Tag: Green

  • WEEKEND READING: Hard, Soft, Green, Mad, AI: The Skills Squeeze

    WEEKEND READING: Hard, Soft, Green, Mad, AI: The Skills Squeeze

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Fadime Sahin, Senior Lecturer in Accounting and Finance at the University of Portsmouth, London.

    According to the latest available data, approximately 264 million students worldwide were enrolled in higher education in 2023. Reasons for attending include the desire to acquire knowledge and skills, enhance employment prospects, boost social mobility and contribute meaningfully to society. Nearly three million students were enrolled at UK higher education institutions in 2023/24 (the most recent figures).

    The role of universities is increasingly debated across public discourse, shaping policy documents and household discussions, considering the tension between traditional academic skills, employability demands, sustainability imperatives and the accelerating influence of AI. The skills agenda currently sits at the heart of policymaking in England due to the skills gap facing the UK. The Lifelong Learning Entitlement, a flagship UK policy initiative that was introduced as a central plank of this agenda, seeks to expand access to flexible, modular study across a lifetime, reinforcing the policy emphasis on reskilling and employability.

    In a recent HEPI blog, Professor Ronald Barnett argued that policy discourse speaks almost exclusively of skills (employability, reskilling, skills gap) – the new currency of education – moving away from education and knowledge acquisition; while academic discourse speaks of education, but rarely of skills, especially in the humanities and social theory, resulting in a polarised and disconnected debate.

    Dr Adam Matthews, in another HEPI blog, echoed that policy discourse has become increasingly concerned with doing (skills) rather than knowing (knowledge). He analysed both the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper and TEF (2023) submissions and found a similar imbalance: ‘skills’ outnumbered those to ‘knowledge’ by a ratio of 3.7, even higher among large, research-intensive universities that might be expected to focus more on knowledge production. The Post‑16 Education and Skills White Paper used the word ‘skills’ 438 times, but ‘knowledge’ only 24. The shift has been shaped by economic and growth imperatives, accountability and the instrumental role of universities for economic and social engineering, however it also risks eroding universities’ identity as knowledge producers. The same pattern is evident in the WEF’s Defining Education 4.0: A Taxonomy for the Future of Learning, which references ‘skills’ 178 times, but ‘knowledge’ only 32.

    In a blog post, Professor Paul Ashwin cautioned that a tertiary education system built only on skills, without knowledge, will deepen inequality and suggested a knowledge-rich understanding of skills. He stressed that skills without knowledge are hollow and insufficient, because they lack the contextual and disciplinary knowledge that makes them meaningful and adaptable. He pointed out that the Skills England report champions skills, but offers little clarity on what they actually mean. The listed skills (teamworking, creative thinking, leadership, digital literacy, numeracy, writing) are generic and detached from a specific context.

    The knowledge society was built on this promise. Yet in a post-truth era, that promise is faltering. Over the years, the emphasis on knowing – the pursuit of structured, disciplinary knowledge – has diminished, eroded by information overload, easy accessibility, erosion of trust in experts and an increasing policy focus on application and skills, even before the advent of AI. This decline sets the stage for Ashwin’s concern that a skills‑only system risks becoming hollow and inequitable.

    Understanding skills

    Amid this tension, it is useful to trace how different categories of skills have been constructed and prioritised within higher education.

    Hard skills

    Over the decades, hard skills have dominated classrooms, a result of education systems built around industrial-era priorities, reinforced by measurability bias through standardised testing and the privileging of tangible qualifications. These skills refer to technical, tangible, quantifiable,  job-specific and measurable abilities that are closely linked to knowledge acquisition and reflected in formal qualifications. Hard skills include coding/programming, engineering, data analysis, bookkeeping/accounting, foreign languages and other technical and occupational skills. Yet, the balance has shifted in recent decades as employers and policymakers emphasise 21st‑century competencies, including soft skills, green skills, digital and global skills and now increasingly AI skills. The fastest-growing skills (AI) category in higher education did not exist in mainstream curricula three years ago.

    Soft skills

    Soft skillshave long been undervalued and sidelined in classrooms. Strikingly, the term itself was first formalised not in education by the U.S. Army in 1972, when the Continental Army Command defined interpersonal and leadership capabilities as ‘soft skills.’ What began as military doctrine has since become central to employability discourse. Soft skills are interpersonal, intangible, non‑technical, transferable and context‑dependent abilities. They are closely linked to personal attributes and social interaction and reflected in behaviours, relationships and adaptability rather than formal qualifications. Soft skills can be categorised as personal qualities and values; attitudes and predispositions; methodological and cognitive abilities; leadership, management and teamwork; interpersonal capabilities; communication and negotiation; and emotional awareness and labour.

    Digital skills and AI literacy

    Computer literacy emerged in the 1980s and 1990s; with the spread of the Internet, this evolved into digital literacy, which in turn laid the foundation for today’s broader category of digital skills. The digital revolution prompted reforms. The core 21st-century digital and global skills include technical proficiency, information literacy, digital communication and networking, collaborative capacity, creativity, critical thinking, problem‑solving, intercultural understanding, emotional self-regulation and wellbeing. Since the end of 2022, the rapid uptake of generative AI tools has further expanded this landscape, introducing new forms of AI literacy and human-AI collaboration as essential competencies.

    Green skills

    Beyond interpersonal competencies, sustainability imperatives have introduced a new category: green skills. Green skills have emerged as a central focus in policy frameworks, driven by growing awareness of climate change, environmental degradation and the imperative of sustainability. Green skills refer to ‘the knowledge, abilities, values and attitudes needed to live in, develop and support a society which reduces the impact of human activity on the environment’, together forming green human capital. Green competencies are increasingly linked not only with green jobs, but with the broader transition toward sustainable economies. Green skills include technical and practical (heat pump installation, domestic recycling, energy grid engineering, peatland restoration), enabling skills (project management, collaboration, public engagement, digital skills) and knowledge and attitudinal capacities (carbon and climate literacy, systems thinking, environmental stewardship).

    Mad skills

    Alongside sustainability imperatives, a newer emergent HR discourse is the so‑called ‘mad skills’ – unconventional, disruptive and non-linear thinking or experiences in a rapidly changing labour market. Mad skills stem from personal passions, hobbies, creative ventures or extraordinary experiences or resilience stories. Although mad skills haven’t found its place in academic literature, it might have become part of the vocabulary of recruiters.

    Taken together, these categories illustrate the expanding and overlapping landscape of skills. Yet the very language we use to describe them is increasingly problematic. The label ‘soft skills,’ for instance implies that they are secondary, less important or less measurable than ‘hard’ skills, which risks undervaluing them. As AI increasingly automates hard skills (coding, data analysis, translation), the distinction begins to blur. What remains uniquely human – empathy, judgement, creativity – becomes central, better captured by the term ‘human skills.’ After all, we may end up dealing only with human skills and human‑AI collaborative skills.

    The role of the university

    Hard, soft, green, digital, global, AI… the list keeps expanding. Today’s workplace pressures candidates to master them all to stand out. These categories are overlapping and often co-developed. Universities, increasingly framed as providers of every imaginable skill, risk being reduced to training centres. When universities behave like training centres, the focus of education shifts from broad academic exploration, research and innovation to specific, narrowly vocational skill acquisition, designed for immediate employment needs. In the process, their identity as institutions of knowledge and civic purpose begins to erode. The problem is not the existence of these skills, but their policy dominance as output metrics. It is important to recognise that universities have historically embedded broad, intellectual and transferable capabilities alongside disciplinary knowledge; the current shift is toward narrow, vocational, immediately marketable packages. Cross-cutting skills are valuable when embedded within knowledge-led curricula, not as substitutes for knowledge production.

    Yet employment needs are never static. The skills taught today may lose relevance within five or ten years after graduation, with AI expected to further compress the lifespan of many skills. Universities will inevitably try to keep pace with the ever-evolving skills agenda, but graduates may still find themselves holding qualifications in skills that have become obsolete, even more so now with AI. This emphasis places considerable weight on cross-cutting competencies such as soft skills, green skills, digital/AI literacy and global awareness.

    However, in certain disciplines, e.g., accounting and finance, the accreditation requirements of major professional bodies (ACCA, CIMA, ICAEW) remain heavily exam‑driven, privileging technical knowledge and hard skills while leaving only a limited scope for the development of broader competencies. Universities do adjust, increasingly embedding diverse skills alongside technical skills, but structural constraints, sometimes necessary, remain.

    Changing student landscape adds a layer to this dynamic. HEPI’s 2025 Student Academic Experience Survey shows that almost 70% of full-time students in the UK – 65% of home students and 77% of international students – are engaged in paid employment during the academic term. More students are trading off study time for work to manage financial pressures. Students are now expected to master more skill categories than any previous generation, with less time to learn them. Universities must therefore navigate not only the shifting skills agenda, but also the reduced availability of students for independent study – and, in some cases, even class attendance – to develop these skills.

    Amid these pressures, universities are increasingly judged by the employment status of their graduates, yet such measures often ignore the realities of the job market, particularly for the young. A mismatch arises when well-prepared graduates with relevant skills remain unemployed, underscoring that graduate outcomes alone are not a reliable proxy for educational quality. In fact, the latest Graduate Labour Market Statisticsshow that only 67.9% of graduates in England were in high-skilled jobs in 2024. Nearly a third were in roles not requiring graduate-level skills. The proportion of graduates in high-skilled employment has hovered around 65–67% for a decade (2015-2024). The 2024 figure (67.9%) is the highest in the series, but only marginally above previous years. This pattern is not new. High-skilled employment rates for graduates were 69.5% in 2006, 67.3% in 2009, 65.3% in 2012 and 66.2% in 2015. In other words, for nearly two decades, the proportion of graduates entering high-skilled roles has remained stubbornly flat. This persistent underemployment, despite years of skills-focused reform, may challenge the assumption that expanding skills provision alone can resolve graduate underemployment.

    Universities find themselves caught between competing pressures: policymakers emphasising immediate employability skills; students juggling financial pressures and limited study time; and labour markets struggling to provide suitable graduate opportunities.

    This tension ultimately circles back to the principle of lifelong learning. We need to recognise that education cannot be reduced to a finite set of skills, but must remain a continuous process of adaptation, renewal and knowledge creation.

    Faced with the skills squeeze, it seems increasingly likely that ‘human skills’ and ‘human‑AI collaborations’ may matter most.

    Source link

  • Green skills, graduate competencies, and championing subject diversity – it’s time to join up some agendas 

    Green skills, graduate competencies, and championing subject diversity – it’s time to join up some agendas 

    Author:
    Rebecca Collins and Santiago Poeira Ribeiro

    Published:

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Rebecca Collins, Director, Sustainability and Environment Research and Knowledge Exchange Institute, University of Chester and Santiago Poeira Ribeiro, student in Natural Sciences (Physics), University of Chester. 

    UK universities are currently grappling with a perfect storm of disruptors: financial challenges, ambivalence from national policymakers, and, increasingly, from prospective students as they question what a university education really offers them. At the same time, the employment landscape is weathering its own storms, including those driven by accelerating technological change (particularly AI), concerns about skills deficits, geopolitical turbulence, and equivocation about whether or not this net zero business is here to stay.  UK Government response to these challenges has most recently taken the form of Skills England’s analysis of the skills requirement across ten priority sectors and the promise of a new industrial strategy from 2026-27 that connects these requirements to reforms of the higher education system.  

    It is in this context that a strangely paradoxical scenario is playing out.  On the one hand are claims that the UK does not have the necessary skills for a ‘green transition’ to net zero – what are increasingly being described as ‘green skills’.  (Notwithstanding the current national political ambivalence about net zero, most sectors of the UK economy have long since recognised the necessary direction of travel and know they need an appropriately knowledgeable and skilled workforce to accelerate action.) On the other is a higher education sector beset by the contraction or closure of subject areas perceived by some political and industrial leaders as insufficiently relevant to our collective economic future, ‘green’ or otherwise. However, for many years now, UK higher education has cultivated students’ green skills through its commitment to education for sustainable development (EfSD), widely recognised as essential knowledge for graduates entering the workforce. Indeed, climate literacy training is now often embedded in university curricula, as well as becoming increasingly normalised as a core, if not mandatory, training requirement across a range of industry sectors. Whilst what EfSD looks like at different universities varies, the majority of institutions demonstrate some degree of engagement with this agenda across all subject areas, with some making it a flagship institutional policy.   

    UK higher education thus seems to be quite good already at cultivating green skills for graduates, and across a wide range of subject areas. How, then, does this map onto the very varied definitions of green skills that have emerged from different sectors? The proliferation of reports concerned with this topic has not (yet) resulted in a clear, unified definition. Rather, this tends to be determined by who is doing the defining. Considering the different definitions and concepts prioritised by different institutions, we propose that these intersecting concerns can ultimately be distilled into three main types of green skill: 

    1. Technical skills: particularly those needed to accelerate decarbonisation; concentration of this need in industries such as manufacturing, transportation, utilities and infrastructure.  
    1. Green-enabling skills: otherwise known as soft or transferable skills, including systems thinking, communication, collaboration, critical thinking, adaptability. 
    1. Values-based skills: such as environmental awareness, climate justice, democratic engagement, cultural sensitivity. 

    Whilst definition 1 skews towards STEM subjects (as well as forms of technical expertise developed through other forms of learning, such as apprenticeships or vocational training), definitions 2 and 3 are within the purview of many other subjects commonly studied at undergraduate level, particularly within the arts, humanities and social sciences.   

    It is a timely moment to be reflecting on the relationship between how skills deficit narratives are framed by some corners of industry and government, and how universities position their offer in response. It feels like every academic in UK higher education has a story about recent, current or imminent institution-wide curriculum transformation. Whilst the rationales presented for these varies, one of the stronger narratives concerns ensuring students develop competencies that are fit for the future, respond directly to regional, national or global skills needs, and give students the vocabulary to articulate how the former meets the latter. As such, curriculum transformation presents an opportunity to think about how universities frame their offer, not just to prospective students but equally to the sectors those students might move into as skilled graduates.   

    Further, whilst driven by a range of factors, curriculum transformation presents the opportunity to articulate the role of all subjects studied in higher education, and all types of higher education providers, to contribute to the skills needed for an economy resilient to the socio-political shocks that will inevitably be invoked by environmental crises. There is a role for university leaders to be much bolder in articulating the value of all subjects – STEM and the arts, humanities, social sciences, and everything in between – and the green skills they cultivate. Now is the moment to consider how the promise of higher education might speak to or work with other agendas concerned with ensuring environmentally and socially sustainable and inclusive economies, regionally, nationally and globally. University leaders have a central role to play in advocating for a national higher education system where diversity – of student, skill and subject area – is not just celebrated as a buzzword but is demonstrated to be an essential part of a thriving, resilient and sustainable society.  

    Source link

  • More Campuses Earn “Green Light” Free Speech Ratings From FIRE

    More Campuses Earn “Green Light” Free Speech Ratings From FIRE

    The number of colleges and universities with written policies that do not seriously threaten student expression are on the rise this year, according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 19th annual “Spotlight on Speech Codes” report, published Tuesday.

    Since 2006, FIRE has grouped hundreds of public and private higher education institutions into three overall categories based on their campus speech policies: green, yellow and red lights. This year, 73 of the 490 (14.9 percent) colleges and universities surveyed received a green light ranking—meaning their policies don’t threaten free expression—compared to 63 last year. It’s the highest share since 2012, when just 3.6 percent of institutions earned green-light ratings. 

    For the first time in 19 years, the number of green-light colleges outnumbered those in the red-light category (14.7 percent), reserved for institutions with policies that “clearly and substantially restrict free speech,” according to the report. Last year, 20 percent of institutions received a red-light rating.

    Although political and institutional responses to campus protests related to the Israel-Hamas war reignited debate over free expression last year, the report attributed the decrease in red-light ratings to colleges and universities revising their policies related to harassment, hate speech and bias-reporting systems. Specifically, the report said that while bias-reporting systems have become popular over the past decade, they “have invited students to report protected speech simply because it offends them,” turned academic institutions into “referees of political and academic speech,” and created a “chilling effect on campus expression.”

    Lawsuits, free speech advocacy—from students, alumni and groups like FIRE—and lawmaker scrutiny have all spurred changes in recent years.

    “Over a dozen institutions have either substantially revised or eliminated entirely their bias reporting systems,” the report said. “Others have significantly reduced the prominence of their bias reporting teams, either by reducing the number of places on their website the team is mentioned or by requiring students enter their credentials to access the policy information.”

    FIRE rated the majority of institutions—337, or 68.8 percent—as yellow, meaning they “maintain policies that impose vague regulations on expression.” And eight colleges—including Baylor University, Brigham Young University and Hillsdale College—received a warning rating for “clearly and consistently stat[ing] that they hold a certain set of values above a commitment to freedom of speech.”

    Over all, private colleges have more restrictive policies than public colleges. Just 10.6 percent of public colleges earned red lights compared to 28 percent of private colleges—and only 7.1 percent of private colleges earned a green-light rating, compared to 17 percent of public ones.

    Source link

  • Labor, Coalition and Green education policies compared – Campus Review

    Labor, Coalition and Green education policies compared – Campus Review

    Australians go to the polls this Saturday to choose the next government. The Australian Labor Party, the Liberal-National Coalition and the Australian Greens have a variety of different policies for education in the funding, content and management spaces.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Coventry given green light to open campus in GIFT City

    Coventry given green light to open campus in GIFT City

    The institution revealed its ambition to open the campus in December, when it launched an Indian hub in New Delhi to support the institute’s admissions, recruitment, and partnerships in the region.

    Approval for the £1 billion expenditure on the campus was announced at the London Stock Exchange on April 9 at the 13th UK-India Economic and Financial Dialogue (EFD).

    GIFT City (Gujarat International Finance Tec-City) is a business district in the Indian state of Gujarat.

    “We are delighted that approval has been given to commence the set-up process for Coventry University GIFT City and know that many students will benefit from the high-quality education we can offer over the years to come,” said John Latham CBE, vice-chancellor of Coventry University and Group.

    Competition among international universities has risen significantly in the region, with more UK universities keen on expanding into GIFT City. In January, The University of Surrey unveiled plans to open a campus in the city, as did Queen’s University Belfast.

    We… know that many students will benefit from the high-quality education we can offer over the years to come
    John Latham, Coventry University

    Coventry’s new India campus is offering postgraduate programs such as international business management and business and finance. The university plans to add further courses in the near future.

    Alison Barrett, director of India at the British Council said: “It emphasises our shared commitment to the internationalisation of education, as highlighted in the National Education Policy 2020. Thousands of students will benefit from the high-quality education that the university can offer in the years to come.”

    The campus building is set open its doors this month.

    Source link

  • Georgia Southern and East Georgia State merger gets green light from system board

    Georgia Southern and East Georgia State merger gets green light from system board

    Dive Brief:

    • Georgia Southern University is poised to absorb East Georgia State College after the University System of Georgia governing board approved a merger plan Tuesday. 
    • The board’s vote follows USG Chancellor Sonny Perdue’s recommendation for the consolidation last week. Tuesday’s action marks “the first step in a careful process that will take more than a year,” the system said. 
    • The new institution will retain the “identity” of East Georgia State, which has struggled with enrollment declines in recent years. At the same time, it will become part of Georgia Southern and will be led by the latter’s president, Kyle Marrero, according to the announcement. The consolidation requires the approval of the institutions’ accreditor. 

    Dive Insight:

    Perdue trumpeted the consolidation of Georgia Southern and East Georgia State as a way to invest in key higher education functions — especially student success and degree access — by saving on administrative costs and reducing academic program overlap.

    “By using public resources as efficiently as possible, we’re making sure every dollar saved is reinvested into those programs that truly empower our students, support our faculty and strengthen our communities for a brighter future,” Perdue said in Tuesday’s announcement.  

    Georgia state Rep. Butch Parrish — who represents Swainsboro, which is home to East Georgia State and 40 miles from Georgia Southern — praised the plan. 

    “It’s essential that as the system streamlines and operates more efficiently, we safeguard access to higher education in the local area and keep the EGSC spirit going,” Parrish said in a statement. 

    Now that the board has greenlit the merger, the institutions plan on quickly forming an implementation team with representatives from both colleges to work out details, the system said. That team will also prepare and submit the required paperwork for approval by their accreditor,  the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.

    USG and the institutions plan on holding campus and community listening sessions to seek input on the new institution’s design, with the first one slated for Wednesday on East Georgia State’s campus.  

    Of the two, Georgia Southern is by far the larger institution. As of fall 2023, the university enrolled 26,041 students to East Georgia State’s 1,756, according to federal data. Georgia Southern’s enrollment has been relatively stable, declining 1.4% between 2018 and 2023, while East Georgia State’s fell by 40.3%. 

    The larger university also has a much deeper catalog of programs compared to East Georgia State, which according to its website offers six associate and three bachelor’s degree programs. 

    The planned consolidation is the latest move in an effort going back nearly 15 years to pare down Georgia’s state university system. So far, USG has undertaken 13 consolidations. From these, it has saved $30 million in administrative expenses that it said it has reinvested into student services and faculty and staff hires

    Once the Georgia Southern and East Georgia State combination completes, USG will have 25 institutions, the system said.

    Source link

  • Could Trump’s tariffs end up spurring green innovation?

    Could Trump’s tariffs end up spurring green innovation?

    U.S. President Donald Trump has never been a champion of the environment. From gutting climate policies to rolling back crucial environmental protections, the track record of the U.S. president speaks for itself. 

    But his announcement this month of steep tariffs on a sweeping range of foreign-made goods intended to boost U.S. production may also inadvertently fuel a global shift toward green innovation and a more sustainable future.

    During his first term, Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement, slashed pollution regulations and gave the fossil fuel industry a free pass. One of his most controversial moves was opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling — a pristine, ecologically-sensitive area home to polar bears, caribou and Indigenous communities that depend on the land.

    Now, he’s back — and this time, his weapon of choice is tariffs. The Trump administration has imposed tariffs on all imports from China, Mexico and Canada, as well as on steel, aluminium and cars from around the world.

    By targeting key imports like clean energy components and critical minerals, Trump’s latest trade war threatens to derail climate progress, drive up costs for renewable energy and push the United States further into fossil fuel dependence. The damage is real and the consequences could be catastrophic.

    Tariffs could hamper climate change efforts.

    The implementation of broad tariffs is poised to significantly hinder efforts against climate change and weaken environmental legislation. Here’s how:​

    Disruption of clean energy supply chains: The tariffs, particularly those targeting imports from China like steel, aluminium and lithium directly affect the availability and cost of clean technology components. For instance, the United States imports a substantial amount of lithium batteries from China — $1.9 billion worth in December 2024 alone. Increased tariffs on these imports could raise costs for renewable energy projects and electric vehicles, slowing the transition to cleaner energy sources. ​

    The energy sector is already grappling with shortages of essential parts. New tariffs exacerbate this issue, making it more challenging to procure necessary components for renewable energy infrastructure. This could delay projects and increase reliance on fossil fuels, counteracting efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ​

    Strain on environmental initiatives: The stock market’s negative reaction to the tariff announcements, with the Dow Jones dropping nearly 1,700 points and erasing approximately $3.1 trillion in market value, indicates broader economic instability. Such financial turmoil can lead to reduced funding and support for environmental programs, as both public and private sectors may prioritize immediate economic concerns over long-term environmental goals. ​

    As Trump imposes tariffs, his administration is also rolling back environmental protections. His Environmental Protection Agency is now questioning a key 2009 ruling that classifies greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide as harmful to human health. If the courts overturn it, this could weaken U.S. climate laws and make it harder to fight climate change.

    Unintended consequences

    While Trump’s tariffs largely threaten climate progress in the United States, they could have unintended environmental benefits elsewhere.

    Boosting green manufacturing in other countries: If U.S. tariffs make Chinese solar panels, batteries and EV components more expensive, other countries — especially in Europe, India and Latin America — may ramp up their own clean energy production. China itself may increase investment and focus on domestic EV adoption, hydrogen technology or battery recycling. 

    This could lead to a more diversified and resilient global supply chain for renewable technologies, while also strengthening domestic energy resilience by encouraging countries to develop and secure their own clean energy resources, reducing reliance on foreign imports.

    Strengthening regional trade alliances for green tech: With the imposing trade barriers, countries looking to avoid tariffs might strengthen regional partnerships, such as the EU-India green energy collaboration or China’s push to supply African and Latin American markets with solar and wind technology. This could decentralize the clean energy economy, reducing reliance on any single country.

    Reducing export-driven deforestation: If tariffs make U.S. imports of commodities like beef, palm oil and timber more expensive, countries that export these products (e.g., Brazil, Indonesia) may face declining demand. Less demand equals less incentive to clear forests for agriculture.

    On the other hand, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), adopted in June 2023, aims to block imports of commodities linked to deforestation unless they can be verified as deforestation-free. The EU is a huge consumer of these commodities. 

    With two major markets (U.S. and EU) becoming less profitable for deforestation-linked goods, exporters might change their practices to comply with stricter regulations. This could encourage more sustainable supply chains.

    However, this would depend on whether other countries, like China, pick up the slack and implement EUDR-like regulations.

    Backing off petroleum

    If trade wars escalate and tariffs disrupt global markets, long-term investments in fossil fuel projects could become riskier due to economic uncertainty. Tariffs on fossil fuel-related goods — like equipment, machinery or raw materials — can increase production costs for oil and gas companies. 

    As the cost of extraction, refining and transportation rises, companies could face shrinking profit margins, making fossil fuel investments less appealing. This, and shifting focus to clean energy, might push investors toward renewables, which are increasingly seen as more stable and future-proof.

    There’s a catch: These benefits depend on how other countries respond. If the U.S. tariffs cause economic slowdowns, some nations might double down on fossil fuels to stabilize their economies. So while tariffs could have some green silver linings, they’re more of a chaotic wildcard than a deliberate climate strategy.

    While the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration present significant challenges to global climate efforts, they also create opportunities for positive change. The disruptions in the clean energy supply chain, economic instability and rollbacks of environmental protections are certainly concerning. However, the unintended side effects of these actions might just catalyze a shift in global energy dynamics.

    In the long run, this “chaotic wildcard” could make fossil fuel investments riskier and accelerate the global pivot toward renewables. Countries and industries could be forced to innovate and adapt faster than expected. 

    While the path ahead may seem uncertain, there’s a silver lining: resilience, innovation and adaptability are key to overcoming these challenges. As the world adjusts to these new realities, the opportunity to cultivate a cleaner, more sustainable future is within reach — if leaders recognize this moment and take bold action to seize it. 

    So, while the road ahead may be bumpy, there is still reason to hope and act. 

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. How can governments turn the economic disruptions caused by tariffs into opportunities for advancing clean energy and climate goals?

    2. How can a decentralization of green energy technology be a good thing? 

    3. How can government intervention combined with market forces, like the rising cost of fossil fuels, accelerate the transition to renewable energy?

     

    Source link

  • ICE Arrest of Green Card Holder Signals Crackdown on Israel Critics (Ted Rall)

    ICE Arrest of Green Card Holder Signals Crackdown on Israel Critics (Ted Rall)







    Higher Education Inquirer : ICE Arrest of Green Card Holder Signals Crackdown on Israel Critics (Ted Rall)




    Source link

  • Rep. Al Green (D-TX) Speaks After Being Censured (C-Span)

    Rep. Al Green (D-TX) Speaks After Being Censured (C-Span)

    Source link

  • Smart Campus Energy Management and Green Campuses

    Smart Campus Energy Management and Green Campuses

    Introduction: How Educational Technology Promotes Green Campuses

    Sustainability is now a requirement, not a slogan, especially concerning educational institutions given the tremendous environmental impact of paper-based systems! Textbooks and administrative paperwork from colleges and institutions contribute to worldwide paper consumption. Panic not, the good news is that technology and smart campus energy management is making a difference.

    Universities may encourage sustainability by using innovation that eliminates waste, conserves energy, and optimizes resources. With the correct tools, becoming green may become the norm. Creatrix Campus’s educational innovations in the form of smart campus energy management are turning campuses into eco-friendly centers while improving efficiency.

     

    Benefits of Educational Technologies for Eco-friendly Campus Management

     

     

    Paperless Classrooms and Administration

    Reducing paper waste is a simple but effective way for institutions to become green. Paperwork is massive in conventional classrooms and administrative systems due to the proliferation of various forms of paper-based documentation. However, campuses may reduce paper use, simplify operations, and save time by moving digital!

    Paperwork is a thing of the past with cloud-based tools for resource optimization that manage student work, grades, and attendance. With a few clicks, students may turn in their work online, instructors can digitally grade and comment, and attendance can be kept tabs. In addition to enhancing efficiency, all of this helps save environment. On top of that, everything is well-organized and simple to find, which simplifies administrative duties.

     

    Controlling Energy Consumption Using Intelligent Devices

    Energy regulation is crucial to a sustainable campus. Smart campus energy management have increased university energy efficiency. Smart meters, IoT devices, and cloud-based energy management software can analyze energy usage, identify inefficiencies, and reduce carbon footprint on campuses.

    According to a new study out of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, campuses can save 30% on their energy bills by implementing smart campus energy management solutions. Colleges can significantly reduce their energy use by installing smart lighting, HVAC systems, and energy-efficient equipment.

    Additionally, facilities staff may reduce waste and promote eco-friendly practices across the board by making smarter decisions on energy usage based on data-driven insights. It’s about more than just cutting costs; it’s about making a better, more sustainable future for generations to come.

     

    Learn to Reduce Carbon Footprint Online

    More than just a convenient way to attend classes, online learning changes the atmosphere. Universities may substantially reduce travel by going digital, reducing traffic, carbon emissions, and cars on the road. Online education reduces carbon footprints by up to 90% compared to on-campus instruction, according to The Global e-Sustainability Initiative.

    But it’s not just about travel cuts!  Online learning minimizes the need for environmentally harmful paper books, handouts, and other materials! Students get to access course materials instantaneously from anywhere, saving resources and giving the planet a respite.

    Students can get degrees from home while protecting the environment—a win-win!

     

    Sustainable Resource Management

    Building a green campus requires efficient resource management. AI and IoT-powered smart campus energy management systems are changing how universities measure and optimize resource use. Educational institutions may now make smarter judgments about water, electricity, paper, and plastic to reduce waste and save money.

    Real-time data and predictive analytics helped institutions employing smart campus energy management systems cut energy use by 15% reports The International Energy Agency. It’s not just about turning off lights in empty classrooms—it’s about using energy-hungry equipment sparingly and conserving water in dorms and cafeterias.

    Cloud-based technologies and AI-powered analytics help colleges improve their sustainability initiatives and achieve lasting impact! Understanding how and when resources are used helps institutions reduce waste, save money, and promote sustainability.

     

    Environment Awareness

    Environmental knowledge is crucial to creating tomorrow’s leaders on campuses. Sustainability in the curriculum and green campus projects can teach students to be eco-friendly. This approach may even help students become environmental activists.

    According to a National Environmental Education Foundation research, 79% of students think their institutions should address sustainability, and 67% prefer to work for green companies. University environmental awareness programs teach lifelong habits and educate students to take responsibility for their ecological footprint.

     

    Remote Collaboration Encouragement

    Carbon footprint reduction doesn’t require face-to-face interaction. Virtual classrooms and cloud-based technology let students and teachers communicate anytime, anywhere, minimizing travel and meetings. Trust us, remote collaboration for group tasks or faculty discussions saves time, cuts travel emissions, and makes their workspace more flexible and sustainable.

    Remote work and collaboration tools reduce travel and their organization’s environmental effect, according to 60% of McKinsey respondents.  

     

    Data-driven Sustainability Planning

    Sustainability requires educated decisions, not just good intentions. Data helps higher eds design better, more customised sustainability plans. Leveraging AI and IoT for green campus operations aids to analyze real-time energy, waste, and resource allocation data to improve.

    According to a Gartner report, 70% of organizations utilizing data analytics have improved their sustainability initiatives, from waste reduction to energy optimization. Same with universities. Educational technologies let institutions track success, identify areas for development, and make long-term environmental decisions. Data-driven sustainability is a game-changer, not a buzzword.

     

    Conclusion

    University greening can jump forward with technology. Sustainable, eco-friendly education is possible through paperless classrooms in universities, smart campus energy management, and online learning. By using cloud-based tools for resource optimization, institutions lower their environmental footprint and inspire future leaders.

    Is your organization ready to impact? Greening your campus is easy with Creatrix Campus and its creative solutions. Connect with us.

    Source link