Opinion

Climate change therapy: dealing with climate fear

By Eleanor Flowers

Updated May 17, 2020 at 09:21 AM

Reading time: 4 minutes


Climate change

Mar 6, 2019

It is a warm, bright day in early February. I am indoors on a Skype call with Nadine Andrews, an eco-psychologist and psychosocial researcher, discussing climate change and food security while she makes pancakes for her family. The sizzle of batter on the pan is a comfort where the reality of our current CO2 emissions trajectory is not. Andrews used work for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and she is not afraid to tell me how it is. “Climate change is happening faster and on a greater scale than scientists were anticipating from the models and that’s partly because IPCC goes on the more conservative end. All of this stuff is already happening. We have to deal with it, this is reality. We might be able to delay some stuff but actually we’re not in control of it.”

Perhaps had I wanted this pancake flipping researcher to go easier on me? Andrews tells me we must either face our fear of climate change now, “design our way into it”, or wait until we no longer have the privilege of ignoring what has already begun. She recounts an analogy about a therapist with a sign on their door which says, “either way it’s going to hurt”.

For decades, climate scientists have worried that people did not know or understand enough about climate change and that this was the reason for sluggish public and political action. What social researchers are finally beginning to understand is that it is not a lack of knowledge, but in fact too much knowledge about climate change which is the problem. What has been assumed to be a moral failure to act fast enough is now being reframed as a deep-seated psychological trait. The sociologist Kari Marie Norgaard, who wrote a book called ‘Living in Denial’, thinks that people know too much about climate change. Norgaard wonders if the root of much climate inaction is not a lack but surplus of empathy, and calls climate apathy “the mask of suffering”.

It is true that when one is faced with a disturbing reality, which contradicts the business-as-usual discourse to be found everywhere else, it is easier to focus on current pancakes rather than future crop failure. It is not only that we know too much and feel too helpless, but that we also do not have the language to help us digest our profoundly modern disconnect from nature. Andrews herself is not sure which words are best to describe how we should relate to climate change.

Apparently, The Guardian uses the word “fight” a lot. To “fight” climate change is to cast nature as an enemy, when we should by now have learnt that nature is an entity to be protected, not overcome. Clearly, when we talk about fighting climate change, we mean to launch a battle cry against our own systems of excessive resource consumption. Nature does not care whether we win or lose a fight against ourselves.

If I accept the seriousness of the information about climate change with which I am presented, then I have to imagine a radically different future for myself. It makes me panic. Climate researchers I have spoken with tend to be glad that Greta Thunberg, the famous sixteen-year-old climate activist currently leading school strikes across Europe, has called for people to panic. Andrews and I both agree, though, that panic is not a universally useful term to employ, as it is not a sustainable state of emotion and is no good for building policies upon.

Andrews assures me that she, too, felt afraid before, but that now she feels profound grief about the ecological crisis. “I feel sadness now,” and she does indeed look very sad about it all. I, on the other hand, feel afraid. Seeing a climate scientist look upset is rather like seeing a parent or teacher cry when you are a child.

To write this article, I have had to face these unpleasant emotions. I have sat for hours and transcribed interviews with scientists whose courage to continue on with this emotional and political monster astounds me. My exercise has been challenging but therapeutic. It is impossible to write well in a state of panic. Instead, I have had to work through fear and helplessness in order to reach a state where I am able to articulate the emotional complexity of facing a future for which humankind is miserably maladapted. People with low incomes are especially vulnerable, although climate change does not discriminate, and the rich will not be able to buffer themselves so easily, either.

It is difficult to find the right words to describe how we are feeling about our future. Norgaard notices that people are normally unable to discuss climate change beyond a few lines of conversation. I have noticed this too. What else, beyond “it is warmer, we are fucked, fancy a pancake?”, is there to be said?

Perhaps there is a way for us to begin to move deeper into climate conversation and action once we acknowledge that fear is a powerful enabler of procrastination. Of course, it is not only fear of climate change we experience: it is a fear of economic transformation too. It is guaranteed that the more climate change activists push to halt our accelerating consumption, the more the powerful will push back and persuade us to keep on buying. It is true that when we finally do curb our consumerism, the economy will suffer and then, so will we. Either way, it hurts.

Because humans are creatures with a capacity for nuanced emotions, it seems fair to end on a positive note. We are able to hold two conflicting emotions at once. We live in fear and hope; we probably cannot live well without both. Here is how Nadine Andrews spoke to me about hope that warm day in early February. “The sorts of transformational changes that are needed offer opportunities to rethink how we want to live in the world and how we want to live with each other and how we want to live with nature. It offers the possibility for a better way of life which serves us and other beings better than the existing world.”

There is much to discuss, after all.

Thank you to Scott Bremer, Karen O’Brien, and Nadine Andrews for advising research for this article.

Keep On Reading

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

What’s the happiest country in the world? Spoiler: it didn’t win fairly

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Thousands of Black British youth contemplate leaving amid rising racism and extremism

By Charlie Sawyer

This Saltburn-inspired cocktail containing Jacob Elordi’s bathwater is going viral on TikTok. Ew

By Charlie Sawyer

Democrat fires white supremacist jab at Marjorie Taylor Greene, saying she’s late for Klan meeting

By Emma O'Regan-Reidy

From gen Z farming to pro-hybrid work, here are 3 ways the younger generation will impact 2024

By Abby Amoakuh

Who is Nara Pellman? Meet the Mormon tradwife taking TikTok by storm

By Abby Amoakuh

What is girl therapy? The TikTok trend disguising middle-class consumerism as self-care to Gen Z

By Abby Amoakuh

Is football apolitical? Here is how FIFA and the UEFA are used to further political agendas

By Charlie Sawyer

Top Captain Holt moments from Brooklyn Nine-Nine that will make us miss Andre Braugher

By Alma Fabiani

TikTok trend has women telling men no one knew Travis Kelce before he dated Taylor Swift

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

The Satanic Temple names abortion clinic after Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s mum

By Charlie Sawyer

Who is Tommy Robinson, the far-right anti-Islam activist who was arrested at London’s anti-Semitism march?

By Abby Amoakuh

Hundreds of bodies found in unmarked graves behind a state jail in Jacksonville

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Husband sues tech company after wife burned and killed by surgical robot

By Fatou Ferraro Mboup

Oat milk vs almond milk: the ultimate showdown

By Abby Amoakuh

The real story behind Netflix’s One Day and why it will make you cry your eyes out

By Abby Amoakuh

Which surprise songs is Taylor Swift performing during the Eras tour? A guide on what to expect

By Louis Shankar

The TV finales that saved 2023, and the ones that royally ruined it

By Abby Amoakuh

The worldwide war of words: Inside the disinformation campaigns surrounding the Israel-Hamas war

By Abby Amoakuh

Oklahoma State Senator Dusty Deevers to criminalise watching porn with penalties of up to 20 years in prison