If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
Stanford University Center for Innovation in Global Health and Stanford and Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Centre on Climate Change and Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
Climate change has important implications for the health and futures of children and young people, yet they have little power to limit its harm, making them vulnerable to climate anxiety. This is the first large-scale investigation of climate anxiety in children and young people globally and its relationship with perceived government response.
Methods
We surveyed 10 000 children and young people (aged 16–25 years) in ten countries (Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, the UK, and the USA; 1000 participants per country). Invitations to complete the survey were sent via the platform Kantar between May 18 and June 7, 2021. Data were collected on participants’ thoughts and feelings about climate change, and government responses to climate change. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each aspect of climate anxiety, and Pearson's correlation analysis was done to evaluate whether climate-related distress, functioning, and negative beliefs about climate change were linked to thoughts and feelings about government response.
Findings
Respondents across all countries were worried about climate change (59% were very or extremely worried and 84% were at least moderately worried). More than 50% reported each of the following emotions: sad, anxious, angry, powerless, helpless, and guilty. More than 45% of respondents said their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily life and functioning, and many reported a high number of negative thoughts about climate change (eg, 75% said that they think the future is frightening and 83% said that they think people have failed to take care of the planet). Respondents rated governmental responses to climate change negatively and reported greater feelings of betrayal than of reassurance. Climate anxiety and distress were correlated with perceived inadequate government response and associated feelings of betrayal.
Interpretation
Climate anxiety and dissatisfaction with government responses are widespread in children and young people in countries across the world and impact their daily functioning. A perceived failure by governments to respond to the climate crisis is associated with increased distress. There is an urgent need for further research into the emotional impact of climate change on children and young people and for governments to validate their distress by taking urgent action on climate change.
Funding
AVAAZ.
Introduction
Climate anxiety and eco-anxiety (distress relating to the climate and ecological crises) are gaining attention worldwide as people become increasingly aware of the current and future global threats associated with our warming planet.
The climate crisis has important long-term implications for physical and mental health as a result of acute and chronic environmental changes, from storms and wildfires to changing landscapes, and increasing temperatures.
Although painful and distressing, climate anxiety is rational and does not imply mental illness. Anxiety is an emotion that alerts us to danger, which can cause us to search for more information about the situation and find potential solutions. In threatening and uncertain situations such as the climate crisis, this response can be seen as what is sometimes referred to as practical anxiety
because it has the beneficial effect of leading people to reassess their behaviour in order to respond appropriately. However, because the climate crisis is so complex and lacks a clear solution, anxiety can easily become too intense and even overwhelming.
although the presence of these vary between individuals. As research in this field emerges, certain emotions have received more attention, especially climate grief, worry, and fear, tied to current and anticipated losses. Research into other emotions has only begun more recently, such as how people might feel guilty for their own contributions to climate change or feel shame about the climate damage caused by humanity more broadly. Complex and sometimes competing feelings are often experienced together and can fluctuate in response to personal and world events.
These experiences have been argued to be understandable, congruent, and healthy responses to the threats we face, but such threats can be experienced as an unremitting psychological stressor.
Previous studies have shown that psychological distress about climate change exists, with affective, cognitive, and behavioural dimensions. The direct impacts of climate change disproportionately burden children and young people, at the same time as they are developing psychologically, physically, socially, and neurologically. Emerging evidence suggests that young people are also more burdened by the indirect impacts of climate change, such as climate anxiety, which affects psychosocial health and wellbeing, and might exacerbate pre-existing mental health problems in some children. Before the study (between 2016 and 2021), several of the coauthors had conducted a range of conceptually guided explorations of the scarce literature on children's emotions in relation to climate change, and existing psychological measures of climate anxiety, in English and Finnish. Findings from these searches, and resulting publications, inform this study. We also considered legal reports from the past 2 years relating to human rights and climate change.
Added value of this study
To our knowledge, this is the largest and most international survey of climate anxiety in children and young people to date. It shows that the psychological (emotional, cognitive, social, and functional) burdens of climate change are being felt by large proportions of young people around the world. Furthermore, it is the first study to offer insight into how young people's perception of governments’ responses to climate change is associated with their own emotional and psychological reactions. These reactions are reported by young people from a diverse set of countries with a range of incomes and differing levels of direct exposure to severe effects of climate change.
Implications of all the available evidence
Distress about climate change is associated with young people perceiving that they have no future, that humanity is doomed, and that governments are failing to respond adequately, and with feelings of betrayal and abandonment by governments and adults. Climate change and government inaction are chronic stressors that could have considerable, long-lasting, and incremental negative implications for the mental health of children and young people. The failure of governments to adequately address climate change and the impact on younger generations potentially constitutes moral injury. Nations must respond to protect the mental health of children and young people by engaging in ethical, collective, policy-based action against climate change.
Substantial levels of climate-related distress are reported globally,
Psychological impacts of climate change and recommendations.
in: Al-Delaimy WK Ramanathan V Sánchez Sorondo M Health of people, health of planet and our responsibility: climate change, air pollution and health. Springer, Cham2020: 177-192
This distress is understandable, given that a 2021 review found that children of present and future generations will bear an unacceptably high disease burden from climate change,
Quantitative research on a global scale is missing but is vital considering that contemporary children will live with the climate crisis for their whole lives.
Climate change poses a risk to mental health that can be understood through stress–vulnerability models of health.
Exposure to chronic stress in childhood has a long-lasting impact and increases the risk of developing mental health problems. Understanding the stress of climate change requires understanding how multiple factors interact. Changing climate and weather-related disasters have diverse impacts, both direct (eg, destruction and trauma) and indirect (eg, strained personal and public resources, interrupted community functioning),
as well as resulting in climate anxiety. Children and young people are thus facing numerous stressors but have few resources to mitigate or avoid them. This experience is compounded by additional psychosocial risk factors, such as inadequate social services for many children around the world.
The psychological stress of climate change is also grounded in relational factors; studies among children have shown that they often experience an additional layer of confusion, betrayal, and abandonment because of adult inaction towards climate change.
Failure of governments to protect them from harm from climate change could be argued to be a failure of human rights and a failure of ethical responsibility to care,
leading to moral injury (the distressing psychological aftermath experienced when one perpetrates or witnesses actions that violate moral or core beliefs).
This might include an awareness of or failure to prevent harmful unethical behaviour. Research is required to understand the relationship between children and young people's climate anxiety and their feelings about the adequacy of governmental response.
This study aimed to better understand the feelings, thoughts, and functional impacts associated with climate change among young people globally. It explores and discusses the relationships between climate-related distress and perceived government responses. We aimed to answer the following research questions: how children and young people around the world report emotional, cognitive, and functional responses to climate change; how children and young people around the world perceive governmental responses to climate change and whether those perceptions suggest feelings of betrayal or of reassurance; and whether relationships exist between the cognitive and emotional responses to climate change and the perceptions of governmental responses.
Methods
Study design and participants
Data were collected from 10 000 young people via the participant recruitment platform Kantar. Participants were drawn from Kantar's LifePoints online research panel (45 million people from 42 countries in 26 languages). Additional respondents were sourced from other double opt-in panels (ie, after registering to join a panel, respondents are required to click on a confirmation email) in the Kantar network in some countries (appendix p 2). The LifePoints panel draws membership from anyone who voluntarily signs up, as long as they pass quality checks that detect fraudulent panellists. Kantar uses a diverse set of recruitment sources (opt-in email, co-registration, e-newsletter campaigns, internal and external affiliate networks, and social media) specifically to maximise inclusivity. All panel members are reminded at regular intervals to complete surveys as part of their membership and to collect points.
For this study, participants were eligible if they were aged 16–25 years and living in one of the ten countries selected (Australia, Brazil, Finland, France, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Portugal, the UK, and the USA). These countries were chosen to reflect populations from different countries, representing a range of cultures, incomes, climates, climate vulnerabilities, and exposure to differing intensities of climate-related events.
Invitations to participate were available to eligible panellists between May 18 and June 7, 2021. Before accessing surveys, participants were informed of the survey length but not the topic. 15 543 people began the survey and 10 000 (68%) completed it. Data quality tools removed fraudulent survey data, such as from respondents who attempted to complete the survey multiple times, or those completing it far more quickly than the average. Data collection ended in each country once 1000 complete, anonymised responses were obtained. Quota sampling was used, based on age, gender, and region. There was an approximately even split in terms of gender (51·4% male, 48·6% female) and age group (49% aged 16–20; 51% aged 21–25 years; mean age 20·82 years [SD 2·54]; appendix p 2). Because quota sampling did not lead to complete representativeness by country, collected data were weighted based on statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development for each country by age group, gender, and region. All reported findings are based on these weighted data. The study was approved by the University of Bath Psychology Ethics Committee (#21-090).
Procedures
A survey was developed by 11 international consultants with expertise in climate change emotions, clinical and environmental psychology, psychotherapy, psychiatry, human rights law, child and adolescent mental health, and young people with lived experience of climate anxiety. The group met weekly for 2 months (February to March, 2021), reviewing existing climate anxiety measures and evidence for the psychological impact on young people. Several of the main authors had recently completed and published articles with targeted literature searches into climate and eco-anxiety,
which were synthesised and used to generate survey items. These were discussed and refined iteratively, leading to eight broad questions about emotional, functional, and psychological experiences related to climate change and governmental response. The survey was piloted with 17 young people, with resulting adjustments to language and scaling. The survey domains were: climate-related worry (level of worry about climate change); climate-related functional impact (feelings about climate change negatively affecting functioning); climate-related emotions (presence of 14 positive and negative key emotions about climate change); climate-related thoughts (presence of seven key negative thoughts about climate change); experience of being ignored or dismissed when talking about climate change; beliefs about government response to climate change (presence of nine positive and negative key beliefs); and emotional impact of government response to climate change (presence and intensity of feelings related to reassurance and betrayal). The individual questions are shown in the appendix (pp 3–4). Items were developed to be clear and have appropriate equivalents in different cultures and languages, and they were translated as required.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for the following constructs: worry, climate-related functional impairment, climate-related emotions, negative thoughts about climate change, experience of having one's climate change concerns dismissed, and beliefs about and emotional impact of governmental responses to climate change. Differences between the countries were cautiously explored. Pearson's correlation analysis was done to explore whether climate-related distress, functioning, and negative beliefs about climate change were linked to thoughts and feelings about government response.
To allow for comparison between constructs, scales were made from items within each domain (climate-related thoughts, beliefs about government response, emotional impact of government response). Negative thoughts about climate change were summed to create an overall score (ranging from 0 to 7), based on evidence that people with higher levels of concern about climate change tend to report more negative thoughts.
Perceptions that government has failed to respond adequately were recorded and summed to form a variable called negative beliefs about government response. Nine statements were included, each of which was scored 1 or 2. Items were reverse-coded such that a higher number always indicated a more negative evaluation of the government's response (ie, 9 was the most positive possible response and 18 was the most negative possible response).
Emotional impacts of government response were split into two scales reflecting a positive or a negative emotional response. The reassurance scale was constructed from the mean of the four positive feelings items scored on a scale from 1 to 5 (“I am reassured by governments’ action on climate change” and each of “When I think about how my government is or how other governments are responding to climate change I feel valued/protected/hopeful”). Cronbach's α was 0·82. The betrayal scale was constructed from the mean of the six negative feelings items scored on a scale from 1 to 5 (“When I think about how my government is or how other governments are responding to climate change I feel anguished/abandoned/afraid/angry/ashamed/belittled”). Cronbach's α was 0·89. The label betrayal scale was chosen because it reflects the type of distress commonly experienced (anger, anxiety, anguish, and so on) when individuals are harmed by deliberate acts of omission or perpetration by the institutions upon which they rely for support, protection, or even survival.
Questions regarding government action were phrased broadly as “my government is/other governments are” in order to assess how children and young people experience global inaction by governments in power. Even if their own country was perceived to be responding well, negative thoughts and feelings would persist if other countries were ignoring or downplaying climate change. By allowing respondents to indicate dissatisfaction or distress towards governments generally (rather than tied to their own government), it was felt that individuals could answer more openly, regardless of country of residence.
We report aggregate results for all respondents, and results by country. Aggregated results combining all countries are offered to provide a picture of the overall findings, while recognising that such results are not globally representative because sample sizes were the same for each country and not weighted by population size. Due to the size of the sample and number of comparisons, we only report findings that are significant at the p≤0·001 level. All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 27.
Role of the funding source
AVAAZ arranged for data collection to be conducted by Kantar. It had no role in data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
Results
In response to our first research question, which was how children and young people around the world report emotional, cognitive, and functional responses to climate change, respondents across all countries reported a large amount of worry, with almost 60% saying they felt “very” or “extremely” worried about climate change (mean score of 3·7 on a scale from 1 to 5 [SD 1·7]). More than 45% of respondents said their feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily lives; the proportion of respondents varied by country but was consistently high (figure 1; appendix p 4). Countries expressing more worry and a greater impact on functioning tended to be poorer, in the Global South, and more directly impacted by climate change; in the Global North, Portugal (which had dramatic increases in wildfires since 2017) showed the highest level of worry.
Figure 1Worry about climate change and impact on functioning
The graph shows the proportion of the sample reporting a negative impact on functioning from their feelings about climate change and various levels of worry about climate change. Data are shown for the whole sample (n=10 000) and by country (n=1000 per country)
Many respondents reported negative emotions; feeling afraid, sad, anxious, angry, powerless, helpless, and guilty were each reported by more than 50% of respondents (table 1; appendix p 5). The emotions least often reported were optimism and indifference. Respondents also reported a range of negative beliefs, with 75% saying the future was frightening (table 2; appendix p 6). Among those who said they talked with others about climate change (81% of the sample), almost half (48%) reported that other people had ignored or dismissed them (table 2). Results for thoughts and feelings about climate change varied considerably by country but negative feelings were strikingly present in all populations.
Table 1Emotions about climate change
All countries
UK
Australia
USA
India
Philippines
Nigeria
France
Finland
Portugal
Brazil
Sad
Yes
6669 (66·7%)
631
641
569
735
909
615
638
536
705
690
No
3152 (31·5%)
345
332
414
256
87
362
338
442
273
303
Prefer not to say
176 (1·8%)
24
27
17
8
3
22
24
22
22
7
Helpless
Yes
5095 (50·9%)
546
595
462
634
636
438
511
541
327
405
No
4720 (47·2)
437
381
519
351
356
549
449
444
647
587
Prefer not to say
186 (1·9%)
18
24
19
15
8
13
39
15
26
9
Anxious
Yes
6181 (61·8%)
599
650
578
640
830
660
501
493
605
625
No
3641 (36·4%)
380
324
405
339
165
331
467
486
372
372
Prefer not to say
180 (1·8%)
21
26
16
21
6
10
32
21
23
4
Afraid
Yes
6734 (67·3%)
615
644
542
743
897
658
667
536
707
725
No
3111 (31·1%)
364
325
441
246
98
334
309
445
279
270
Prefer not to say
156 (1·6%)
20
31
17
11
5
9
24
19
15
5
Optimistic
Yes
3089 (30·9%)
253
274
242
456
460
473
227
263
223
218
No
6663 (66·6%)
717
696
731
522
524
512
739
683
763
776
Prefer not to say
250 (2·5%)
30
31
28
23
16
15
34
54
13
6
Angry
Yes
5685 (56·8%)
553
574
482
623
702
433
604
485
589
640
No
4125 (41·3%)
420
397
494
362
283
558
363
493
400
355
Prefer not to say
192 (1·9%)
26
29
23
16
15
10
34
22
12
5
Guilty
Yes
5020 (50·2%)
528
506
417
572
744
282
511
434
538
488
No
4793 (47·9%)
447
471
563
408
250
710
461
543
436
504
Prefer not to say
187 (1·9%)
25
23
20
20
6
8
28
23
26
8
Ashamed
Yes
4562 (45·6%)
514
531
442
495
682
206
480
383
393
436
No
5249 (52·5%)
467
445
534
485
313
772
495
589
592
557
Prefer not to say
191 (1·9%)
18
25
24
20
6
22
26
28
15
7
Hurt
Yes
4283 (42·8%)
414
445
383
611
781
448
311
250
336
304
No
5496 (55%)
561
524
597
378
212
538
649
717
633
687
Prefer not to say
219 (2·2%)
24
30
20
11
7
14
40
33
31
9
Depressed
Yes
3864 (38·6%)
365
402
343
532
525
340
224
329
387
417
No
5940 (59·4%)
610
566
635
456
458
648
746
649
598
574
Prefer not to say
198 (2·0%)
25
32
22
13
17
12
31
22
15
9
Despair
Yes
4418 (44·2%)
410
421
332
520
581
392
492
494
368
408
No
5348 (53·5%)
556
540
636
450
405
598
478
490
611
584
Prefer not to say
233 (2·3%)
33
38
32
30
14
10
30
17
21
8
Grief
Yes
4151 (41·5%)
353
400
352
549
624
320
452
578
231
292
No
5632 (56·3%)
622
569
621
428
362
667
526
403
739
695
Prefer not to say
216 (2·2%)
25
30
27
23
14
13
22
19
30
13
Powerless
Yes
5598 (56%)
554
606
482
589
643
426
683
471
577
567
No
4210 (42·1%)
425
371
498
398
350
557
292
505
390
424
Prefer not to say
192 (1·9%)
21
24
20
13
7
16
25
24
33
9
Indifferent
Yes
2902 (29%)
259
295
261
463
481
305
181
300
150
207
No
6827 (68·3%)
704
654
711
515
502
678
785
664
834
780
Prefer not to say
272 (2·7%)
37
52
29
22
17
17
34
36
16
12
Data are number (%) of respondents in the whole sample (n=10 000) or number within each country (n=1000 in each country). Participants were asked “Does climate change make you feel any of the following?”
Table 2Negative beliefs about climate change and dismissal
All countries
UK
Australia
USA
India
Philippines
Nigeria
France
Finland
Portugal
Brazil
I am hesitant to have children
Yes
3908 (39·1%)
378
432
356
407
473
232
367
422
365
476
No
5700 (57·0%)
579
535
599
531
506
751
578
536
586
499
Prefer not to say
390 (3·9%)
43
33
46
62
21
17
54
42
48
24
Humanity is doomed
Yes
5566 (55·7%)
510
504
457
740
733
422
480
431
616
673
No
4065 (40·7%)
448
442
492
234
251
557
449
530
357
305
Prefer not to say
366 (3·7%)
41
54
50
26
16
21
71
39
26
22
The future is frightening
Yes
7549 (75·5%)
725
763
679
804
915
702
738
562
806
855
No
2219 (22·2%)
248
206
283
179
76
289
226
404
170
138
Prefer not to say
231 (2·3%)
27
31
38
16
9
10
36
34
24
6
I won't have access to the same opportunities that my parents had
Yes
5487 (54·9%)
531
572
439
671
705
493
610
425
537
504
No
4210 (42·1%)
438
396
516
307
282
501
331
539
416
484
Prefer not to say
305 (3·0%)
31
32
45
22
13
6
60
37
47
12
My family's security will be threatened (eg, economic, social, or physical security)
Yes
5167 (51·7%)
393
483
348
652
769
553
496
296
524
653
No
4516 (45·2%)
566
469
616
321
215
431
440
675
443
340
Prefer not to say
317 (3·2%)
41
48
36
27
16
16
64
29
33
7
The things I most value will be destroyed
Yes
5483 (54·8%)
470
523
423
692
736
535
450
425
587
642
No
4162 (41·6%)
487
429
539
285
251
457
475
526
370
343
Prefer not to say
357 (3·6%)
43
48
38
24
14
8
76
48
43
15
People have failed to take care of the planet
Yes
8256 (82·6%)
795
807
780
860
927
757
768
750
889
923
No
1533 (15·3%)
175
165
191
124
64
241
195
220
89
69
Prefer not to say
210 (2·1%)
29
28
29
16
9
2
37
29
22
9
When I try to talk about climate change other people have ignored or dismissed me
Yes
3928 (39·3%)
355
392
304
597
465
476
238
294
342
465
No
4189 (41·9%)
384
346
393
316
455
379
533
524
475
384
I don't talk to other people about climate change
1884 (18·8%)
262
262
303
87
80
146
229
182
183
150
Data are number (%) of respondents in the whole sample (n=10 000) or number within each country (n=1000 in each country). Participants were asked “Does climate change make you think any of the following?”
Pertaining to our second research question, which was how children and young people around the world perceive governmental responses to climate change, participants tended to rate government response negatively (mean score 14·96 on the 9–18 scale [SD 2·57]). More than half of respondents agreed with the negative statements (59–64%) and considerably less than half agreed with the positive statements (30–37%; table 3; appendix p 7). Across all countries, participants reported greater feelings of betrayal (mean score 2·7 [SD 1·0]) than of reassurance (2·22 [SD 0·93]; p<0·0001) and pairwise t tests showed that betrayal ratings were significantly higher than reassurance ratings within each country (p<0·0001; figure 2; mean scores by country are shown on appendix p 8).
Table 3Government-related beliefs
All countries
UK
Australia
USA
India
Philippines
Nigeria
France
Finland
Portugal
Brazil
Taking my concerns seriously enough
Yes
3003 (30·0%)
265
291
214
426
418
302
273
341
264
209
No
6382 (63·8%)
653
627
699
530
559
672
633
562
677
770
Prefer not to say
617 (6·2%)
82
82
87
45
23
26
94
97
59
22
Doing enough to avoid a climate catastrophe
Yes
3076 (30·8%)
262
308
242
437
422
363
260
300
283
199
No
6442 (64·4%)
686
625
678
523
559
609
667
644
670
781
Prefer not to say
483 (4·8%)
53
67
80
40
19
28
73
56
47
20
Dismissing people's distress
Yes
6010 (60·1%)
580
637
586
586
534
580
574
481
648
804
No
3399 (34·0%)
348
291
341
362
427
381
333
447
293
176
Prefer not to say
591 (5·9%)
72
72
73
52
39
40
93
71
59
20
Acting in line with climate science
Yes
3645 (36·5%)
321
334
278
527
524
398
281
382
379
221
No
5719 (57·2%)
607
589
631
424
448
570
614
523
562
751
Prefer not to say
636 (6·4%)
72
77
90
49
28
33
104
95
60
28
Protecting me, the planet, and/or future generations
Yes
3306 (33·1%)
314
315
250
490
467
351
273
338
330
178
No
6105 (61·0%)
624
614
674
471
502
617
618
575
616
794
Prefer not to say
591 (5·9%)
63
71
76
40
31
32
109
87
54
28
Can be trusted
Yes
3126 (31·3%)
278
296
213
505
404
311
234
345
323
217
No
6157 (61·6%)
645
621
676
446
550
642
660
558
607
752
Prefer not to say
718 (7·2%)
77
83
111
49
46
47
106
97
71
31
Lying about the effectiveness of the actions they are taking
Yes
6437 (64·4%)
613
657
620
674
686
659
582
543
623
780
No
2894 (28·9%)
315
267
291
288
285
284
295
367
305
197
Prefer not to say
669 (6·7%)
72
76
89
38
29
57
123
90
72
23
Failing young people across the world
Yes
6489 (64·9%)
648
674
630
714
679
644
549
467
694
790
No
2977 (29·8%)
293
265
293
243
298
306
357
468
266
188
Prefer not to say
534 (5·3%)
59
61
77
43
23
51
94
64
40
22
Betraying me and/or future generations
Yes
5847 (58·5%)
572
595
563
663
563
551
487
462
621
770
No
3467 (34·7%)
347
324
353
288
392
403
388
459
316
197
Prefer not to say
686 (6·9%)
81
81
84
49
45
46
125
79
62
34
Data are number (%) of respondents in the whole sample (n=10 000) or number within each country (n=1000 in each country). Participants were asked “In relation to climate change I believe that my government is/other governments are…”.
To better understand patterns underlying responses to climate change, Pearson's correlation coefficients were calculated to explore correlations among variables (table 4). Of note, negative thoughts, worry about climate change, and impact on functioning were all positively correlated and showed correlations with feelings of betrayal and negative beliefs about government response. Feelings of reassurance were not significantly correlated with worry and showed a very low but significant correlation with negative thoughts; the reassurance scale possibly confounded people who were not worried about climate change and people who were worried but considered the governmental response adequate. The relationship between negative thoughts and betrayal could be explained by the fact that they were both associated with worry about climate change. For this reason, a partial correlation was calculated while holding the level of worry constant. The correlation remained significant (r=0·32, p<0·0001), suggesting that even among people feeling the same level of worry about climate change, those who reported feeling betrayed by the governmental response reported an increased number of negative thoughts. Similarly, negative thoughts remained significantly correlated with a perception of government failure while holding worry constant (r=0·19, p<0·0001).
Table 4Correlation matrix for the study variables
1
2
3
4
5
6
1: Worried about climate change
..
..
..
..
..
..
2: Negative thoughts about climate change
0·48
..
..
..
..
..
3: Negative beliefs about government response
0·21
0·26
..
..
..
..
4: Feeling betrayed by government
0·43
0·47
0·36
..
..
..
5: Feeling reassured by government
0·01 (NS)
−0·04
−0·59
−0·02 (NS)
..
..
6: Negative functional impact
0·22
0·32
−0·1
0·25
0·21
..
Correlation coefficients (r) are shown. All correlations reported are significant at the p<0·0001 level unless otherwise indicated by NS. NS=not significant.
According to our study, children and young people in countries around the world report climate anxiety and other distressing emotions and thoughts about climate change that impact their daily lives. This distress was associated with beliefs about inadequate governmental response and feelings of betrayal. A large proportion of children and young people around the world report emotional distress and a wide range of painful, complex emotions (sad, afraid, angry, powerless, helpless, guilty, ashamed, despair, hurt, grief, and depressed). Similarly, large numbers report experiencing some functional impact and have pessimistic beliefs about the future (people have failed to care for the planet; the future is frightening; humanity is doomed; they won’t have access to the same opportunities their parents had; things they value will be destroyed; security is threatened; and they are hesitant to have children). These results reinforce findings of earlier empirical research and expand on previous findings by showing the extensive, global nature of this distress, as well as its impact on functioning. Climate distress is clearly evident both in countries that are already experiencing extensive physical impacts of climate change, such as the Philippines, a nation that is highly vulnerable to coastal flooding and typhoons. It is also evident in countries where the direct impacts are still less severe, such as the UK, where populations are relatively protected from extreme weather events. Distress appears to be greater when young people believe that government response is inadequate, which leads us to argue that the failure of governments to adequately reduce, prevent, or mitigate climate change is contributing to psychological distress, moral injury, and injustice.
Such high levels of distress, functional impact, and feelings of betrayal will negatively affect the mental health of children and young people. Climate anxiety might not constitute a mental illness, but the realities of climate change alongside governmental failures to act are chronic, long-term, and potentially inescapable stressors. These factors are likely to increase the risk of developing mental health problems, particularly in more vulnerable individuals such as children and young people, who often face multiple life stressors without having the power to reduce, prevent, or avoid such stressors.
As severe weather events linked with climate change persist, intensify, and accelerate, it follows that, in the absence of mitigating factors, mental health impacts will follow the same pattern. We are already seeing increased severe climatic events that act as the precipitating and perpetuating factors of psychological distress; as of September, 2021, numerous unprecedented weather events have occurred since our data collection (including the heat dome and wildfires in the Pacific Northwest, catastrophic storms and floods in Germany, Iran, China, London, and New York, and heat records repeatedly broken in Northern Ireland and North America).
Factors known to protect against mental health problems include psychosocial resources, coping skills, and agency to address and mitigate stressors. In the context of climate anxiety, this protection would come in the form of having one's feelings and views heard, validated, respected, and acted upon, particularly by those in positions of power and upon whom we are dependent, accompanied by collective pro-environmental actions. However, this survey shows that large numbers of young people globally regard governments as failing to acknowledge or act on the crisis in a coherent, urgent way, or respond to their alarm. This is experienced as betrayal and abandonment, not just of the individual but of young people and future generations generally. The results here reflect and expand upon the findings of an earlier interview study, in which young people described their feelings about climate change as being “stranded by the generational gap” and feeling “frustrated by unequal power, betrayed and angry, disillusioned with authority, drawing battle lines”.
Defence mechanisms against the anxiety provoked by climate change have been well documented, including dismissing, ignoring, disavowing, rationalising, and negating the experiences of others.
Thus, climate anxiety in children and young people should not be seen as simply caused by ecological disaster, it is also correlated with more powerful others (in this case, governments) failing to act on the threats being faced. Our findings are in line with this argument and, alongside pre-existing evidence, lend weight to the proposal that climate distress in children and young people can be regarded as unjust and involving moral injury.
Young people's awareness of climate change and the inaction of governments are seen here to be associated with negative psychological sequelae. Moral injury has been described as “a sign of mental health, not disorder… a sign that one's conscience is alive”,
yet it inflicts considerable hurt and wounding because governments are transgressing fundamental moral beliefs about care, compassion, planetary health, and ecological belonging. This sense of the personal, collective, and ecological perspective is summarised in the words of one 16-year-old: “I think it's different for young people. For us the destruction of the planet is personal”.
By endangering and harming fundamental human needs, the climate crisis is also a human rights issue. Legal bodies recognise an intersection between human rights, climate change, and climate anxiety. Subjecting young people to climate anxiety and moral injury can be regarded as cruel, inhuman, degrading, or even torturous.
in which children and young people are voicing their concerns through legal cases as an attempt to have their distress legitimised and validated legally in the face of government inaction.
A complete understanding of climate anxiety in children and young people must encompass these relational, psychosocial, cultural, ethical, legal, and political factors. Current narratives risk individualising the so-called problem of climate anxiety, with suggestions that the best response is for the individual to take action.
Our results suggest that such action needs to particularly be taken by those in power. To protect the mental health and wellbeing of young people, those in power can act to reduce stress and distress by recognising, understanding, and validating the fears and pain of young people, acknowledging their rights, and placing them at the centre of policy making.
Limitations of this study include the use of non-standardised measures to investigate the experience of climate anxiety and how people think and feel about government responses, which are complex and nuanced subjects. Unfortunately, no appropriate standardised measures existed for our purposes. The construct of climate anxiety itself is new and complex, with varying definitions across the literature. Although our results show that many young people report difficult thoughts, emotions, and functional impairment related to climate change, we cannot indicate how severe this is in comparison to normative samples. We aimed to investigate whether certain emotions and thoughts were present across different countries in the world, rather than to assess the degree to which these thoughts and feelings are felt. Therefore, we chose to use a three-factor response scale (yes, no, or prefer not to say) to encourage a high response rate and to facilitate valid responses from those less familiar with Likert scales. Although dichotomous response scales can exaggerate acquiescence, having a third, neutral option can mitigate this. This is supported by our finding that statements on negative emotions and beliefs were more commonly endorsed than positive or neutral statements.
Without measures of mental health, these results cannot assess how or whether climate anxiety is affecting mental health outcomes in these populations. The study did not measure the severity of climate anxiety by any psychological scale, although it should be noted that some results related to youth cognitions indicate strong emotions, such as the belief that “humanity is doomed”. Of note, the data were based on equal sample sizes per country and were not weighted according to population size, so aggregated results must be interpreted with caution because they are not globally representative. However, more populous countries (eg, India with more than 1·3 billion people) reported greater levels of worry, functional impairment, negative beliefs, and so on, indicating that our aggregated findings are probably a conservative estimate of distress levels globally. Other limitations arose from the use of an online polling company, for which completion required internet access, and sometimes the ability to speak English. Thus, although the samples should not be biased towards those who are especially concerned about climate change, they are not fully representative of the countries’ populations. Finally, the polling company provided data on gender defined only as male or female, which fails to recognise the non-binary nature of gender.
This study's strengths include its large sample size and global reach, and it is a novel and timely investigation into climate anxiety and perceived government response. It offers good representation within countries by using a polling company with proven inclusive participant selection and minimisation of respondent bias by not advertising the nature of the study (eg, climate-related) in advance. We present the results as an initial attempt to quantify the global scale of the psychological impact of climate change and of inadequate government responses upon young people.
To conclude, our findings suggest that climate change, climate anxiety, and inadequate government response are all chronic stressors that could threaten the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people around the world. This survey offers a preliminary overview; further, detailed research is required to explore the complexities and wide variety of climate feelings. Climate anxiety is a collective experience,
and based on our results, children and young people would benefit from having a social discourse in which their thoughts and feelings are respected and validated, and their concerns are acted upon by people in positions of power. Climate anxiety indicates the care and empathy that young people have for our world. As one young person said: “I don’t want to die. But I don’t want to live in a world that doesn’t care about children and animals.”
As a research team, we were disturbed by the scale of emotional and psychological effects of climate change upon the children of the world, and the number who reported feeling hopeless and frightened about the future of humanity. We wish that these results had not been quite so devastating. The global scale of this study is sufficient to warrant a warning to governments and adults around the world, and it underscores an urgent need for greater responsiveness to children and young people's concerns, more in-depth research, and immediate action on climate change.
Contributors
All authors contributed to the study design and conceptualisation. Literature searches were done by CH, PP, and SC. The underlying data were verified and analysed by SC, REL, EM, and EEM. The manuscript was drafted by CH, PP, EM, REL, SC, EEM, CM, and BW. All authors revised and commented on the manuscript and approved the final version. All authors had full access to the data and accept responsibility for publication.
Data sharing
Individual, unidentified participant data that underlie these results will be made available, beginning 3 months and ending 5 years after publication, to researchers who provide a methodologically sound proposal, to achieve aims in said approved proposal. Proposals will be considered by a small team of the authors and requests should be directed to [email protected], [email protected], or [email protected]. To gain access, data requestors must sign a data access agreement.
Declaration of interests
We declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
AVAAZ paid for the costs of the survey and arranged for data collection to be conducted by an independent recruitment platform (Kantar). We acknowledge Judith Anderson (Climate Psychology Alliance) and Natasa Mavronicola (University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK).
Psychological impacts of climate change and recommendations.
in: Al-Delaimy WK Ramanathan V Sánchez Sorondo M Health of people, health of planet and our responsibility: climate change, air pollution and health. Springer, Cham2020: 177-192
A recently published paper by Hickman and colleagues1 provides evidence supporting an idea that has been growing over the past few years in the scientific community: climate anxiety (anxiety relating to the global climate crisis) affects a substantial proportion of children and young people (aged 16–25 years) worldwide. Climate anxiety occurs mainly in lower-income countries located in areas that are more directly affected by climate change. Despite this concerning reality, climate anxiety is not yet considered a mental health disorder.
“The future is frightening” for 75% of children and young people (age 16–25 years), according to the sobering results of Caroline Hickman and colleagues’ ten-country survey published in The Lancet Planetary Health.1 Climate anxiety among young people, they rightfully argue, can only be truly mitigated if those in power take meaningful action to address climate change. But as governments continue to stall, parents, teachers, and mental health professionals need evidence-based strategies to support young people with climate anxiety in their communities.
Young people face a world with multiple crises and much uncertainty. A person born in 2006 will have gone through the great recession and the subsequent austerity measures, a pandemic with disrupted schooling and social isolation, a cost-of-living crisis, war in Europe, and a world coming to terms with the magnitude of climate change. There have been many tumultuous times in history, but evidence on the mental wellbeing of young people during those periods is scant. How should we think about the mental health of young people during an age of such uncertainty?
00278-3&id=gr1.jpg&_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=es&_x_tr_hl=es&_x_tr_pto=wapp){kind=link}
00278-3&id=gr2.jpg&_x_tr_sl=en&_x_tr_tl=es&_x_tr_hl=es&_x_tr_pto=wapp){kind=link}
