Climate change research and media coverage these days present inescapable doomsday pictures. July 22, 2024, marked the hottest recorded temperature in human history. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that 3.6 billion people, or almost half of the global population, experience deaths and destruction from climate change. The World Health Organisation projects around 250,000 deaths each year between 2030-2050 from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress triggered by climate change. These statistics are worrisome, and by many accounts, we live in an age of climate anxiety. But how much should we worry?

One evening, while watching a nature programme on TV with my 12-year-old daughter, we came across a commercial that showed the devastating impacts of anticipated climate change. The ad intended to shock viewers to correct their climate-unfriendly behaviours. My daughter covered her eyes and asked me to either change the channel or turn off the TV. At that moment, I realised that the climatic events we see, live with and project are (rightly or wrongly) harmful to our children and our own well-being. I must not be the lone parent to feel this.

In the name of climate change awareness, we unintentionally traumatise not just ourselves but also the next generation. We have chosen to live in a climate change-induced anxious environment. But we must ask: How far can this anxiety-driven framing of climate change take us to develop a positive approach to the problem?

Health professionals and psychologists use the terms climate anxiety and eco-anxiety to elaborate on humanity’s psychological response to climate change harms. They point to a sense of loss, grief, helplessness, hopelessness, nightmares, anger, sadness, guilt, self-loathing, loss of appetite, irritability, weakness and sleeplessness. Conversely, experiencing climate anxiety can also lead to positive engagement; individuals often develop pro-environmental behaviour and organise and/or participate in movements against greenhouse gas emissions.

Discussions like the one above compel us to reflect on whether the idea of climate anxiety is distracting us from the real climate change problems. First, we risk misdirecting our attention to addressing our newfound anxiety. As our emotional wellbeing is a priority—the symptom gets our attention, rather than the cause itself. Consequently, it remains inconclusive whether anxiety-driven approach-led acts are more effective or perpetuate inaction by diverting our attention.

Decolonial scholars and critical researchers critique the anxiety-driven climate framing as a form of “perpetuation of colonialism.” Sarah Jaquttey Ray, in her book A Field Guide to Climate Anxiety, terms climate anxiety as being “white,” or a process of normalising the impacts. Others see it as less prevalent for the marginalised and indigenous communities and make sense for only those who are wealthy and have the means to shield themselves from the direct impacts of climate change (at least for the time being). In many ways, the climate change frame, be it “anxiety,” “slow violence”, or “slow burn”, portrays it as an indirect and distant issue, as if it does not harm the Global North. Regardless of our stance on these perspectives, they raise questions about the effectiveness of approaches that direct the attention of those in the Global North toward anxiety trauma remedies rather than historical and sociocultural rethinking and approaches needed to reduce the climate change-related harms.

Second, psychologists note that helplessness and hopelessness lead to inaction or what Martin EP Seugman and Dennis P Groves call “learned helplessness.” Individuals experience this condition when they are continuously kept in a negative and anxious state since they start believing that they have no control over how to change the situation. It would not be an overstatement to say that the research and discussion laden with anxiety about climate change harms somewhat makes us feel a sense of ‘learned helplessness’.

Conversely, psychologists also document that positive energy and motivation yield more creativity and innovation and help achieve one’s intended outcomes. According to Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan, intrinsic and extrinsic factors influence an individual’s actions. As explained through the self-determination theory, when a person acts because it “is the right thing to do”, such a motivation has intrinsic values and reasons. However, when individuals act due to fear of punishment, shame, revenge or reward, such motivations have extrinsic values and reasons. In the former condition, individuals act with freedom and autonomy, which, according to the psychologists, leads to maximum (positive) outcomes, whereas in the latter condition, individuals act in a controlled environment, which leads to minimum outcomes.

Third, living in a state of climate anxiety, we tend to overlook historically diverse relationships that indigenous communities globally have with the environment. In such a relationship, these communities consider the way of nature and adjust their lifestyles accordingly rather than putting humans and their ingenuity as a means of controlling and resisting nature’s course. In other words, indigenous worldviews largely reject human supremacy over nature and the environment, considering the position of humans as no greater than any other species. Climate anxiety orients us humans back inward on ourselves, thereby blinding us to not only the actions we can take but also the relationships we do and can still have with the natural world.

Politics, state powers, resources extracting mega companies, bilateral and multilateral institutions and complex, rapidly moving systems are entangled in any consideration of climate change and its potential mitigation. It is complicated and messy. But we must be optimistic about our visions of the future as we experience increasing climate change-induced harms. We have reasons and means; we can tap into our ancestors’ and elders’ wisdom and revisit our lifestyles and willingness to undergo a dramatic change. Such a change would mean having different and alternative visions and convictions of life and the future, making ourselves accountable for our actions.

It also means we must refuse to live under fear, acrimony, self-loath, anger and learned helplessness. Instead, we should choose to motivate ourselves to take actions that have intrinsic values and work towards “climate hope”: An opportunity to correct our climate-destructive behaviours and chart a new climate-friendly course. We must inspire our children by the awe of nature and our relationship to its ecosystems so that they desire to love (the environment and its ecosystem) and protect and take better care than our generation.