Remco

Identify 3 or 4 case studies of different job roles (positive & negative). Working in small groups, students take one each and research it, identifying likely positive and negative impacts of role on stakeholders. Group members take it in turns to role-play someone in the job role while others interview them about their job.

Students divide into groups. Each group imagines a family in a different socio-economic class and role-plays typical behaviour. Groups share and discuss and reflect on the causes and implications of different behaviours identified. As a final activity, the teachers invite learners to situate themselves in a situation of energy poverty and collectively reflect on their feelings and emotions.

Identify a number of case studies of different company initiatives (positive & negative). Small groups take one each and research it, identifying likely positive and negative impacts of initiative on stakeholders and the environment. Share analysis with others and discuss, comparing case studies.

In groups, students research energy consumption data for their town/city and how it’s changed over the past few decades. Then research a case of local energy poverty e.g. neighbourhood, zone or group. Research actors involved e.g. people from different areas, socio-economic status, energy producers, government officials. Students take roles and interact with each other about the use and availability of energy.

Finally, students write, individually and from the perspective of the actor represented, a manifesto about their final position in the debate and a proposal for action that takes into account the complexity of the perspectives showed during the debate.

Group activity. Set up work context scenario, e.g. a café. Students adopt different roles e.g. manager, older person, pregnant woman, environmentalist, vegan, meat eater. Role-play team meetings based on resolving different issues, e.g. how to increase sales, increase profits, become more environmentally friendly. Groups share experiences and outcomes.

In pairs: considering a society they are familiar with, draw a simple picture representing their view of it 100 years ago, 50 years ago and today. Draw another to show how they picture it 50 years from now. On the future picture, write down pros and cons of this vision. Now draw another picture of 50 years from now that tries to avoid any of the cons – what does it look like? What steps need to be taken to get to that vision? Pairs then share their work and thoughts with others.

Students are divided into three groups to work on different scenarios and reveal their implications. One group works with the business as usual scenario (energy production and consumption follow the same trends as today). Another group works with a scenario based on the spread of solar energy in which consumption remains the same as today, while the third group works with a scenario in which energy consumption is considerably reduced. The three groups present findings and discuss together what would be the best scenario and route to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to avoid the 2ºC temperature increase by 2100.

Ask students to identify things that the economy currently needs to grow e.g. fossil fuels, land based resources and minerals. Now set up a webbing game but using these components linked to the economy in the middle. Simulate the tensions created and the strains on the system as the economy grows.

Now ask one group to do the same again and another do the traditional (natural environment) webbing game and then join together to look for links between them.

Again look for tensions and strains on the system as the economy grows.
With the two groups combined, they try to represent a model that avoids these tensions and strains.

The teacher brings the statistics of the 5 countries with the lowest access to water worldwide (in 2018: Eritrea 19%, Papua New Guinea 37%, Uganda 39%, Ethiopia 39%, Dem Rep of the Congo 39%).

Students divide into 5 groups, each group chooses a country and investigates reasons for poor access to water (e.g. in 2018: Eritrea 19%, Papua New Guinea 37%, Uganda 39%, Ethiopia 39%, Democratic Republic of the Congo 39%), taking into account geopolitical factors and scale issues, as well as socio-cultural and economic conditions that can create inequalities. The groups share their findings and discuss commonalities, differences and interdependencies.