When I first read Bill Bigelow and Bob Peterson's (2002) intriguing collection of resources, Rethinking Globalization: Teaching for Justice in an Unjust World, I anticipated writing a short and enthusiastic review in which I would recommend it unreservedly to the attention of anyone involved in social and environmental education. But when I put my hands to the keyboard, I realised that I wanted to say more about why critical appraisals of globalisation are so important at this moment in world history and, thus, why this book's significance lies as much in what it stands for as its actual contents.

We are living in an era of market-driven, globalised economies characterised by reduced public investments in what, until now, have been considered public goods and services. In Australia and elsewhere, education, and higher education in particular, has seen steady declines in government funding. This has prompted universities to become much more entrepreneurial and to seek out new funding opportunities to support their teaching and research activities. This paper reflects on the personal and professional dilemmas and challenges we faced as two early career environmental education researchers who were commissioned to undertake research for a private corporation. As a result of issues raised during this process, we engaged in a critical reflection of our perceptions and feelings about our involvement in the project. In essence, dilemmas and challenges centred around two issues: (1) control/ ownership of the research; and (2) the clash between corporate and university values. This paper explores these issues and suggests that greater mindfulness on the part of individual researchers as well as the development of better university-corporate partnership processes and protocols might provide useful starting points for overcoming such dilemmas and for moving forward with university-corporate research partnerships.

Environmental education in New Zealand (NZ) was born out of the environmental movement during the 1960s and 1970s. During that time it became increasingly apparent that we needed to know more about ourselves, our surroundings and the interactions between these two. The central impulse of environmental education is to help develop people who are knowledgeable of, concerned about, and motivated to do something for, the environment. This involves being:

1. Knowledgeable about the physical, social and economic environment of which people are a part;

2. Concerned about environmental problems; and

3. Motivated to act responsibly in enhancing the quality of our environment as well as our life.

In NZ a common misconception held was that environmental education is the same as outdoor education. It is not. Environmental education is concerned with those aims listed above, whereas outdoor education is now taken to mean, and is officially called, ‘Education Outside the Classroom’. Obviously the two are neither synonymous nor mutually exclusive (Dowling 1986). In the school context, environmental education has traditionally been considered as any teaching about ‘the environment’. Today, however, it is being understood as a process which is multi-disciplinary in approach and for the environment at heart.

Vocational education and training (VET) is often considered the enigma of education. For those that work in or research sustainable education within the schools and higher education sections, VET appears somewhat like the mysterious second cousin: often difficult to access and difficult to understand. VET differs quite markedly from the other education sectors. Its industry, skill and competency foci have been established through a distinct range of national and international drivers. Both the limited understanding of how VET operates and its institutional characteristics has bound the integration of sustainable education practices within the sector. This paper provides a brief overview of the VET sector within Australia and provides some insight into how sustainable education practices are being developed in VET. The recognition of elements of common ground between VET and sustainable education are proposed as an entrée into the sector that can influence the adoption of sustainable practices by industry.

The purpose of this article is to review and integrate a number of concepts and perspectives recently developed or revived which challenge society's current attitudes towards the environment. The concepts discussed include, for example, ecophilosophy and deep ecology, holism, cultural transformation, the Gaia hypothesis, transpersonalism and world, national and state conservation strategies.

It is concluded that the notion of living in harmony with nature is central to any view spirituality. The implications of this view in terms of individual personal action are discussed.

This article was written very early in my career. I was part way through my doctoral degree study on environmental education (EE) theory and practice, and had just completed an evaluation of a national EE curriculum development project. In both of these projects, I found that despite the presence of an emerging discourse about what a distinctive EE is or ought to be, classroom practice represented as EE was essentially either informational or nature study in character — somewhat different from the ‘education for the environment’ being advanced by researchers and curriculum developers internationally at the time. It seemed to me that this situation was less one of teachers’ failure to implement government policy than one of EE curriculum developers failing to recognise teachers’ existing, robust personal constructions of EE (of the environment, education, teaching and learning . . .). An entailment of this position is that EE research has the opportunity and responsibility of exploring the relationship of teachers’ theories and practices and the professional contexts within which these are intelligible. Consequently, a new wave emerged of participatory research involving teachers-as-researchers directly investigating the meaning and significance of their professional work. Some of this work is represented in the following publications.

This article is critical of the Infusion of pseudo-spiritualities in the form of non-legitimised indigenous wisdom and activities in environmental education. Drawing on a definition of true ecospirituality, the doctrine of the world soul, a teaching from western traditions, is presented as a viable alternative in the search for re-enchantment. Implications for environmental educators are addressed.

It is important to distinguish between two sorts of greenies. First there are those who think that the environmental problem can be solved by more attention to clearing up, or minimising in future, the damage caused by industrial-affluent society. Most environmentally concerned people are in this category, calling for things like more pollution control, but having no recognition of any need to question our affluent lifestyles or the rate of producing and consuming and economic growth their society involves. The first part of the following discussion argues that this common position is mistaken, that there is no chance of solving the environment problem without facing up to drastic reduction in GNP and ‘living standards’.

Unfortunately there are at present few greenies of the second type; people who realise that environmental damage is just one more huge problem being generated by our unsustainable ‘growth and greed’ society. There is no more important issue for environmental educators to focus on than the question of whether it is sufficient to patch up the damage being caused while plunging on down the track to ever-greater affluence and GNP, or whether the problems can only be solved by fundamental transition to a very different society, a radical conserver society. The argument below is that there is no chance of solving the environment problem nor any of the other major global problems facing us unless we move to lifestyles, patterns of settlement, values, and especially to an economic system which permit us to live well on far lower rates of per capita resource use and environmental impact that we have at the present in countries like Australia.

The underlying ideologies which support higher education have received only limited attention in relation to our desired goals of social and ecological sustainability. This paper examines the current ideologies which drive higher education, and proposes a different ideological framework which can be used to support a sustainable higher education. Firstly, a criticism of the current convergence of utilitarian and neo-liberal ideologies is presented from the perspective of sustainability. Secondly, building upon the educational theory of John Dewey, an alternative perspective termed “environmental progressivism” is outlined as a possible ideological framework for a sustainable higher education. The paper concludes with some preliminary remarks as to the practical implications of environmental progressivism.

Having ascended the water-powered cliff railway that takes us from the carpark up to the main site we stand on the cantilevered deck of the upper station looking out across the hills and autumn colours of the wooded Dulas valley below us. The branches on the silver birches are whipped by a cold wind blowing in from the Dovey estuary as we turn to walk across the old slate workings that are now the site of one of the best known eco-centres in Europe. Later, having been given a guided tour of the site, we retire to our self-catering cabins where we split and stack the wood that will later keep us warm. The annual Gobal Futures fieldweek at the Centre for Alternative Technology has come round again.

This paper explores the question of what matters and what is made to matter — the ethics of encounters in the intimate entwining of ontology and epistemology. Within an ethics based on matter and mattering, it explores the evolving symbiotic entanglement of humans with each other and with non-human beings, who, with us, make up the world. Our complex symbiotic relationality is discussed in relation to the limiting force of neoliberalism, where all that matters is economic growth and productivity. It asks what hope there is for the survival of the planet, when so many humans, including politicians of almost every stripe, have lost the capacity to think outside the neoliberal box. As things stand, as one scientist observed, it is as if we have a medical, terminal diagnosis, and, although there is a cure, we choose to ignore it. It asks what are those cures and explores the possibility that we humans might learn to respond — to be response-able to our planet, in its state of terminal distress.