You may have read news reports of life threatening and devastating floods, hurricanes and heatwaves, all driven by human-induced climate change. Perhaps you have heard that 2024 is due to be ruled the warmest on record.
You’ll know that without significant and immediate action, lives are at risk from ever more extreme weather. And you despair at the failure of our leaders to take sufficient action at another underwhelming UN climate summit.
This knowledge can feel overwhelming. You might find it challenging to cope with – perhaps you are losing sleep, or finding yourself mulling over worries for your future. You might have already been directly impacted by the changes to our planet as a result of destructive human action.
You might be unsure what can be done, and feel powerless or angry. At the same time, you might feel isolated, with others around you not seeming to recognise the precariousness of our situation.
As psychologists who research psychological responses to the climate emergency, we’re here to tell you something important: you are not alone.
A global survey of 10,000 people aged 16-25 found that climate worries had impacted on the daily functioning, like sleeping and concentrating, of 45% of respondents. In the UK, 73% of those surveyed felt that the future is frightening, with 48% feeling dismissed or ignored when voicing concerns. Subsequent surveys found similarly high rates of distress.
For some people, the proliferation of terms such as “climate anxiety” can feel validating. However these terms risk seeing an individual’s distress as the problem, rather than reflecting an ability to stay connected to the planetary emergencies we are living through.
A different perspective can be offered by what’s known as the power threat meaning framework, or PTMF, which centres the consideration of context when making sense of distress. Challenging the western tendency to see distress as symptomatic of presumed “mental disorders”, the PTMF encourages a focus on asking, “What has happened to you?” rather than, “What is wrong with you?”
‘What has happened to you?’
As part of Georgina’s now-completed doctoral research, we carried out a series of 30 PTMF-informed interviews with eight people who are distressed about the climate crisis. We recruited climate activists, but a lot of their experiences can be applied to us all, activist or non-activist alike.
The framework was useful in highlighting how people experience a range of meanings and emotions in relation to the climate crisis, such as guilt, responsibility, alienation, despair, grief, powerlessness, anger, hopelessness and hopefulness. We regarded all these different responses as understandable in the context of the climate crisis and its dismissal by others in participants’ lives.
Some of the most useful questions related to social power. For instance, participants told us that differences in social standing impacted on their sense of being heard and included when discussing climate change. Similarly, participants’ experiences were shaped by the negative media coverage of climate activism and societal messages that support the dismissal of the urgent issues participants had been trying to draw attention to.
A PTMF lens supported thinking about how the same threat responses can serve different functions for people at different times. For example, participants said they engaged in forms of climate action to protect against overwhelming emotions or feeling powerless, and to protect loved ones.
While some had felt guilty for not doing more, or not thinking about the climate crisis at all times, use of the PTMF helped them understand how withdrawal and distraction had been valuable threat responses which helped them regulate their feelings, enabling them to continue their activism.
Recognising the climate crisis as a collective trauma is also useful in another way. It supports recognition that many who dismiss or ignore activists’ concerns are doing so to protect themselves against facing the often unbearable reality.
So, what can help with climate distress?
Whether it is one person or a group, connecting with other people who share similar concerns is key. It’s important that conversations aren’t only focused on actions we can take, but also include a space to process our feelings and responses with supportive others. Know that you are not alone and there is no correct way to feel.
Making some pro-environmental lifestyle changes can help you to feel less powerless. Taking action can help you to feel as though you have done something meaningful. This can involve anything from starting conversations, sharing petitions, writing to your MP or representative, or coming up with your own ideas for influencing positive change in your community.
Find what connects to you personally. It’s important to take breaks though, and go gently with yourself. Use self-care practises and engage in activities that you find soothing. Be kind to yourself and recognise that some pro-environmental actions will not be available to you, for financial or other reasons.
Recognise that your grief, despair, fear and rage all reflect your care and compassion for what is happening to our planet, and your ability to take any action in spite of this pain reflects strength that should be celebrated and nurtured.
Ultimately, though, the solution to climate distress must be much broader than on the individual level. What our research showed was that climate distress is caused by the (in)actions of governments and powerful bodies which are harming our planet and threatening our futures. Significant systemic changes are needed now to act on the climate crisis to protect humanity and support adaptation as climate breakdown progresses.
Resources and support are available via Climate Psychology Alliance.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
