For years, Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has documented how the climate crisis intersects with higher education. The evidence shows universities caught between their public claims of sustainability and the realities of financial pressures, risky expansion, and—in some cases—climate denial.
Bryan Alexander’s Universities on Fire offers a framework for understanding how climate change will affect colleges and universities. He describes scenarios where institutions face not only physical damage from storms, floods, and wildfires, but also declining enrollments, strained budgets, and reputational harm if they continue business as usual.
HEI’s reporting on Stockton University illustrates this problem. Its Atlantic City campus was celebrated as a forward-looking project, but the site is highly vulnerable to sea-level rise. Projections show more than two feet of water by 2050 and as much as five feet by 2100. Despite this, the university has continued to invest in the property, a decision that raises questions about long-term planning and responsibility.
The problems are not only physical. HEI has reported on “science-based climate change denial,” where the language of research and inquiry is used to delay or undermine action. This type of denial allows institutions to appear rigorous while, in practice, legitimizing doubt and obstructing necessary changes.
Even the digital infrastructure of higher education is implicated. Data centers and cloud computing require enormous amounts of water for cooling, a fact made more urgent in drought-stricken regions. HEI has suggested that universities confront their digital footprints by auditing storage, deleting unnecessary data, and questioning whether unlimited cloud use is consistent with sustainability goals.
The federal safety net is also shrinking. FEMA cuts have reduced disaster relief funding at a time when climate-driven storms and floods are growing more severe. Colleges and universities that once relied on federal recovery dollars are now being forced to absorb more of the financial burden themselves—whether through state appropriations, private insurance, or higher tuition. In practice, this means students and working families will bear much of the cost of rebuilding.
Meanwhile, contradictions continue to pile up. Camp Mystic, a corporate retreat space that hosts gatherings for university-affiliated leaders, has become a symbol of institutional hypocrisy: universities stage climate conferences and sustainability summits while maintaining financial and cultural ties to industries and donors accelerating the crisis. These contradictions erode trust in higher education’s role as a credible leader on climate.
Climate disruption does not occur in isolation. HEI’s essay Let’s Pretend We Didn’t See It Coming...Again examined how higher education is entangled with a debt-driven economy vulnerable to collapse. With more than $1.7 trillion in student loans, heavy reliance on speculative finance, and partnerships with debt-financed ventures, universities are already positioned on fragile ground. Climate change adds another layer of instability to institutions already at risk.
Taken together, these trends describe a sector moving into uncertain waters. Rising seas threaten campuses directly. Digital networks consume scarce resources. FEMA funding is shrinking. Denial masquerades as academic debate. Debt burdens and speculative finance amplify risks. Universities that continue to expand without accounting for these realities may find themselves not only unprepared but complicit in the crisis.
HEI will continue to investigate these issues, tracking which institutions adapt responsibly and which remain locked in denial and contradiction.
Sources and Further Reading
-
Bryan Alexander, Universities on Fire (2023)
-
Higher Education Inquirer: Stockton University and Climate Change
-
Higher Education Inquirer: Science-Based Climate Change Denial
-
Higher Education Inquirer: When Climate Change Dries Out the Cloud
-
Higher Education Inquirer: Let’s Pretend We Didn’t See It Coming...Again
-
Higher Education Inquirer: Climate Change Archive
-
Wendy Lynne Lee, On the Kleptocene and Commodification of Life (HEI, 2024)
You could also talk about this:
ReplyDeleteSocial cognition's role in climate change refers to how people's mental processes and social behaviors influence their understanding, attitudes, and actions towards the climate crisis. It involves factors like social norms, perceptions of risk, cooperation, self-efficacy, and even cognitive biases, which collectively affect public engagement and the success of mitigation and adaptation strategies. Understanding these cognitive mechanisms is crucial for developing effective policies and interventions to promote sustainable behaviors.
Key Aspects of Social Cognition and Climate Change:
Social Dilemma:
Climate change is a collective action problem where individual actions have collective benefits but often involve private costs, making cooperation essential but challenging.
Cooperation & Free-Riding:
Social cognition mechanisms, like norm detection and reputation management, regulate cooperation and help overcome the temptation to free-ride on others' efforts.
Social Norms:
Adherence to social norms, a desire to "look good," and valuing others' beliefs significantly influence individual motivations and behaviors regarding climate change.
Perceptions:
How people perceive climate change, including its impacts and risks, is often mediated by social factors and their "second-order beliefs" about what others (like thought leaders or scientists) think.
Cognitive Biases:
Biases such as status quo bias, confirmation bias, and present bias can hinder understanding and action on climate change, while other biases like single-action bias can lead to incomplete engagement.
Self-Efficacy:
An individual's belief in their ability to perform specific climate-friendly actions is a critical component of social cognition, influencing their engagement in discussions and actions.
Social Axioms:
Underlying beliefs, such as social cynicism, belief in fate, or the value of social complexity, influence how people process climate-related information and their perceived capacity to act.
Leveraging Social Cognition for Action:
Removing Barriers:
A deeper understanding of social cognition can help identify and remove barriers to effective climate action.
Promoting Pro-Environmental Behavior:
By incorporating social motivation and addressing cognitive biases, it's possible to encourage more sustainable behaviors.
Policy Design:
Tools like zero-emission vehicle plates can leverage social cognition by making commitment to emissions reduction more visible and improving social reputation, thus encouraging more responsible behavior.
Community-Based Planning:
Community-based planning and management approaches are crucial for fostering public participation and implementing effective climate change adaptation strategies
Talk about Scientists and Higher Education people who deny climate change and how they use of social cognition to take a bigger turn on climate change and justify their climate change denial https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50591-6 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494423001925 https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12710 https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/03/01/how-republicans-view-climate-change-and-energy-issues/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095937801100104X https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/08/climate/trump-climate-energy-department.html
ReplyDeleteThanks for the valuable information. We'll dig deeper in time.
DeleteAnd also, hey, could you also talk about Theory of General/Special Relativity and Spacetime applied to Social Sciences and social/human/cultural/economical/etc stuff? It would be surely interesting to apply the knowledge of relativity and spacetime on social sciences and humanity as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAny sources/links we should know about?
Delete