England's Climate Education Plan Is a Placebo Not a Policy

The Strategy That Promises Everything and Changes Nothing

In 2022, the UK Department for Education released a 42-page document called the Sustainability and Climate Change Strategy for England’s schools. It was greeted with cautious optimism. Finally, a government plan that took climate education seriously. Finally, something that might prepare young people for a warming world.

Then Lynda Dunlop and Elizabeth A. C. Rushton, education researchers at the University of York, did something unusual. They didn't just read the strategy. They compared it against what more than 200 teachers, youth workers, and teacher educators actually wanted from climate education. Then they ran a critical discourse analysis, a method that looks not just at what a document says, but what it reveals about power, priorities, and what gets left out.

What they found should worry anyone who cares about climate education. The strategy, they argue, is a "placebo for policy" (Dunlop & Rushton, 2022). It gives the appearance of action while leaving the fundamental problems untouched. It is designed to make the government look like it is doing something without actually empowering schools to do what needs to be done.

Here is what is actually in the strategy, what is missing, and why the gap between the two matters more than the document itself.

The Economic Tail Wagging the Educational Dog

What the Strategy Actually Prioritizes

The strategy's opening pages sound reasonable. It talks about "net zero," "green skills," and preparing students for "green jobs." On the surface, this seems sensible. Who doesn't want young people to be employable in a low-carbon economy?

But Dunlop and Rushton found something telling when they analyzed the language. The strategy does not treat climate education as an end in itself. It treats it as a means to an economic end. The authors write that the strategy "foregrounds economic concerns, with educational priorities driven by the 'net zero' policy agenda" (Dunlop & Rushton, 2022).

This is not a small distinction. It changes what gets taught, how it gets taught, and who is responsible for teaching it. If the goal is to produce workers for green industries, then the curriculum narrows. You teach solar panel installation, not systems thinking. You teach carbon accounting, not climate justice. You teach students to fit into the existing economy, not to question whether that economy is the cause of the problem.

The teachers and youth workers in the study saw this clearly. They told the researchers that "economic priorities are part of the problem" (Dunlop & Rushton, 2022). They wanted education that helps young people understand the political and structural dimensions of climate change, not just the technical fixes. They wanted students to be able to ask hard questions about consumption, inequality, and power.

The strategy does not invite those questions.

The Science Trap

Why More Climate Knowledge Is Not Enough

The strategy places heavy emphasis on science education. More climate science in the curriculum. More understanding of carbon cycles, greenhouse gases, and renewable energy. This sounds unobjectionable. Surely students need to understand the science.

But Dunlop and Rushton argue that this focus is actually a way of avoiding harder questions. By framing climate change as a scientific problem that requires more scientific knowledge, the strategy sidesteps the fact that we already know enough science to act. The problem is not that people do not understand the greenhouse effect. The problem is that powerful interests have blocked action for decades, and that our economic system rewards fossil fuel extraction.

The authors found that the strategy "suggests an absence of governmental responsibility and attention to the political dimensions of climate change" (Dunlop & Rushton, 2022). In other words, by pretending climate change is just a science problem, the government can avoid talking about its own role in perpetuating the crisis.

The teachers in the study were not fooled. They wanted climate education that includes "pro-environmental action at all levels, including from policymakers" (Dunlop & Rushton, 2022). They wanted students to learn that the solutions are not purely technical, and that citizens have a role in demanding change from those in power.

The strategy offers none of this.

The Methodology That Matters

How Dunlop and Rushton Did Their Work

Before going further, it is worth understanding how this study was done, because the method is part of why the findings are credible.

Dunlop and Rushton used critical discourse analysis (CDA). This is not the kind of study that measures test scores or surveys attitudes. CDA looks at language, assumptions, and what is left unsaid. It asks: who benefits from framing a problem this way? Whose interests are served by what gets emphasized and what gets ignored?

The researchers analyzed the government strategy alongside qualitative data from more than 200 participants. These were not random members of the public. They were teachers, teacher educators, and youth workers who had been involved in co-creating a "manifesto for education and environmental sustainability" (Dunlop & Rushton, 2022). These are people who think about climate education professionally. They know what works in classrooms and what does not.

The contrast between what these practitioners wanted and what the strategy delivered was stark. The practitioners called for systemic change, political engagement, and action at all levels. The strategy called for more science lessons and green careers advice.

This is not a study that can be dismissed as "just academics complaining." It is a systematic comparison between what the government promised and what those on the ground know is needed.

The Depoliticization Machine

How the Strategy Makes Things Worse

One of the most striking findings in the paper is what the authors call the "depoliticising effect" of the strategy (Dunlop & Rushton, 2022).

Here is how it works. The strategy introduces new demands on teachers and schools. They must teach climate change across the curriculum. They must embed sustainability in school operations. They must prepare students for green jobs. All of this sounds proactive.

But the strategy does not come with the resources, training, or policy support needed to make it happen. Teachers are already overworked and underpaid. Schools are already struggling with funding cuts. Adding climate education as another responsibility without providing the enabling conditions is not leadership. It is a way of shifting responsibility from the government to individual educators.

When things go wrong, the government can say: we gave you a strategy. The failure becomes the teachers' fault, not the policymakers'.

The practitioners in the study understood this dynamic. They called for "pro-environmental action at all levels, including from policymakers" (Dunlop & Rushton, 2022). They wanted the government to lead by example, not just hand down mandates.

The strategy does the opposite. It demands action from the people with the least power while doing nothing about the structural barriers they face.

What Is Actually Missing

The Gaps That Tell the Real Story

Dunlop and Rushton's analysis reveals several crucial absences in the strategy.

First, there is no serious discussion of climate justice. The strategy does not address how climate change disproportionately affects poor countries and marginalized communities. It does not ask students to consider their own position in a global system that produces unequal emissions and unequal impacts.

Second, there is no attention to the emotional and psychological dimensions of climate change. Young people are anxious, angry, and scared about their futures. The strategy treats climate education as a cognitive exercise. It ignores the fact that students need support to process what they are learning.

Third, there is no acknowledgment of the government's own complicity. The UK continues to approve new fossil fuel projects. It continues to subsidize the oil and gas industry. The strategy asks schools to teach about sustainability while the government pursues policies that undermine it. The authors note that this creates a credibility gap that teachers and students cannot ignore.

Fourth, there is no meaningful role for student voice. The strategy treats young people as recipients of knowledge, not as agents of change. The practitioners in the study wanted students to be involved in shaping climate education, not just sitting through it.

Each of these absences is a choice. The government could have included them. It chose not to.

What This Does Not Prove

The Limits of the Study

It is important to be clear about what Dunlop and Rushton's paper does not claim.

It does not claim that the strategy is entirely worthless. Some of its proposals, like improving climate science education, are genuinely useful. The authors are not saying that science has no place in climate education. They are saying that science alone is insufficient.

It does not claim that the government had bad intentions. The strategy may have been written by people who genuinely care about climate change. But good intentions do not guarantee good policy. The analysis shows that the strategy's framing serves political interests regardless of what the authors intended.

It does not claim that teachers are powerless. Many teachers will find ways to teach climate change critically and effectively despite the strategy's limitations. The paper is about what the policy enables and constrains, not about what individual teachers can accomplish through their own effort.

It does not claim that the strategy is unique in its failures. Many countries have climate education policies that are similarly limited. The study is a case study of England, but the patterns it identifies are likely to appear elsewhere.

These limits matter because they prevent overreach. The paper is a critique of a specific policy, not a condemnation of all climate education.

The Placebo Problem

Why Appearing to Act Can Be Worse Than Not Acting

The central metaphor of the paper is powerful. A placebo is a fake treatment that makes people feel better without actually addressing their illness. It can be harmful because it delays real treatment.

Dunlop and Rushton argue that the strategy functions the same way. It creates the impression that the government is taking climate education seriously. This impression reduces pressure for real change. The strategy becomes a substitute for the kind of systemic reform that would actually make a difference.

The authors write that the strategy "runs the risk of becoming a placebo for policy, with the appearance of 'doing something' whilst failing to address the fundamental policy problem" (Dunlop & Rushton, 2022).

This is the most dangerous aspect of the strategy. It is not just inadequate. It is actively counterproductive because it uses up the political space that could be occupied by something better.

The practitioners in the study understood this. They did not want a placebo. They wanted a policy that would redistribute power, provide resources, and hold the government accountable for its own emissions.

The strategy gives them none of this. It gives them a document to point to when someone asks what the government is doing.

What This Actually Means

Four Takeaways for Anyone Who Cares About Climate Education

The Dunlop and Rushton paper is not just an academic exercise. It has direct implications for how we think about climate education in England and beyond.

• ▸Climate education without climate justice is incomplete. Teaching students about carbon cycles while ignoring who produces the emissions and who suffers the consequences prepares them to be technicians, not citizens. Any strategy that avoids questions of justice is not preparing young people for the world they will inherit.

• ▸Teachers need support, not mandates. Adding climate education to the curriculum without providing training, resources, and time is a recipe for burnout and failure. Policymakers who want serious climate education must be willing to fund it properly.

• ▸The government must lead by example. It is impossible to teach students that climate change is an urgent problem while the government approves new oil fields. The credibility gap between policy and practice undermines everything the strategy tries to achieve.

• ▸Students need to be partners, not recipients. The most effective climate education treats young people as capable agents who can shape their own learning and take action in their communities. A strategy that talks about students without listening to them is not a strategy at all.

The Dunlop and Rushton paper is a reminder that policy is not neutral. Every strategy makes choices about what to include and what to leave out. The England strategy chose economics over justice, science over politics, and appearances over substance.

It is a placebo. The question is whether we are willing to demand real medicine.