Training has a footprint too
Courses about energy and sustainability use energy and resources themselves. Buildings are heated and lit, people travel, equipment is made and replaced, and materials are printed or discarded. Reducing that footprint is the idea behind low carbon training: delivering the same learning with fewer emissions and less waste.
This article is about the training itself, not the content it teaches. It is also cautious. Most numbers in this area depend heavily on local conditions, so the sections below describe what usually matters and what to measure, rather than promising particular savings.
Where the footprint usually comes from
A course’s footprint generally comes from a few sources:
- Travel by learners and instructors, which can be the largest piece for in-person programs with participants coming from far away.
- Energy used to operate buildings and workshops.
- Equipment, including its manufacture, maintenance and disposal.
- Consumables and materials, such as paper, workshop supplies and protective gear.
- Digital activity, including devices, video streaming and data storage.
Which of these dominates differs by program. Before changing anything, it helps to estimate each source in a rough way. Ideas from carbon footprint accounting and the categories used in scope 3 emissions are useful for thinking about this, since travel and purchased goods often fall outside an organization’s direct operations.
Remote and blended delivery
Moving some teaching online can remove trips, particularly for theory sessions, briefings and short refreshers. For learners who live far from a training center, the difference can be substantial.
The trade-offs:
- Digital delivery is not free of emissions. Devices, networks and data centers use electricity, although a video session usually uses far less than a long journey by car or plane. How much less depends on the distance and the local electricity mix.
- Hands-on skills generally cannot be learned remotely. Removing practical sessions to save travel would weaken training and, in safety-critical trades, could be unwise.
- Access matters. Some learners lack good internet or quiet space at home.
- Remote delivery changes how people interact. Some groups benefit from being together, especially early in a program.
A blended design, with online study for theory and concentrated in-person blocks for practice, is a common compromise. How course formats compare on cost and practical access is a separate question.
Shared facilities and equipment
Workshops, simulators and test rigs are costly to build and to run. Sharing them between providers, using employer sites for practical sessions or scheduling intensive blocks to keep the facility in full use can cut duplication. Fewer idle rooms and machines means less energy used per learner.
The trade-offs are practical. Sharing requires coordination, may increase travel for some learners, and demands strict maintenance and inspection routines so that equipment remains safe. Where the work involves hazards, shared access must still be controlled by authorized staff and official procedures.
Travel choices
Because travel is often a leading source, even small changes matter:
- Offer regional intakes or short residential blocks instead of repeated long journeys.
- Combine site visits into fewer, fuller trips.
- Choose venues reachable by public transit.
- Encourage car sharing or provide secure bicycle storage.
- Use remote guest speakers where in-person presence adds little.
Some travel is essential, especially for work-based placements and practical assessment. The aim is to avoid journeys that add little rather than to remove those that deliver real learning.
Buildings and energy use
Training centers can benefit from the same measures as other buildings: better insulation, efficient lighting, sensible heating controls, and switching off equipment that is not in use. A review of energy efficiency opportunities should come before any decision about new generation, such as rooftop solar. Whether a center should install its own generation depends on its roof, budget, tariffs and building ownership, so local professional advice is needed.
Materials and waste
Reducing printing, choosing durable course materials, reusing workshop consumables when safe, and sending electronic and battery waste through authorized channels are all routine measures. Where products are bought, asking about life span and repairability can help. A life cycle assessment compares the impacts of options across their whole life, which can show that the lowest-impact choice is not always the obvious one. For example, a reusable item only has an advantage if it is actually reused enough times.
Safety equipment and some consumables must be replaced on a schedule or after damage. Cutting back on those to save resources would be a mistake.
Measuring and reporting honestly
Choose a few indicators that can be tracked, such as energy used per learner, kilometers traveled, or paper purchased. Record the method used so that year-on-year comparisons are fair. Be wary of large claims. If a provider describes a course as “carbon neutral,” ask how that was calculated, what was included, and whether it depends on carbon offsetting, which is a debated practice.
Keeping the educational purpose in view
The main job of training is to prepare people to work competently and safely. A lower footprint is a worthwhile goal, but not at the expense of that purpose. When a trade-off arises, such as fewer practical hours in return for less travel, it should be examined openly and with the learning outcome in mind.
A simple starting plan
- Estimate the main sources of footprint for your program.
- Pick the two or three biggest and look for changes that do not harm learning.
- Try them for a term and compare with your baseline.
- Keep what works, drop what does not, and report the results plainly.
Progress in this area tends to be gradual and local. Small, well-measured steps are more reliable than ambitious statements.