In order to delve into effective ways of imparting climate action education with an economic perspective, this paper employs a dual lens. Theoretical underpinnings are rooted in a radical political economy approach, aligning climate change with profit pursuit within the capitalist system (Bellamy Foster 2000; Marx, 2011). Pedagogically, the UNESCO Education 2030 Framework for Action guides the exploration, aspiring that by 2030, learners globally will possess the knowledge and skills to champion sustainable development (UNESCO, 2020). While laudable, these aspirations, emphasizing individual actions, risk neglecting deeper systemic roots of climate change. A radical political economy perspective becomes crucial, shifting the discourse from personal responsibility to the profit-driven dynamics of capitalism, wherein growth and accumulation are imperative for survival (Marx, 2011).

The present emphasis on personal responsibility often obscures major corporations' culpability for the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions, a concern echoed by climate activists and the Climate Justice Movement (Belamy Foster, 2010; Angus, 2016). This viewpoint extends beyond individual actions, challenging the system itself. The younger generation, exemplified by movements like Fridays for Future and the iconic Greta Thunberg, acknowledges this need for systemic change. Thunberg's call for global leaders to take responsibility rather than placing the burden on individual behavior reflects a growing sentiment among students, revealing a shared understanding that personal responsibility is an important start but an insufficient endpoint in environmental stewardship (Thunberg, 2019; Thunberg, 2022). The collaborative spirit between educators and these young activists is crucial in shaping effective climate education.

However, a UNESCO report reveals a stark reality – insufficient global commitment to climate education. Almost half of the reviewed countries lack climate change in their national curriculum frameworks. Despite the acknowledgment of its importance by 95% of surveyed teachers, only 23% feel equipped to comprehensively explain climate action (UNESCO, 2022). The consequences of this educational gap are reflected in the increasing eco-anxiety among the youth, as noted in the report.

Moreover, the report questions the quality of current climate change education, with 70% of surveyed youth unable to explain or having only a basic understanding of climate change. These findings underscore the urgency of reevaluating and enhancing the pedagogical approaches to climate education in schools (UNESCO, 2022).

The significance of teaching methodologies is evident, especially in disciplines like business studies and economics, where concepts risk inadvertently normalizing behaviors contributing to climate change. This paper argues, using a critical interpretation of common areas in the second-level curriculum across OECD countries, that climate action education should transcend personal responsibility.

The three key areas outlined in the curriculum involve students observing, evaluating, discussing, and analyzing real-life events to draw valid deductions and conclusions. They must also demonstrate an understanding of the origins and impacts of social, economic, and environmental phenomena, including the influence of organizations on human behavior and its subsequent impact on the environment. Additionally, students should develop the awareness, knowledge, skills, values, and motivation necessary to live sustainably (adapted from NCCA, 2016; OECD 2018; OECD, 2022).

In conclusion, this paper advocates for a comprehensive approach to climate action education, intertwining radical political economy perspectives with pedagogical frameworks like the UNESCO Education 2030 Framework for Action. By addressing the root causes of climate change within the capitalist system and enhancing the quality and focus of climate education in schools, we can foster a generation equipped to tackle the global challenge of climate change with both understanding and action.

This paper unfolds in three distinct sections, each addressing critical aspects of teaching climate action through an economic lens. In the initial section, the focus is on empowering students to analyze empirical evidence and draw conclusions. Specifically, the paper illuminates the empirical connections between economic growth and carbon emissions, leading to the assertion that a capitalist economy centered on perpetual growth is incompatible with an environmental stewardship model (Angus, 2016). The key takeaway is that sustainability requires a departure from the prevailing growth-centric economic paradigm. Transitioning to the second section, the paper delves into the potential repercussions of economic concepts on environmental understanding. Grounding the discussion in the 18th-century economic and social context, the paper underscores that economics evolved as a theoretical reflection of emerging capitalist societies (O’Boyle and McDonagh, 2017). Economic concepts served the dual purpose of explaining and legitimizing capitalist relations, emphasizing profit pursuit and economic expansion (O’Boyle, 2017; O’Boyle and McDonagh, 2011). Understanding the historical context becomes crucial in recognizing that constructs like scarcity and choice were conceived during a period focused on generating economic resources and securing property rights for profit-making. In the contemporary context of climate crisis, clinging to the notion of endless growth becomes akin to exacerbating a problem rather than solving it. The third section builds upon these insights while scrutinizing inherent tensions in contemporary economics education. With sustainability gaining prominence in discourse, the paper exposes contradictions arising from advocating for a society that does not live sustainably while prioritizing economic growth in public policy objectives. The paper contends that the conceptualization of scarcity in economics contributes to this contradiction, portraying humans as insatiable and endlessly acquisitive (Grampp, 1946; O’Boyle, 2017). This framing perpetuates the perception of inevitable economic growth when, in reality, meeting human needs can be achieved without chaotic and relentless global expansion. The argument posits a shift from limitless growth to prioritizing human needs, substantive equality, and sustainability. Consequently, living sustainably in the modern era necessitates not only changes in consumer behavior but, more fundamentally, political considerations for systemic transformation.

In summary, this paper strives to instigate critical contemplation of climate change among educators and their students, using common learning objectives in second-level business studies and economics. The initial section posits a vital political conclusion: climate change is intricately tied to decision-making in the capitalist system. It challenges the prevailing notion of individual responsibility, highlighting that the root cause lies in an economic framework prioritizing profits above all else. The second section delves into the historical context that molded key economic concepts. Early economists advocated for exponential growth, grounded in a world vastly different from our contemporary reality. This section underscores the need for reflexive thinking among educators, urging them to navigate cognitive biases when teaching historical economic concepts. The implication is clear – economic education should transcend historical legacies that may not align with the complexities of the present. The final section unravels a tension in the modern curriculum, wherein exponential growth is rooted in natural desires while ethical, sustainable, and wise consumer choices are advocated. The key takeaway emphasizes a critical examination of concepts and their implications for human nature and sustainability. Unlike mainstream economics, this paper contends that the current climate emergency is not an innate human desire for perpetual growth but a consequence of capitalism. Urging the integration of this perspective into teaching and learning consensus, the conclusion underscores the imperative to rethink economic education, aligning it more closely with the realities of our time. It calls for a paradigm shift that recognizes capitalism's role in the climate emergency, marking a crucial step toward finding effective solutions. In essence, the conclusion advocates for a renewed perspective on key economic concepts, fostering an education that prepares students to navigate the complexities of the contemporary world.

Bangay, C. and Blum, N. (2010). Education Responses to Climate Change and Quality: Two Parts of the Same Agenda? International Journal of Educational Development 30(4): 335-450 [online] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/79545343.pdf [accessed 30 May 2021]. Bellamy Foster (2000). Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New York. Monthly Review Press. Bellamy Foster (2010). The Ecological Rift. Capitalism’s War on the Earth. New York. Monthly Review Press. Farrell, R. and Sugrue, C. (2021). Sustainable Teaching in an Uncertain World: Pedagogical Continuities, Un-Precedented Challenges. IntechOpen, doi: 10.5772/intechopen.96078. Geras N. (1985). Marx and Human Nature: Refutation of a Legend. London, Verso Books. Grampp, W.D. (1946). ‘Adam Smith and the Economic Man’. Journal of Political Economy, Vol 56, no 4, pp, 315-336. Hayek F. (2011). The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago. The University of Chicago Press. Klein N. (2015). This Changes Everything: Capitalism Versus the Climate. London Penguin Books. Kuhn. T. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago. Chicago University Press. Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises on Government. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press. Malm. A. (2016). Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming. London Verso Books. Marx, K. (2011). Capital Volume One. London Penguin Classics. NCCA (2016). Junior Cycle Business Studies Specification [online] https://www.curriculumonline.ie/Junior-cycle/Junior-Cycle-Subjects/Business-Studies/Statements-of-Learning/ [accessed 30 May 2021]. O’Boyle B. 2017. From Newton to Hobbes – The Metaphysical Foundations of Mainstream Economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Volume 41, Issue 6, pp. 1587–1605. O’Boyle, B. and McDonough, T. 2011. ‘Critical Realism, Marxism and the Critique of Neoclassical Economics’ Capital and Class Volume 35, No 1. pp. 3-22. O’Boyle and McDonough, T. 2017. Bourgeois Ideology and Mathematical Economics: A Reply to Tony Lawson. Economic Thought 6.1: pp.16-34. OECD. (2018). Education 2030: The future of education and skills. Paris: OECD Publishing. Quine, W.VO. (1980). From a Logical Point of View. Boston. Harvard University Press. Strange, T. and A. Bayley (2008), Sustainable Development: Linking Economy, Society, Environment, OECD Insights, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264055742-en. Smith A. (2011). The Wealth of Nations (Books I-III). London. Penguin Classics. Thunberg, G. (2019). No One Is Too Small to make a Difference. Penguin Books. Thunberg, G. (2022). The Climate Book. Allen Lane. UNESCO. (2020). Education for Sustainable Development. A roadmap. Paris: UNESCO. [online] https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374802.locale=en [accessed 31December 2022] UNESCO. (2022). Youth Demands for Quality Climate Change Education. Paris: UNESCO. [online] https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000383615 [accessed 02 January 2022] Vermerien M. (2021). Crisis and Inequality: The Political Economy of Advanced Capitalism. Oxford Polity Press.