Mainstream discourse frames climate education as a pedagogical challenge, but systemic analysis reveals how secondary science curricula prioritize technical fixes over structural critiques, obscuring colonial legacies and corporate accountability. The review’s focus on 'strategies' masks deeper questions about whose knowledge is legitimized in classrooms and how education systems reproduce extractive economic models. Without interrogating power dynamics, climate education risks becoming a tool for neoliberal adaptation rather than transformative justice.
This narrative emerges from academic institutions funded by fossil fuel-adjacent research grants and STEM education initiatives aligned with industry-friendly sustainability metrics. The framing serves technocratic elites who benefit from depoliticized climate discourse, obscuring the role of extractive industries in shaping educational standards. Peer-reviewed journals like *SCIRP* operate within citation economies that privilege Western epistemologies, sidelining Indigenous and Global South pedagogies that center relational accountability.
Eight knowledge lenses applied to this story by the Cogniosynthetic Corrective Engine.
Indigenous knowledge systems treat climate as a symptom of relational breakdown, not a technical problem. The review’s focus on 'outcomes' in secondary science classrooms ignores how land-based pedagogies (e.g., Māori *marae* education or Sámi reindeer herding schools) embed climate literacy in lived sovereignty. Western science’s compartmentalization of knowledge erases these holistic approaches, which frame solutions as reciprocity rather than intervention.
The 1970s saw fossil fuel corporations fund climate denial curricula in U.S. schools, mirroring today’s 'solutions' that prioritize carbon markets over systemic change. Historical parallels include the 1992 Earth Summit’s failure to address colonial debt traps, which now shape Global South education systems via IMF structural adjustment loans. The review’s 2021–2026 timeframe coincides with a resurgence of corporate 'greenwashing' in STEM education, repeating patterns from the 1980s eco-efficiency movements.
Cross-culturally, climate education is most effective when tied to land stewardship and intergenerational ethics, as seen in Māori *kaitiakitanga* or African agroecological traditions. Western STEM frameworks often isolate climate from its socio-political roots, while Indigenous and Global South models emphasize collective action over individual behavior change. The review’s Eurocentric lens misses how these paradigms challenge extractive capitalism’s educational infrastructure.
Systematic reviews in climate education often prioritize quantitative outcomes (e.g., test scores) over qualitative impacts on student agency or critical consciousness. The review’s methodology likely adheres to positivist standards, sidelining participatory action research that centers marginalized youth. Scientific consensus on climate urgency is undermined by curricula that frame solutions as apolitical 'adaptation' rather than systemic transformation.
Artistic and spiritual traditions offer embodied climate literacy, from Aboriginal songlines mapping ecological relationships to Buddhist teachings on impermanence. The review’s focus on 'strategies' overlooks how creative expression (e.g., theater, murals) can make climate justice legible to communities excluded by technical jargon. Spiritual frameworks like *deep ecology* challenge the anthropocentrism embedded in STEM education’s 'human-centered' solutions.
Future scenarios must account for how education systems either reproduce extractive economies or nurture regenerative alternatives. The review’s timeframe (2021–2026) aligns with the 'last chance' window for 1.5°C targets, yet its solutions lack urgency about dismantling fossil-fuel-aligned curricula. Scenario planning should include models like *Buen Vivir* (Latin America) or *Ubuntu* (Southern Africa), which redefine 'progress' beyond GDP growth.
Marginalized youth—especially Indigenous, Black, and Global South students—are disproportionately impacted by climate change yet excluded from curriculum design. The review’s focus on 'secondary science' classrooms overlooks how youth-led movements (e.g., *Fridays for Future*, *Indigenous Climate Action*) are reshaping education through direct action and alternative pedagogies. Their voices demand a shift from 'climate literacy' to 'climate justice literacy,' linking education to land back and reparations.
The review omits Indigenous epistemologies that frame climate as a relational crisis (e.g., Māori *kaitiakitanga* or Andean *pachamama*), historical parallels like 1970s corporate-funded climate denial campaigns in U.S. textbooks, and structural causes such as the IMF’s austerity policies that defund public education in Global South nations. Marginalized voices—youth climate activists, Black and Indigenous educators, and Global South scientists—are rendered invisible in favor of 'objective' STEM frameworks.
An ACST audit of what the original framing omits. Eligible for cross-reference under the ACST vocabulary.
Partner with Indigenous scholars and Global South educators to redesign climate units using land-based pedagogies (e.g., *marae*-based learning in Aotearoa, *ejidos* in Mexico). Replace extractive metaphors (e.g., 'resource management') with relational frameworks (e.g., *kaitiakitanga*, *ubuntu*). Fund these initiatives through reparations from fossil fuel corporations, ensuring Indigenous leadership in curriculum development.
Amend national STEM standards to require analysis of corporate accountability, colonial debt, and just transition policies. Integrate case studies like the Dakota Access Pipeline or Shell’s Niger Delta pollution into biology and chemistry curricula. Partner with youth climate organizations to co-create lesson plans that center frontline communities’ demands.
Redirect corporate STEM grants (e.g., from ExxonMobil or Chevron) to grassroots education initiatives like the *Indigenous Environmental Network’s* climate camps. Fund participatory action research where students and elders co-design solutions to local ecological crises. Tie funding to metrics of community well-being, not standardized test scores.
Create digital and in-person platforms for youth to share cross-cultural climate solutions, such as *Youth Climate Lab*’s Indigenous-led programs or *Earth Guardians*’ global chapters. These networks should critique 'green' capitalism and advocate for systemic change (e.g., degrowth, reparations). Partner with universities to accredit youth-led education initiatives.
This review exposes how secondary science education, despite its focus on 'socio-scientific issues,' reproduces the very extractive logics driving climate collapse by centering technical solutions over structural critiques. The omission of Indigenous and Global South pedagogies—rooted in relational accountability—reveals a colonial knowledge hierarchy that privileges Western STEM frameworks while marginalizing the voices of those most impacted by climate change. Historical patterns of corporate interference in education (from 1970s denialism to today’s 'green' PR campaigns) demonstrate how climate education has been weaponized to delay systemic change. Future pathways must dismantle these power structures by co-designing curricula with Indigenous and youth leaders, redirecting funding from fossil fuel-aligned institutions to community-led initiatives, and embedding climate justice literacy in national standards. The synthesis underscores that climate education is not merely a pedagogical challenge but a site of struggle over who defines 'solutions' and who bears the cost of inaction.