This paper contributes to the debate about the absence of nonhuman animals (The term 'nonhuman animal' is used to emphasise the interconnection with the human being, viewed as a human animal. Using this terminology does not avoid a homogenising, stereotyping and simplifying of a multiplicity of animal (and human) beings. Nonetheless, we think that such a 'simplification' of concepts is inescapable in academic discussions concerning humans and nonhuman animals.) in environmental and sustainable education (ESE) and the challenge of the anthropocentric characterisation of European education. Relating to the debate about a pluralistic approach in ESE as a 'one-species only pluralism', we draw on Val Plumwood's ecofeministic dialogical interspecies ethics and Rosi Braidotti's understanding of a posthuman/nomadic subjectivity. By regarding 'difference' as a constituting force, we present a 'critical pluralistic' approach to human-animal relationships in ESE. Instead of drawing new lines of moral consideration for nonhuman beings, an ethical and political appreciation of what nonhuman others can do in ESE is suggested. Recommendations for educational practice are to "recognise nonhuman agency to reveal political and ethical dimensions, recognise the agency of non-living animals and stay in conflicts" and "'study up' and "develop an immanent critique," which could lead to alternative pedagogical approaches to human-animal relationships in different cross-curricula settings.