides what is driving departures and points policy in the wrong direction. A teacher tempted away might be retained with better pay or prospects; one who wanted to stay needs the conditions that pushed them out to change. Nearly half of our participants discussed accepting, or expecting, lower earnings on leaving, which suggests pay was not what pushed them out. Reducing hours is often seen as a way of keeping experienced people. Among the 27 who cut back, however, many described it as a way of coping rather than flourishing. For some it was a planned exit route, buying time while they explored alternatives and retrained. For others it kept exhaustion manageable. They reduced hours or gave up promoted posts to survive. As one put it, “I’m still absolutely exhausted on those three days, but I see it as containable.” The role of headteachers My colleagues and I carried out a second analysis of 58 teachers outside senior leadership (32 of them leavers). We found that more than six in ten of them described leadership practices that hastened their withdrawal. Only two felt genuinely heard by senior leaders. In some cases, headteachers who found practical ways to accommodate family or health needs kept teachers in their employment for longer. However, that help rested on one person and did not always survive a change in leadership. Only one of the 32 leavers had a formal exit interview, and most reported no attempt to establish why they left. Our evidence suggests requests to downscale should be treated as an opportunity to explore sustainability, not as closed cases. Leaders cannot always say yes, but they often shape the point at which teachers decide they can no longer stay. Participants described council decisions that limited what school leaders could offer, and leaders who cared but lacked the means to act. Leaders need preparation in supportive conversations and in handling flexible working, together with the authority and resource to act on what they learn. Arrangements that work should be documented so that they survive a change of headteacher. Collecting exit information independently would improve data quality and fill a gap that most leavers experienced, but it needs funding. Acting on what it shows also takes time and attention that stretched leaders may lack. Scotland’s teachers have been promised relief, but not yet. A national deal reached in March 2026 will cut the time teachers in Scotland spend in front of a class by 90 minutes a week, but primary and special school teachers will not see it until August 2027 and secondary teachers two years later. Who will pay for it remains unresolved. Councils estimate the change will cost up to £310 million a year. In October, Scotland’s education secretary Màiri McAllan told a Holyrood committee that the government had yet to cost the policy, but that a figure of that size was neither accurate nor affordable. Even when it arrives, less time in front of a class will not, on its own, change what the work demands or whether teachers’ concerns are heard. Workforce plans need to look beyond recruiting more teachers, or paying them better, to replace those who cannot continue, to attend closely to what the work has become and the conditions that could make it more sustainable.

John Dewey Social Action and Democracy.

John Dewey Social Action and Democracy.


John Dewey (1916), in Social action, took as central to his concerns the notion of democracy, arguing: ‘Democracy must be reborn in each generation. Education is the midwife.’ His view of knowledge as a ‘public and common store’ (Dewey 1900) shaped his view of democracy, alongside notions of ‘intelligence that is socially organised’. The link with politics is not an easy one, but Dewey held a view of politics as productive and generative, not simply a bitter distributive struggle over scarce resources and inequality. This view, he argued, is a form of ‘social intelligence’, one echoed by the ideas of Crick (1962) of politics as a ‘great and civilizing activity’. Indeed, the reduction of the meaning of politics to conflicting viewpoints, as in party politics, on how society should be organised and managed, reduces it to a mere zero-sum game, which is increasingly protective and unilateral. Dewey insisted that the route to social action requires, and is, ‘socially organised intelligence’ (Dewey 1900)—to act in creative ways for social justice, an intelligence based on critical awareness of social problems (Dietz & Davis 2007). The link between social action and civic engagement relates to democratising education in the sense of its reconnection to the political life of communities and in the sense of educational and learning activities as sites for democratizing the larger society’ (Boyte 2003).

Activist movements have garnered significant global attention on a range of sustainability issues, often involving collectives of citizens coming together. Invoked by the idea of citizens informed to act, emerging not from a common-­ sense understanding of everyday life, but rather from a deep political understanding of the world—one that is underpinned by a level of civics knowledge that provides the intellectual basis for engaging in public discussions and planning citizen action. This raises the possibility of transformative activist curricular movements for climate education is catalysed  whether via change in the curriculum, or curriculum as change. This blog is based on research which asks what schools, and teacher can do to develop children’s understanding of and engagement with the issues, and to address their concerns, informed by John Dewey’s notion of social action and his ideas on democracy and thinking. It offers ways in which the sustainable development goals (SDG)of quality education (SDG4) and climate action(SDG13) can be achieved, including the design of the curriculum by teachers can be explored. It raises the possibility and need for an activist curriculum , one that is integrated and immersed rather than randomly inserted, in the curriculum.

https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.4122

GOVERNANCE AND THE ANTHROPOCENE

A recent paper has traced the evolution of selected global environmental agreements from 1971 to 2025. And, it asks why the increasing intensity and focus of international environmental governance has not been matched by urgent and scalable improvement in planetary conditions.

 Using qualitative comparative document analysis across climate, biodiversity, and pollution, the study assesses the impact on implementation and compliance arrangements, coordination mechanisms, finance, and equitable justice on impact.  The authors identify three dimensions  in which to organize the comparison: implementation and compliance at the regime and domestic levels; fragmentation and coordination at the architectural level; and distributive and procedural justice as conditions affecting legitimacy and implementation capacity. But these dimensions were not presented as exhaustive causal determinants.

The analysis found that implementation continues to lag significantly behind negotiated ambition; fragmentation varies across issue areas and can enable experimentation but generate costs where coordination is weak; and persistent disputes over finance, technology, participation, and burden-sharing constrain implementation. The severity of the outcome gap is evident in continued growth of greenhouse-gas emissions, the failure to fully achieve any of the twenty Aichi Biodiversity Targets, continuing biodiversity decline, and approximately nine million pollution-attributable deaths annually.

 The paper concludes that additional agreements are unlikely to improve outcomes when they are not paired with implementation capacity, coherent coordination, predictable finance, and fair compliance arrangements. It proposes implementation-centred Conferences of the Parties(COP), proportionate facilitation-plus compliance, deliberative inter-regime coordination, and justice-oriented reforms in finance and participation

In another recent paper the authors state that there is a growing awareness of the need for cybernetics and systems thinking in the practice and process of governance to improve human-biosphere relationships in the Anthropocene.  Hence current governance systems are dominated by linear-causality and  is perpetuating an increasingly inadequate paradigm of dominant first-order/sys­tematic thinking in governing complex interactions between humans and their natural environments.  The paper explores this conundrum through the second-order lens of a systemic inquiry, using an integrative literature review. It  analyses the limitations of the Anthropocene metaphor and make the case for a reframing of the humans’ co-evolutionary dynamic with the biosphere as the ‘Anthropocene problematique’. This framing and theoretical proposal is proposed because of the perceived need for a need for a social purpose of healing human-biosphere relationships in current governance systems in the Anthropocene-world.

Finally, in yet another recent paper it states that despite decades of advances in sustainability science, global progress on climate change, biodiversity loss, inequality, and human wellbeing remains dangerously inadequate. While these failures are often attributed to insufficient political will or contested knowledge, the authors argue correctly in my view that a more fundamental constraint lies in how collective decisions are made.

 Contemporary governance systems are increasingly shaped by concentrated economic and political power, which undermines their capacity to act in the collective interest and to pursue long-term sustainability goals. At the same time, there is growing evidence that citizens broadly support transformative policies aimed at sustainable and inclusive wellbeing. Hence the authors argue that governance design itself has become a critical leverage point for sustainability transitions. For example, deliberative democracy offers an alternative by representing shared societal values and goals through randomly selected citizens’ assemblies. Such assemblies operate independently of partisan and special-interest control and have demonstrated success at several scales.

 Advances in communication technology now make their broad application increasingly feasible. In parallel, new decision-making methods, such as sociocracy, emphasise consent over majority rule and provide tools to reduce polarization and foster inclusive agreements within deliberative processes. Viewed historically, today’s governance challenges resemble recurrent crises and may offer a critical opening to adopt more sustainable and inclusive forms of governance, grounded in deliberation, consent, and collective wellbeing.

When will Labour take the initiative and be bold? Or are we facing yet another crisis of governance?

Our letter to John Whitby our MP

Emma Hickling and Steve Martin

We saw the Peoples Emergency briefing last week at Matlock Imperial Rooms, during the final night of the fifth heatwave that the UK has experienced this year. The next night we watched the National Emergency briefing videos on YouTube.

These briefings highlight the seriousness of the climate emergency and demonstrate how much expertise within the UK there is, with ideas of how to solve this.

Yet the Governments response to this wealth of information and ideas about the climate emergency has been distinctly lacklustre.  From the COBRA meeting the other week what emerged was a temporary ban on disposable BBQs and a mobile phone alert about the risk of wildfires; Andy Burnam is still considering licences to drill oil in the UK. There has been no acknowledgement by the Government that we are living though a polycrisis, and how they would like to reshape our society so that we can all thrive.

Andy Burnham claims to want to focus on the cost-of-living crisis, yet all of the factors that contribute to the current cost of living crisis have their roots in the climate crisis. So comprehensive policies to address climate change will also reduce the cost-of-living crisis. The multiple policy changes that need to be addressed have been outlined by the speakers at the National Emergency Briefing. Undoubtedly these expert speakers plus all their support teams would be willing to contribute to new policy decisions.

Here are some of our thoughts on how to address the cost of living and the climate emergency:

Nature

In January 2026, planning legislation was amended so datacentre developers were able to apply as nationally significant infrastructure projects, meaning they were able to largely bypass the local authority planning procedure and seek approval directly from government, i.e. datacentres are considered to be critical national infrastructure, but nature is not given this essential legal status.

Natural systems underpin human society: they provide food security, flood resilience, physical and mental health, and economic and financial stability.  All Government policies must put consideration of nature and its benefits first in all decision-making areas. Without a regenerative natural environment, we cannot have civilisation as we know it.

To do this effectively we also have to measure what matters to people. GDP (gross domestic product) is a very crude measure of the economy; it increases regardless of the harm that some economic activity causes to people and the environment. A car crash that kills people generates demand for more cars, and all the services that deal with the consequences of that crash. Yet that crash is disastrous for the people involved and their families, but it does increase GDP, because that only measures consumption. If we have a society that uses consumption as its key metric for success, then we will continue to destroy people’s lives and the natural environment.

Energy

The price that we pay for electricity is not dictated by the market but by opaque pricing strategies and Government policies. The UK has the highest electricity prices in Europe. To date the Governments only effort to help consumers is to put a cap on the price we pay for electricity.  This is a short term fix that does not address any of the structural issues around electricity pricing. The House of Commons also published comprehensive research on the complexity of the energy markets on 30 June 2025 https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9491/CBP-9491.pdf. This provides information on all the Government policies that contribute to high energy prices

Renewables are the only long-term cheap source of electricity (as they are free), and the sooner the Government acknowledges this and sets in train the means to achieve this, to sooner we will have cheap electricity. This means heavy investment in wind and solar to generate electricity, storage systems to even out supply and demand fluctuations, and a major upgrade of the distribution network to enable distributed supply. It also means a commitment to no more oil from the North Sea – which would be a clear message to all investors that the UK is no longer open for investment in fossil fuels. Another benefit from this strategy would be energy security: no longer dependent on other countries, and resilient to external attacks. Russia has been targeting the key energy generators in Ukraine. Distributed energy generation systems mean that it is much more difficult for a bad actor to knock out the whole of the country’s energy supply.  There are many countries and regions across the globe that are already transforming their energy systems, e.g. Spain and Utah.

So how to fund all this investment? There are 2 paths: a) the UK can simply create the funds, because we own our own currency, this does not have to increase inflation as long as the Government has a strategy to train all the people required to do all the work. Or, b) it can come from the private sector; we know there is money in the private sector as they are willing to invest in North Sea oil. This private sector money may not like the lack of windfall returns from a renewable infrastructure, but if they want to invest in the UK, it should be the Government (and our society) that determines where that investment goes, not the individual companies. This all reflects the growing crisis of governance.

Water

  • On 13 August 2026 Ofgem announced that it would allow water companies to increase our bills to “….. meet rising demand from housebuilding and data centres and to address pollutants known as “forever chemicals“.
  • Ofgem has consistently failed to curb the excessive dividends paid to water company shareholders and payments to senior management. All this cash flowing out of the water companies has meant that inward investment by the water companies has been lacking. Now they are expecting us to pay through our water bills for additional investment in assets: shareholders take all the cash but do not invest in infrastructure; instead, the consumer pays for the infrastructure and for dividends to shareholders. This is not the markets working successfully, it is simply adding to the cost-of-living crisis.
  • Back in August thousands of people in Kent were without water because of supply problems with Southeast Water. It is unacceptable in the 21st century that water company infrastructure failure can lead to weeks without water.
  • The Environment Agency has been woefully underfunded for so many years that it has no ability to monitor and regulate the pollution caused by the water companies. This is simply another way for Water Companies to enhance their profits and make local people suffer the consequences of polluted beaches and rivers. At present the Water Companies are allowed to self-regulate; this approach is not working. There needs to be a huge increase in staff in the Environment Agency all around the UK, so that they can effectively monitor pollution from water companies and take effective action. Job creation is a good for the cost-of-living crisis, as these jobs will provide a steady income for lots of people.
  • Thames Water has invested heavily in a desalination plant in London. Since it was completed in 2011 it has barely been operational, despite Thames Water placing customers under hosepipe bans every time a drought has been declared in the Southeast. This “investment” has been funded by Thames Water customers, not its shareholders. So how has a private company been able to waste customers cash in a system that is never used, yet it does not invest the same amount in upgrading existing water treatment systems and pipework? Where are the oversight and regulation?
  • Clean water and treatment of sewage are fundamental elements of a civilised society. The last two decades have clearly shown that the privatisation of the water industry has been an abject failure in terms of provision of clean water and sewage treatment.  Therefore, the Government needs to start challenging the notion that privatisation of monopoly services is effective.

Datacentres Strategy

The Government’s strategy for datacentres shows clearly how there is no joined up thinking in terms of future developments for the UK.

Datacentres are deemed to be nationally significant infrastructure projects, because of their ability to support artificial intelligence (AI), so developers can bypass the local authority planning procedure and seek approval directly from government.

However, datacentres, such as the one in North Ockendon near London, have a massive requirement for energy and water. The developers own planning documents acknowledge that the carbon emissions from this datacentre do not align with a science-based 1.5C compatible trajectory and achieving net zero by 2050.

So why does the Government think that the value of AI capacity outweighs the physical impact of datacentres on our daily lives? Over half of the UK is now in a drought situation, with many people living in areas of hosepipe bans; all of the UK has suffered outbreaks of wildfires. None of the water companies are capable of providing sufficient water for existing customers, so how does the Government think that they can provide water for all these new datacentres and for existing customers? As for electricity, these datacentres consume vast amounts, and they expect it to be provided by the National Grid. In the planning document for North Ockenden datacentre they are proposing to install a new National Grid substation to provide additional capacity, but there no mention of where the additional electricity will be sourced from.  Presumably fossil fuels as there is no mention in the planning documents about building sufficient renewable capacity (anywhere in the UK) to supply this data centre.

So, what sort of contracts will these datacentres be entering into with the energy and water providers? Who suffers when there are water shortages? Do these data centres shut down? Or do the data centres stay open because the penalties that they extract via commercial contracts mean that the water companies cannot afford to shut off the supply? So, will the local residents suffer? Of course they will, because we have no power to get water companies to do anything. There are many instances this year of water companies’ customers in Kent being without water for weeks because of problems with infrastructure.

Who benefits from all these huge datacentres that are based in the UK using fossil fuels and our local water? Not local residents or even UK residents. All datacentres are funded by large global organisations, with opaque ownership issues; profits will undoubtably be siphoned offshore. These profits will arise because they will not be paying the social and environmental impacts of using scarce water resources and fossil fuel energy.

And what is the social purpose of Artificial Intelligence? The greenwashers will all promote its use in the health sector in being able to identify disease more quickly. And very worthwhile this is, but how much AI capacity is actually used for this purpose?

In reality,  AI has enabled criminals to cause harm to the general population at very little cost to themselves, such as nudifying images of women, creating fake videos and then posting them over social media to bully and demean women, or anyone else that they take a dislike to.

All the major search engines are using AI to provide answers to question that a person asks. Yet prior to the advent of AI, search engines had been very good at finding answers to questions with the use of excess quantities of water and energy.

And AI bots are fantastic at cyber hacking. There have been so many instances of this activity in the news lately. And who suffers as a result of the cyberhack? Us of course. Criminals get hold of our personal data, they hold companies to ransom to get their data back, and we ultimately pay for this. Services that we use on a daily basis are no longer available.

The building of huge datacentres simply makes these criminal activities easy and cheap to be carried out. AI software is sold to anyone willing to pay the monthly subscription, and the owners of the datacentres do not care what is being run on their machines as long as someone is paying.

Good Governance
Good governance is essential across the national, private and public sectors to ensure that all organisations meet the needs of their stakeholders and create momentum to reach their goals and maintain compliance with the legislation that relates to them. Yet there is ample evidence that good practice is woefully inadequate. For example:

 What can the Government do?

The Policy areas that we would like the Government to start addressing, in order to combat climate change and address the cost-of-living crisis are:

  1. Define nature as critical infrastructure and invest in its renewal.
  2. Redefine the metrics that are used to determine whether our society and economy are thriving.
  3. Change societal norms
    1. Acknowledge that we cannot rely on technology (e.g. carbon capture and storage and other mega interventions) to reduce and eliminate CO2 emissions.
    2. Address food security: reduce the area of arable land devoted to animal feedstock by moving to a more plant rich diet; thus, increasing our ability to grow more of our own food in the UK,
    3. Ensuring that companies are no longer allowed to develop factories such as data centres that continue to use fossil fuel energy and scarce water resources. All factories need to be small enough not to consume more resources that are available in their local area.
    4. Relearning what it means for key services to be in public owner ship i.e. to be run for the benefit of people and the community, rather than profiting a few individuals/global corporations. The Government should have more influence on how and where private companies are allowed to invest and how much return on capital they can achieve.
    5. Redefine what national security means. Civil society can collapse from within as a result of food security and national disasters such as fire and flooding, which destroy communities.
    6. Acknowledge that the current regulatory systems are not fit for purpose in promoting good governance, and that they need to be re-thought.

Sneinton Mini Civic Climate Assembly

A great pleasure to support the 25 th Mini Civic Climate Assembly in the Sneinton Community Centre last week. It attracted some lively and informed residents from the city of Nottingham  who had many great ideas for making Sneinton Market a more environmentally and socially sustainable venue for the residents of its community and other residents from the City.

A great picture created by @Rikki Marr whose artistic impression echoes the sentiment from Fred R. Barnard. Barnard  who first wrote the phrase  “One Picture Worth Ten Thousand Words”, in 1921. Also, in systems thinking and practice often referred to as a “Rich Picture” to reflect the linkages and relationships with other inspirational ideas.

Perhaps the most consensual support came for the idea of reinventing the former market in Sneinton to reflect some of the social and cultural connections many in the locality had missed along with its locally sourced food and second-hand clothing and shoes for children and adults and the repair professions -and locally cooked foods from different countries and cultures.  A truly “Regenerative Market” which represents the sustainability values of the 21 Century and reflects those that made the markets in the medieval period- innovations in sustainability. Along with some strategically planted trees for shade and areas to sit and cha- building on the theme of” Nottingham A Forest City” with many green arteries.

The Green Ages: Medieval Innovations in Sustainability by Annette Kehnel

This new book is a fascinating blend of history and ecological economics that uncovers the medieval precedents for modern concepts of sustainable living. In The Green Ages, historian Annette Kehnel explores sustainability initiatives from the Middle Ages, highlighting communities that operated a barter trade system on the Monte Subiaco in Italy, sustainable fishing at Lake Constance, common lands in the United Kingdom, transient grazing among Alpine shepherds in the south of France, and bridges built by crowdfunding in Avignon. The author describes “histories Blind Spot” examples of the repair professions and second-hand markets – which were mainstays of this period  and formed a major part of the medieval marketplace. One reason they have been overlooked all this time is that historians have tended to focus on production, commerce and crafts -and the eighteenth-century  invention of the political  economy meant that  any business not involving a currency traction was consigned to the dustbin of outdated premodern economics. Kehnel takes these medieval examples and applies their practical lessons to the modern world to prove that we can live sustainably-we’ve done it before! From the garden economy in the mythical-sounding City of Ladies to early microcredit banks, Kehnel uncovers a world at odds with our understanding of the typical medieval existence. Premodern history is full of inspiring examples and concepts ripe for rediscovery, and we urgently need them as today’s challenges-finite resources, the twilight of consumerism, and growing inequality-threaten what we have come to think of as a modern way of living sustainably. This is a stimulating and revelatory look at a past that has the power to change our future.

City of Nottingham Climate Assembly July 2026

We know that our city is moving in the right direction in its move to become carbon neutral and to respond to the climate challenges that are facing us in a way that will benefit everyone. Yet we also know that we need an ever-improving connection between policies enacted by decision makers and the actions that are demanded of us to make the city more sustainable. We can, and must, embrace this moment for it is a once in a generation opportunity to help people re-engage with their neighbours, streets, and communities to create the healthy and vibrant city in which we all want to work and live. We know that some of these proposals have difficult financial implications, and it is vital to understand the central importance of poverty, social exclusion, and marginalisation when creating the necessary policies to confront this challenge. Affordable public transport, healthy food, and energy efficient homes are essential. There is a feedback loop between knowledge and affordability and those who can least afford to make the kinds of decisions that will minimise their climate impact need support to do so. But money is not everything. Alongside education from an early age, and greater transparency over the climate impacts of businesses in the city, we need to find ways to give communities power, support, and ownership; for local schemes to develop and thrive so that inter-generational knowledge and creativity can be unleashed as we explore and share the innovative solutions that are demanded of us all. Underused buildings, such as Debenhams, could be transformed into community pop up spaces for small businesses, share and repair shops, farmers markets, artist studios, and educational activities. Every bus stop could have a green roof. Local repair cafes can be more heavily promoted. Car clubs and car sharing should be encouraged. It is also clear to us that taking action in one area can have positive impacts in other areas so that what might start out as a climate action has knock-on benefits for health and social cohesion. 

Climate Assembly Book 6 Rev ADownload

Exploring University Sustainability Performance through Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Framework

Presentation to the new University Strategy Team for Sustainability at Nottingham University 21 July 2026

Introduction

I have spent almost 40 years promoting and advocating the urgency of this agenda at international conferences and here in the UK and working at the interface of academia , national policy and corporate business. I also pioneered a UK-wide process- called PP4SD- which has helped Uk’s professional bodies to embed sustainable development into their accreditation and CPD programmes. What I have learnt is that there is no silver bullet to solve this transformative change within our universities.

 Over the past 20 years I have also prioritized my voluntary activities in the community in which I have lived, notably in the Vale of Evesham and currently in Derbyshire-In the first for a decade leading a sub-regional Transition Evesham Vale group and in the last 5 years leading a successful Community Energy CIC(Called Derbyshire Dales Community Energy Ltd) comprising more than 20 communities in Derbyshire- more than any other county in England -for which we won a national award in 2023. What these engagements have highlighted to me are some key messages about community resilience based on citizen science and place-based learned experiences.

I have also volunteered overseas – over several years to work in a UK charity based in Sylhet in Bangladesh- one of the most  climate and poverty impacted countries in the world.

 Last year I thoroughly enjoyed working with graduates and postgraduates in the Business School on their innovative Sustainability Fellowship programme.

I’m currently working with  Nottingham City Councillors and academics at Nottingham Trent on their ambitious Citizen Climate Assembly process in Nottingham and hopefully later this year in Derby and Derbyshire.

I have also spent the past 5 years as an Honorary Professor supporting the University in its efforts to integrate sustainable development into its curricula and pedagogies. I  am now approaching my last year in this position- and I am deeply grateful to the university- my alma mater- and the school of geography and Chris Ives for their unstinting support.

Along with the Higher Education Academy and the Higher Education Funding Council- good progress was made in the late 1990’s and in 2005 via the so-called Dawe report in which I played a significant part- and more recently(in 2011)- the HEA’s Green Academy programme – which I initiated and  Nottingham was one of 7 universities which were selected to participate. I have circulated the Longitudinal  Evaluation Documents from this programme for you to read. They contain some useful  learning insights into the varied approaches taken by the 7 universities which were involved. I believe they still have currency to this day -and the case study on Nottingham- which was based on my first visit in 2011- in the first evaluation might be of interest to you all? The second evaluation published in 2013 id possibly more important as a summative analysis of the collective  progress of all 7 universities.

  These studies have identified the key drivers and barriers to embedding sustainable development in HEIs. While the common drivers for integration include effective oversight via institutional governance, resource availability, institutional frameworks for monitoring progress, stakeholder engagement, external factors such as reputation and funding, interdisciplinarity, and flexible management. There is also tangible evidence that sustainability orientated HEIs gain advantages in student recruitment and retention and enhanced reputation.

The key barriers include rigid conventional systems-like disciplinary siloes, an absence of deliberative process in decision making, lack of critical and collective intelligence, lack of proper reporting, stakeholder disagreements, lack of direction in prioritization, and a scarcity of funds.

I would also stress the importance of effective internal and external communication, effective administrative support systems, active leadership, and a proactive rather than reactive approach to addressing barriers related to the inevitable disagreements.-  Which are critical -for overcoming all the barriers and leveraging consensus toward successful integration .

Sustainable development in HE is a multifaceted concept-(indeed it’s an interdisciplinary /consilience wicked challenge)-  encompassing environmental, ethical, societal and cultural aspects. It cannot be effectively addressed if any of these dimensions are neglected. Achieving climate justice and adapting to the climate crisis are interlinked with sustainable development in HE, and it should not be limited to integrating it into the curriculum or considering it in research; it must become an inherent aspect of every action undertaken by HEIs( excellent examples include the University of British Columbia and UCL ).

Wherever possible, HEIs should aim to transform SDG trade-offs into synergies by leveraging diverse academic perspectives on sustainability.

Finally, I want to say a few things about voluntary reporting-which Nottingham does through the QS Assessment System- and quality assurance of teaching and learning.

While voluntary sustainability reporting by universities is commendable, given the tens of thousands of institutions worldwide and their global impact, establishing a standardized and obligatory framework is essential to ensure accountability, quantify impacts, and drive improvement.

Sustainability is increasingly critical for universities as they influence environmental stewardship, social equity, and the management of economic resources. The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework-or QS assessment of sustainability  is a widely used tool to assess university sustainability efforts, providing insight into how effective institutional policies, practices, and external contributions, such as alumni research and societal engagement are- and as I said earlier- Nottingham has recently adopted this assessment framework .

 A very recent study has analysed data from 1,397 universities using the 2024 QS (Quacquarelli Symonds) sustainability rankings, which evaluate environmental impact, social impact, and governance indicators. The study sought to uncover the complex interdependencies between governance, social impact, and environmental impact, revealing how these factors jointly influence overall sustainability performance.

The findings demonstrate that governance plays a pivotal role, with strong governance enhancing both social and environmental outcomes. By highlighting these interdependencies, I believe the study provides valuable insights for university leaders and policymakers seeking to optimize ESG-based strategies to improve institutional sustainability.

 One of the central findings of this paper is the strong interdependence between environment and social impacts. This finding aligns with existing literature highlighting the interconnected nature of environmental and social sustainability.

Our current approach to quality in teaching and learning emphasises the role of higher education in serving economic interests, which restricts how quality is defined, understood, and implemented. Hence, value for money, completion rates, graduate employment, and graduate earnings, feature strongly. 

 I believe that Universities should also emphasise how graduate learning contributes to wider social functions such as active and ethical citizenship and shaping a democratic civilised and more sustainable society.

All of which is crucial if graduates are to play an active and responsible role in an increasingly complex and uncertain world. I have written on this issue in several chapters and articles, and I over the years pressed QAA several times to include sustainable development and ESD into their quality criteria – which they have done.

 Universities have a significant role to play in developing  socially and environmentally sustainability literate leaders and hence optimising their contribution to the future of society, the environment, and the economy.  Sustainability in this sense does not feature in the internal quality assurance systems of many of our universities. 

A growing number of UK Universities have begun to respond to this agenda, notably the Universities of Aberdeen, UCL, LSE, Bristol, Keele and Nottingham Trent, Plymouth, Gloucester, and Worcester; but much more needs to be done by all our universities to prepare graduates for an uncertain future.

“Beyond the whole institutional strategies of a small but increasing number of universities

internationally, interest is growing in “critical engagement” and “regenerative education” by

committed staff and students in research and teaching. This engagement takes forms such as

education for resilience, service learning in the community, experiential pedagogies, collaborative

inquiry across disciplines, embrace of alternative and non-Western knowledge traditions, the

development of sustainability competencies, and futures work. These pioneering shifts may not

yet warrant announcing the onset of widespread transformative education, but they do open a

pathway for a Great Transition in higher education as a critical component of social learning and

cultural change.” Stephen Sterling 2021

FOOLS RUSH IN WHERE ANGELS FEAR TO TREAD: ON THE MORAL RESPONSIBILITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN WORKING TOWARDS MORE PEACEFUL, JUST AND SUSTAINABLE FUTURES

Posted on 01/07/2026

On July 1 a new open access book was be launched “Learning for a Just, Peaceful and Sustainable World” edited by Douglas Bourn and Alexis Stones. The book showcases current debates in the field of global education and learning and the importance of the Declaration on Global Education to 2050. It features chapters from academics, researchers, policy-makers and practitioners based in Australia, Canada, Finland, Germany, India, Ireland, Italy, Nigeria, Pakistan, Poland, Sweden, The Netherlands and the UK who are working in the fields of global citizenship, education for sustainable development and peace and human rights education. The chapters cover a range of topics that span formal, non-formal and informal learning spaces including gender justice, democracy, moral education, climate change policy, decolonizing global learning, PISA, the Sustainable Development Goals and the role of UNESCO. The importance of learning about global issues and sustainable development has never been seen as more important than it is today and this book addresses the big global issues of today, be they climate change, war and conflict, human rights, quality of learning and reducing global poverty.