Hubbry Logo
Eco-anxietyEco-anxietyMain
Open search
Eco-anxiety
Community hub
Eco-anxiety
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Eco-anxiety
Eco-anxiety
Eco-anxiety
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Eco-anxiety (short for ecological anxiety), also known as eco-distress or climate anxiety, is a challenging emotional response to climate change and other environmental issues.[1] Extensive studies have been done on ecological anxiety since 2007, and various definitions remain in use.[2] The condition is not a medical diagnosis and is regarded as a rational response to the reality of climate change; however, severe instances can have a mental health impact if left without alleviation.[3] There is also evidence that eco-anxiety is caused by the way researchers frame their research and their narratives of the evidence about climate change: if they do not consider the possibility of finding any solution to overcome climate change and for individuals to make a difference, they contribute to this feeling of powerlessness.[4]

Eco-anxiety is an unpleasant emotion, though it can also motivate useful behavior such as the gathering of relevant information.[5] Yet it can also manifest as conflict avoidance, or even be "paralyzing".[6] Some people have reported experiencing so much anxiety and fear about the future with climate change that they choose not to have children.[7] Eco-anxiety has received more attention after 2017, and especially since late 2018 with Greta Thunberg publicly discussing her own eco-anxiety.[8][9]

In 2018, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued a report about the impact of climate change on mental health. It said that "gradual, long-term changes in climate can also surface a number of different emotions, including fear, anger, feelings of powerlessness, or exhaustion".[10] Generally this is likely to have the greatest impact on young people. Eco-anxiety that is now affecting young adults has been likened to Cold War fears of nuclear annihilation felt by baby boomers.[11] Research has found that although there are heightened emotional experiences linked with the acknowledgement and anticipation of climate change and its impact on society, these are inherently adaptive.[6] Furthermore, engaging with these emotional experiences leads to increased resilience, agency, reflective functioning and collective action. Individuals are encouraged to find collective ways of processing their climate related emotional experiences in order to support mental health and well-being.[12]

Definition

[edit]

Eco-anxiety has been defined in various different ways; a common feature of the different definitions is that they describe challenging emotional responses to climate change and other environmental issues.[13][1]

The term eco-anxiety is said to have been coined by Glenn Albrecht who defined it as "a chronic fear of environmental doom".[13][14][15] Another widely cited definition is: "the generalized sense that the ecological foundations of existence are in the process of collapse."[8] Some scholars use the term eco-anxiety as a synonym for climate-anxiety, while others like to treat the terms separately.[8] The APA has defined eco-anxiety as"the chronic fear of environmental cataclysm that comes from observing the seemingly irrevocable impact of climate change and the associated concern for one's future and that of next generations".[16]

Prevalence

[edit]
Degrees of concern about the effects of climate change vary with political affiliation.[17]
In 2023, almost six in ten respondents reported that a severe effect of climate change has already occurred where they live, with 38% expecting to be displaced from their homes in the next 25 years because of climate change.[18]

In 2018, surveys conducted in the United States found that between 21%[19] and 29%[20] of Americans said they were "very" worried about the climate, which is double the rate of a similar study in 2015. A Yale 2023 survey found similar results, that climate change is distressing.[21] This concept of climate or ecological anxiety and grief is far-reaching due to the extensive awareness about climate change that is made possible through technology and global communication.[22]

Climate change is an ongoing global threat that is largely characterized by uncertainty and a lack of understanding. For this reason, anxiety and grief in humans is a natural and rational responses for those feeling fear or a lack of control. For example, these feelings could arise in people who are forced to leave their homes, deal with uncertainty about their future environment, or feel concern for the future harm of their children. Climate grief can be divided into three categories: physical ecological losses, the loss of environmental knowledge, and anticipated future losses.[23]

Children and young adults

[edit]

The condition has become especially common among children and young people – in 2021, in some universities, over 70% of students described themselves as suffering from eco-anxiety. However, as of early 2021, validated ways to assess the prevalence of climate or eco-anxiety were not well established.[24][25][26] A September 2021 survey queried 10,000 young people from 10 countries across the world, finding that almost 60% were either very or extremely worried about climate change. Two thirds said they felt sad, afraid and anxious, while close to 40% reported they were hesitant to have children.[27][28]

The people who surround children and young adults, like parents, guardians, teachers, and mentors, can have an impact on how they view climate change. There is research being done about how these groups of people should talk to children and young adults to prevent eco-anxiety in these populations, while still encouraging climate change mitigation practices.[29]

Women

[edit]

Women’s emergence of anxiety, worry, and fear in relation to climate change is associated not only with biological factors but also with sociocultural determinants that lie in the structural inequality.[30][31] Women are at higher risk due to their imposed traditional gender roles and unequal access to power, information, and financial resources.[32] Climate stressors, such as droughts, floods, or extreme heat, force women to work more just to gain water, energy, and food for their families, thereby consuming time that could have been used for earning a living or adapting.[33]

An October 2021 report based on polling in the UK found that 78% of people surveyed expressed some degree of eco-anxiety. It found that women (45%) were substantially more likely to report high levels of eco-anxiety compared to men (36%).[34][35] Similar observations have been reported worldwide, including European and African countries.[6] Women with low socioeconomic status (SES) are particularly vulnerable to eco-anxiety.[36] Countries facing adverse effects of climate conditions, such as India, the Philippines, and Nigeria, have recorded increasing rates of functional impact due to climate change distress.[37] Heat stress is among the key aggravating factors in these areas, particularly for women who engage in agricultural activities or other outdoor jobs, which may result in forced relocation.[38] A 2023 study claimed that eco-anxiety is more prevalent in women because 80% of climate migrants are women.[39]

Climate change often plays a role in reproductive planning, as eco-anxiety increases women’s reluctance to childbearing due to worries about a bleak future and carbon footprint.[40] A survey conducted by the New York Times in 2018 found that 33% of women who chose not to have children cited climate change as a reason.[41] However, in nations where unpredictable climate change disrupts farming routines, families may opt for having more children to ensure an adequate labor supply for survival, rather than adhering to the trend of low fertility.[42] This economic and cultural complexity indicates that, while women in the West might decide to go childfree as an environmental measure, women in low-SES, climate-vulnerable areas face tough choices on reproduction.

Indigenous peoples

[edit]

Indigenous populations are especially vulnerable to eco-anxiety and other climate-caused emotional responses, because of their reliance on their land and land-based activities for their livelihood and well-being.[43] A 2021 study found that indigenous populations who were exposed to environmental changes associated with climate change, like species loss, droughts, rising temperatures, and erratic weather patterns, were most likely to experience a decrease in mental wellbeing. This decrease can be expressed as eco-anxiety, but also as other climate related emotional responses, like eco-anger.[44][failed verification]

Symptoms

[edit]

Eco-anxiety can manifest in ways that cause physical symptoms and may exacerbate pre-existing mental health conditions.[45] Symptoms include irritability, sleeplessness, inability to relax, loss of appetite, poor concentration, bouts of weakness, panic attacks, muscle tension and twitching. These symptoms are similar to the symptoms that someone diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder might experience.[46]

These symptoms are common in people who experience eco-anxiety. For example, a 2022 study commissioned by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine reported that "anxieties around climate change and environmental issues" caused insomnia for 70% of Americans.[47]

Other mental and/or emotional symptoms include feelings of hopelessness and powerlessness, distancing oneself from or avoiding the issue, and feeling overwhelmed or suffocated.[46]

Treatment and response

[edit]

The first step for therapists in treating eco-anxiety is realizing that a fearful response to a real condition is not pathological. Eco-anxiety is a completely normal response, even if the client finds it profoundly disturbing. Therapists need to take clients' fears about the situation seriously and "not assume they're a dysfunctional mental health problem or that a person suffering from eco-anxiety is somehow ill." In terms of treatment, individualistic models of mental health are "not designed to deal with collective trauma on a planetary scale".[45]

Various non-clinical treatments, group work options, internet based support forums, and self-help books are available for people suffering from less severe psychological conditions. Some of the psychological impacts require no form of treatment at all, and can even be positive: for example, worry about climate change can be positively related to information-seeking and to a sense of being able to influence such problems.[48]

One way to combat eco-anxiety is through beliefs about the effectiveness of personal actions.[49] Eco-anxiety can be fueled in part by climate change helplessness,[50] a form of learned helplessness applied to climate change fears. Because climate change is such an enormous issue with such dire consequences, an individual's actions may seem to make no difference in combatting the bigger issue. This can demotivate people from taking any pro-environmental actions at all. But, an intervention advocating for the effectiveness of individual actions can reduce feelings of apathy and anxiety associated with climate change helplessness. When people receive information describing how their personal actions impact the environment, they report less fear of climate change, and intend to make more sustainable choices, showing that climate change helplessness can be treated by beliefs in climate change efficacy.[50]

In general, psychotherapists say that when individuals take action to combat climate change, this reduces anxiety levels by bringing a sense of personal empowerment and feelings of connection with others in the community.[51][52] Many psychologists emphasize that in addition to action, there is a need to build emotional resilience to avoid burnout.[53][54][55][56]

A 2021 literature review found that emotional responses to crisis can be adaptive when the individual has the capacity and support to process and reflect on this emotion. In these cases, individuals are able to grow from their experiences and support others. In the context of climate change, this capacity for deep reflection is necessary to navigate the emotional challenges that both individuals and societies face.[57][58][59]

Further research

[edit]

As eco-anxiety has gained traction and becomes more prevalent, one of the current hot topics in the scientific literature concerns how to define and assess eco-anxiety.[60][61] Other future research may examine and develop ways for people to remain resilient in the face of climate change.[29]

[edit]

In the field of ecopsychology, there are other climate-specific psychological impacts that are less well studied than eco-anxiety. They include, but are not limited to, eco-grief (or eco-depression), eco-anger, eco-guilt, and solastalgia.

Eco-anger

[edit]

Eco-anger is frustration about climate change and the environmental changes that are caused by it. It can also be frustration towards certain groups, corporations, or countries that contribute to climate change. A study that separated the effects of eco-anxiety, eco-depression and eco-anger, found that eco-anger is the best for a person's wellbeing. This study also found that eco-anger is good for motivating participation in actions that combat climate change.[58] A separate report from 2021 found that eco-anger was significantly more common among young people.[62]

Eco-grief

[edit]
After a Blue Origin spaceflight

      It was among the strongest feelings of grief I have ever encountered. The contrast between the vicious coldness of space and the warm nurturing of Earth below filled me with overwhelming sadness. Every day, we are confronted with the knowledge of further destruction of Earth at our hands: the extinction of animal species, of flora and fauna... things that took five billion years to evolve, and suddenly we will never see them again because of the interference of mankind. It filled me with dread. My trip to space was supposed to be a celebration; instead, it felt like a funeral.

— William Shatner in his Boldly Go autobiography[63]

Ecological grief (or eco-grief) is "the grief felt in relation to experienced or anticipated ecological losses, including the loss of species, ecosystems, and meaningful landscapes due to acute or chronic environmental change."[64]

Eco-guilt

[edit]

Eco-guilt is "guilt that arises when people think about times they have not met personal or societal standards for environmental behavior."[65] This guilt can take the form of self-criticism, self-blame, self-examination, and/or self-torturing.[66]

Solastalgia

[edit]

Solastalgia is "the distress caused by the transformation and degradation of one's home environment."[67] A 2019 study found that the number of people who experience solastalgia will increase as the rate of climate change also continues to increase. This is due to the fact that more people will see the effects of climate change on their home environments as climate change continues.[67] It is becoming increasingly manifest that only the ecology suffers from climate change but also domains such as historic and cultural heritage, which are closely linked to sentiments of belonging and identity.[68]

Organizations

[edit]

Several psychological organizations have been founded around climate psychology.[69][70][71] Scholars have pointed out that there is a need for a systemic approach to provide various resources for people in relation to the mental health impacts of ecological problems and climate change.[14][72] Some organizations, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, provide web based guidance to help caregivers assist children and young adults deal with their eco-anxiety.[3]

Eco-anxiety support groups have also been created locally, nationally, and globally. These groups allow people to discuss their fears about climate change and receive advice from other members on how to address those fears.[73][74] Peer-to-peer support groups have also emerged among individuals who have moved through the stages of grief into acceptance of climate impacts as ongoing and, to some degree, inevitable. Examples includes groups arising from the concepts of Deep adaptation (origin 2018) and Post-doom (origin 2019).[75][76]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Eco-anxiety

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Eco-anxiety refers to the chronic distress, encompassing feelings of worry, dread, or doom, that individuals attribute to perceived threats from environmental degradation and climate change. This psychological response has been conceptualized in recent literature as distinct from transient concern, involving persistent emotional reactions to anticipated ecological harms, though some studies question its separation from general environmental worry. Empirical assessments indicate low prevalence of severe forms, with approximately 3% of U.S. adults scoring above thresholds for potential generalized anxiety disorder linked to climate concerns in validated measures. Self-reported data from broader surveys suggest higher rates of moderate worry, particularly among younger demographics exposed to environmental news, but these often correlate with media consumption rather than direct exposure to events. The term gained prominence in psychological discourse during the amid heightened public focus on issues, with scoping reviews identifying it as a response potentially adaptive for motivating pro-environmental but also maladaptive when leading to avoidance or helplessness. Studies link eco-anxiety to indirect influences like news coverage and social discussions more than personal experiences of disasters, raising questions about amplification through narrative framing in academic and media sources prone to alarmist tendencies. Controversies persist regarding its nosological status, as public reactions to the label " anxiety" tend toward neutrality or negativity compared to simpler terms like , and critics argue it risks pathologizing rational apprehension while overlooking evidence that emotional dread does not consistently translate to support or action. appears higher in youth cohorts, with global surveys of children and adolescents reporting significant portions expressing fear tied to government inaction, though methodological reliance on self-reports invites scrutiny for response biases. Overall, while acknowledged in peer-reviewed work, eco-anxiety's intensity remains empirically modest for most, prompting debates on whether interventions should target individual coping or broader informational accuracy to mitigate disproportionate fears.

History and Etymology

Origins and Early Usage

The roots of eco-anxiety as a concept lie in the development of environmental psychology during the 1970s, when researchers began documenting psychological responses to pollution and rapid industrialization, framing them as forms of environmental stress or neurosis triggered by tangible threats like air and water contamination during events such as the 1970s smog crises and chemical spills. These early discussions emphasized causal links between degraded surroundings and heightened anxiety, often without formal diagnostic labels, amid public scares over environmental toxins that affected millions, including over 1,000 deaths from the 1970 Bhopal disaster precursor concerns. The term "eco-anxiety" itself emerged in the mid-2000s, coined by Australian environmental philosopher Glenn Albrecht to describe a chronic fear of environmental doom, extending from his 2005 conceptualization of —the distress of non-human-induced environmental change—and applied initially to communities facing mining-induced landscape alterations in regions like the Hunter Valley. Albrecht's framework drew on first-hand observations of affected populations, where anxiety manifested as pervasive worry over irreversible ecological loss, predating broader climate-focused usages. By the 2010s, amid intensifying climate activism following events like the 2015 and youth-led protests, the term entered mainstream discourse through institutional reports, including the American Psychological Association's March 2017 publication Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts, Implications, and Guidance, which formally defined eco-anxiety as chronic apprehension over ecological threats and linked it to observed distress patterns without establishing . This report, co-authored with ecoAmerica, synthesized prior findings and highlighted anxiety's ties to real risks like , influencing subsequent psychological literature while attributing the response to verifiable threats rather than unfounded fears.

Integration into Psychological Discourse

The term eco-anxiety gained formal recognition within psychological organizations in the late 2010s, with the (APA), in collaboration with ecoAmerica, defining it in 2017 as "a chronic fear of environmental doom." This conceptualization positioned eco-anxiety as a response to perceived existential threats from , distinct from transient , though it emphasized a from mild distress to more severe manifestations without equating it to a diagnosable disorder. By 2020, the APA highlighted growing public concern through surveys indicating that 68% of U.S. adults experienced some level of climate-related impact, reflecting institutional acknowledgment amid rising societal discourse. Research on eco-anxiety surged after , coinciding with high-profile events such as the IPCC's Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C and the onset of global youth strikes initiated by . Google searches for "climate anxiety" or "eco-anxiety" increased by 4,590% from to 2023, paralleling a proliferation of academic publications, with scoping reviews identifying over 200 articles by 2025 focused on its dimensions and correlates. This temporal alignment suggests causal influences from amplified media coverage and activist mobilization, transitioning eco-anxiety from marginal discussions to a construct examined in mainstream journals, though critics argue that such growth may reflect academic trends favoring alarmist narratives over rigorous scrutiny of underlying threat perceptions. Empirical investigations evolved from primarily descriptive accounts to quantitative analyses, including meta-analyses by 2024 that quantified associations between eco-anxiety and outcomes, such as small-to-large positive correlations with psychological distress, depression, and anxiety symptoms (e.g., r ranging from 0.10 to 0.40 across aggregated studies). These syntheses, drawing from dozens of peer-reviewed studies, underscore modest effect sizes and call for distinguishing eco-anxiety from generalized anxiety disorders, yet as of 2025, it remains absent from the DSM-5-TR or proposed DSM updates, sparking debates on whether it merits classification as a specific or risks pathologizing normal adaptive responses to uncertain risks. This non-inclusion reflects ongoing contention in psychiatric , prioritizing evidence of impairment and specificity over cultural or media-driven amplification.

Conceptual Framework

Definition and Key Characteristics

Eco-anxiety is defined as a chronic fear of environmental doom stemming from the observed and anticipated impacts of and broader ecological degradation. This distress manifests primarily as persistent worry about the degradation of natural systems, rumination on irreversible losses such as biodiversity decline and , and a pervasive sense of helplessness in mitigating these threats. Unlike fleeting concerns over specific events, eco-anxiety involves sustained emotional preoccupation with long-term ecological instability, often extending to anticipatory fears for human survival and societal functioning. Central characteristics include future-oriented apprehension, where individuals project current trends into catastrophic scenarios, and elements of moral distress such as intergenerational guilt over bequeathing a compromised . These features distinguish eco-anxiety from generalized anxiety by anchoring emotional responses to empirically observable environmental indicators, like rising global temperatures or species extinctions, rather than diffuse or personal stressors. The construct emphasizes cognitive loops of threat appraisal, where perceived inefficacy in personal or amplifies affective intensity. Eco-anxiety lacks codified diagnostic criteria in established psychiatric classifications such as the , positioning it as a descriptive rather than a discrete disorder. Assessment relies on self-report scales, including the Eco-Anxiety (EAQ-22), which quantifies core dimensions like habitual ecological worry—frequent intrusive thoughts about environmental crises—and associated dysfunctions such as sleep disturbances or avoidance behaviors tied to these concerns. This instrument, validated through on diverse samples, operationalizes eco-anxiety as a multifaceted emotional , from mild vigilance to debilitating preoccupation, without presuming pathological universality.

Distinctions from Broader Anxiety Disorders

Eco-anxiety is characterized by distress specifically provoked by perceived environmental threats, such as and climate projections, distinguishing it from (GAD), which involves pervasive, uncontrolled worry across multiple domains like health, finances, or relationships without a singular, externally verifiable . In GAD, worries are often unrealistic or disproportionate to actual risks, whereas eco-anxiety draws from empirical indicators of ecological disruption, including rising global temperatures and habitat degradation documented in scientific assessments. This specificity aligns with causal realism, where the anxiety's origin traces to observable phenomena rather than internalized cognitive distortions predominant in GAD. Both conditions share features like and anticipatory worry, yet empirical profiles diverge: studies indicate climate-related distress correlates moderately with depression (e.g., consistent associations reported in systematic reviews) but exhibits unique covariation patterns with behaviors, such as pro-environmental actions, absent in generalized anxiety. For instance, 2024 analyses of health behaviors found climate anxiety linked to adaptive coping like information-seeking, contrasting GAD's broader impairment in daily functioning. Eco-anxiety does not qualify as a standalone disorder under criteria, which categorize anxiety and fear-related disorders by patterns of excessive threat response without provisions for environmentally themed subtypes. This classification emphasizes clinical impairment over thematic content, underscoring eco-anxiety's status as a descriptive response rather than a pathological entity unless it meets thresholds for existing diagnoses like GAD. From an evolutionary standpoint, eco-anxiety may embody adaptive vigilance toward collective survival threats, akin to ancestral responses to resource scarcity or habitat shifts, fostering preparedness rather than the avoidance and paralysis seen in pathological anxiety. Such mechanisms, rooted in threat perception systems optimized for environmental cues, promote behaviors like conservation when calibrated to verifiable risks, differing from GAD's maladaptive overgeneralization that hinders rather than enhances fitness. Empirical overlaps notwithstanding, this distinction highlights eco-anxiety's potential functionality in contexts of genuine ecological pressure, as opposed to disorders decoupled from proportional external drivers.

Etiology and Risk Factors

Environmental Triggers and Empirical Risks

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations, a key metric associated with climate change, averaged 425.48 ppm in August 2025, as measured by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at Mauna Loa Observatory, marking a continued rise from pre-industrial levels of about 280 ppm. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) attributes this increase primarily to human emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land-use changes, projecting global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels as likely between 2021 and 2040 under high-emissions scenarios, though low-emissions pathways could limit it to later decades. These projections incorporate physical models emphasizing radiative forcing from greenhouse gases, but empirical validation shows variability, with observed warming to date at approximately 1.1°C since 1850–1900. Empirical risks tied to these changes include gradual sea-level rise, accelerating from 2.1 mm/year in to 4.5 mm/year by 2023 based on altimetry records, driven by and melt. This rate equates to roughly 4.5 cm per decade, far below narratives of imminent coastal catastrophe; historical data indicate total rise of about 10 cm since , enabling adaptive infrastructure like the ' Delta Programme, which schedules upgrades to 887 km of dikes by 2036 to maintain flood protection standards exceeding global averages. Such successes demonstrate causal realism in risk mitigation, where human interventions counterbalance geophysical trends without requiring emission reductions alone. Direct exposures, such as wildfires, provide localized triggers, with attribution analyses linking to elevated odds of extreme fire seasons in regions like western and through drier fuels and heat. However, personal risks remain low for most individuals in developed nations, per 2024 assessments ranking physical climate vulnerabilities; high-income countries score lower on exposure indices due to , including fire suppression and , contrasting with higher risks in low-income areas lacking such resources. Indirect modeling of future scenarios amplifies perceived threats beyond verifiable personal probabilities, echoing historical patterns like 1970s media conjectures of from mid-century temperature dips, which a review of 71 studies from 1965–1979 found outnumbered by warming predictions and did not eventuate.

Mediating Influences: Media, Education, and Social Amplification

Media exposure to coverage has been positively correlated with elevated levels of eco-anxiety in multiple studies conducted between 2021 and 2025, with associations persisting beyond direct exposure to environmental events. A 2021 study of Italian students found that greater on topics predicted higher climate anxiety scores, alongside reduced perceptions of personal and in addressing the issue. Similarly, a 2025 analysis of the Chinese population linked increased exposure to news to heightened eco-anxiety, attributing this to the emotional framing of coverage rather than objective risk data. These findings suggest social amplification through selective reporting, where mainstream outlets disproportionately highlight worst-case projections, contributing to distress variance unexplained by empirical trends. Educational curricula incorporating , particularly following the 2015 Paris Agreement's emphasis on -building, have integrated narratives of systemic crisis that can induce distress among students. A 2023 examination of educators' approaches noted that raising of environmental threats often triggers eco-anxiety or detachment, with framings focused on irreversible doom prompting emotional responses over adaptive problem-solving. By 2024, critiques of such programs highlighted how "doom and gloom" discourses in schools exacerbate hopelessness, with surveys indicating 75% of Australian youth viewing the future as frightening due to these prevailing narratives. This pedagogical shift, intended to spur urgency, instead fosters contagion-like effects, where repeated exposure to alarmist content in classrooms amplifies anxiety independently of localized risks. Social media platforms further mediate eco-anxiety through echo chambers and viral dissemination of activism-oriented content, particularly among , prioritizing emotive narratives over probabilistic data. A multi-country 2025 investigation revealed usage as a consistent predictor of environmental anxiety, with effects strongest in younger demographics exposed to algorithm-driven feeds reinforcing catastrophic views. Among adolescents, higher anxiety correlated with greater intake of pro-environmental content, which sustains overconfidence in doomsday scenarios via homophilous networks that filter dissenting evidence. This mechanism of amplification, evident in 2024 reviews, operates through relentless crisis updates and peer-endorsed alarmism, explaining elevated distress in digitally native cohorts beyond verifiable threats. Psychological factors such as locus of control also mediate the experience of eco-anxiety. The relationship is complex, with internal and community environmental locus of control often showing positive correlations with eco-anxiety levels, interpreted as "practical anxiety" that motivates engagement and pro-environmental action rather than mere distress. In contrast, an external locus of control tends to associate with heightened helplessness, paralysis, and depressive symptoms. Empirical research on this dynamic primarily examines youth populations, yielding consistent positive links for internal locus, while adult data remain limited and mixed.

Prevalence and Demographic Patterns

Global and National Surveys

A 2024 meta-analysis synthesizing 94 studies with 170,747 participants from 27 countries reported prevalence rates of anxiety, often overlapping with eco-anxiety, varying by measurement but indicating moderate to severe symptoms in approximately 10-20% of general populations, with elevations following high-profile environmental reports such as the 2023 IPCC assessment. Longitudinal tracking from 2020 to 2025, including European Social Survey data, revealed transient spikes in self-reported eco-anxiety linked to acute events like the , yet overall baselines remained stable, pointing to event-driven rather than secular increases. National surveys, such as a 2022 U.S. study, found 26% of respondents experiencing climate-related anxiety, while a 2024 analysis indicated 16% of U.S. adults reporting depressive or anxious responses several days per week. Self-report instruments adapted from tools like the GAD-7 for eco-anxiety assessment are prone to biases, including initial elevation effects where early responses overestimate symptom severity, potentially inflating prevalence figures in repeated surveys. Underreporting persists in regions with lower perceived risks, as evidenced by 2025 BMJ analysis showing limited eco-anxiety documentation in , where surveys indicate up to 60% of respondents unaware of or uninformed about , contrasting with Global North data. These methodological considerations underscore the need for validated, cross-culturally robust measures to refine global estimates.

Variations by Age, Gender, and Socioeconomic Status

Reported rates of eco-anxiety are consistently higher among younger individuals. A global survey of over 10,000 children and young people aged 16-25 across 10 countries found that 45% to 59% expressed very or extremely high worry about , with levels exceeding those in older cohorts in comparative data.00278-3/fulltext) A 2025 study of participants reported a 48.4% of significant eco-anxiety, attributing elevated to prolonged future-oriented exposure and developmental sensitivity to existential threats. Gender disparities show women reporting higher eco-anxiety than men across multiple empirical investigations. In a 2025 analysis, participants exhibited greater personal impact anxiety related to environmental concerns, consistent with patterns in broader worry surveys. This gap persists even after controlling for exposure levels, potentially linked to differential emotional processing or societal roles amplifying perceived responsibility, though causal mechanisms remain understudied. Socioeconomic status (SES) variations reveal an inverse pattern, with higher reported eco-anxiety among affluent or higher-educated groups despite their typically lower direct environmental risks. Indirect exposure via media and abstract future projections correlates more strongly with anxiety in these demographics, as evidenced in scoping reviews of empirical data. Conversely, lower-SES individuals, facing immediate hardships, show less pronounced eco-anxiety but greater functional burdens from acute impacts. Comparisons between indigenous and non-indigenous populations yield mixed results, with indigenous groups often reporting heightened due to direct land ties and historical disruptions, yet some evidence suggests lower functional impairment from eco-anxiety amid adaptive cultural resilience. Urban-educated subgroups, irrespective of , consistently show elevated rates, pointing to of over objective exposure as a key driver.

Clinical Presentation

Core Symptoms and Diagnostic Overlaps

Eco-anxiety manifests primarily through emotional distress, including chronic fear, worry, and despair centered on and climate futures. These affective symptoms often involve heightened emotional reactivity to news of ecological threats, such as or events. Cognitively, individuals experience persistent rumination, including obsessive thoughts about irreversible tipping points in climate systems, which can dominate daily mental processes without external prompting. Physical manifestations, such as and disrupted sleep patterns linked to anticipatory dread of planetary collapse, have been documented in systematic reviews of affected populations. Symptoms are typically assessed using validated instruments like the Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale, which differentiates factors such as affective responses, ruminative thoughts, behavioral avoidance, and personal impact concerns. These presentations overlap with in the pervasiveness of worry but are distinguished by their specific thematic focus on ecological existential risks rather than diffuse threats. Comorbidity with depression is common, with studies reporting associations where eco-anxiety exacerbates depressive symptoms through shared pathways of hopelessness, though exact varies by sample and measurement. Diagnostic parallels exist with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), particularly intrusive thoughts and hypervigilance analogous to re-experiencing, yet eco-anxiety lacks the requisite exposure to direct trauma as per DSM-5 criteria. Research indicates correlations with PTSD symptom clusters in environmentally exposed groups, but these remain subthreshold without acute event linkage. Unlike full anxiety spectra disorders, eco-anxiety often integrates prosocial behavioral elements, such as avoidance of consumption or advocacy urges, which scales capture but do not equate to diagnosable impairment alone. Multidimensional assessments confirm these overlaps without conflating eco-anxiety as a standalone DSM disorder, emphasizing its context-specific nature.

Functional Impairments and Long-Term Effects

Individuals experiencing elevated eco-anxiety report functional impairments in daily functioning, such as disruptions to , working, , and other routine activities, with 45% of surveyed respondents in 2023 indicating negative impacts from climate-related worry. In a 2022 study, 20.72% of participants described daily life consequences from frequent climate anxiety, including reduced capacity for personal and social engagements. Climate worry correlates positively with overall functional impairment (r ≈ 0.25), independent of its association with pro-environmental behaviors. Specific behavioral shifts include altered reproductive choices, where heightened climate concerns predict lower fertility intentions; a 2023 meta-analysis of 13 studies found this link in 12 cases, particularly among childless individuals weighing future generational risks. Some evidence points to reduced proactivity manifesting as fatalism, where overwhelming distress discourages long-term planning or action, though this varies by individual resilience and exposure levels. Longitudinally, eco-anxiety shows small to moderate correlations (r = 0.2–0.4) with markers, depression, and anxiety symptoms, potentially exacerbating trajectories toward persistent mental health declines, as observed in two-wave studies tracking adolescents and young adults. However, these associations are bidirectional and context-dependent, with some data indicating adaptive outcomes like heightened for conservation efforts, where eco-anxiety predicts increased pro-environmental behaviors over time. Despite these patterns, causal evidence remains limited; as of 2025, no large-scale randomized controlled trials have demonstrated progression from eco-anxiety to diagnosable anxiety disorders, with most findings derived from cross-sectional or small longitudinal designs prone to by media exposure and pre-existing vulnerabilities.

Associated Emotional Responses

Ecological grief, also termed eco-grief, refers to the emotional response of mourning experienced or anticipated losses in the natural world, such as the of or degradation of ecosystems. This construct emphasizes a grief process akin to bereavement, often triggered by tangible environmental declines, and has been documented in qualitative studies among communities facing loss. Eco-anger, in contrast, involves indignation or rage directed at and those perceived responsible, frequently serving as a motivator for . In a Australian national survey of over 2,000 respondents, eco-anger was associated with higher engagement in pro-climate behaviors, such as and policy advocacy, unlike more paralyzing emotions. Solastalgia denotes the psychological distress arising from unwanted changes to one's familiar environment, such as or impacting home landscapes, without necessitating physical displacement. Coined by philosopher Glenn Albrecht in 2005 to describe "the lived experience of negatively altered ," it has been empirically distinguished in subsequent reviews as a place-attachment-based response, measurable through scales assessing desolation and loss of solace. These constructs form part of a broader of eco-emotions, sharing variance in underlying appraisals of environmental but differing in valence and functionality; for instance, a 2023 temporal network analysis found eco-anger uniquely predicted subsequent pro-environmental intentions and behaviors over time, whereas eco-anxiety correlated with inaction or rumination. Systematic scoping reviews confirm overlaps in emotional to ecological risks, yet highlight eco-anger's adaptive potential for compared to grief's inward focus or anxiety's avoidance.

Comparative Analysis with Historical Environmental Fears

Eco-anxiety shares structural similarities with earlier waves of environmental apprehension, such as the widespread alarm over global in the late 1960s and 1970s, as articulated in Paul Ehrlich's 1968 book . Ehrlich forecasted imminent mass famines and by the 1970s and 1980s due to exponential population growth outstripping food supplies, predictions that failed to materialize as agricultural innovations like the increased yields and averted widespread starvation. These fears, amplified by media and academic discourse, generated public distress akin to contemporary reports of paralysis and despair over projections, yet subsided as empirical outcomes diverged from dire forecasts. A comparable pattern emerged in the 1980s with the acid rain crisis, where transboundary pollution from industrial emissions was portrayed as an existential threat to forests, lakes, and agriculture across and , prompting regulatory responses like the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments in the U.S. While initial studies exaggerated damage—claiming widespread tree die-off and barren lakes—subsequent data revealed that forests proved more resilient than anticipated, and reductions largely resolved the issue without the predicted irreversible catastrophes. This episode illustrates how acute environmental fears can drive policy action but often overestimate causal impacts, mirroring debates over climate models' sensitivity to variables like carbon feedbacks. Analyses by highlight recurring cycles in environmental alarmism, where media-driven spikes in perceived threats lead to heightened anxiety that declines upon non-fulfillment of apocalyptic scenarios, as seen from 1970s resource depletion panics to 1980s ozone depletion scares. Lomborg's examination of historical data, updated through 2020s assessments, suggests these patterns stem from selective emphasis on worst-case projections rather than integrated evaluations, with public concern ebbing as and technological progress mitigate harms—evident in stabilized rates and improved air quality metrics post-1990s. Such dynamics question the purported novelty of eco-anxiety, positioning it as part of a media-amplified rather than a uniquely existential response. While short-term fear spikes may foster adaptive behaviors like conservation advocacy, prolonged cycles risk long-term desensitization, eroding trust in scientific communication and diverting resources from verifiable priorities, as critiqued in Lomborg's framework of cost-benefit realism over perpetual narratives. This historical lens underscores that eco-anxiety's intensity correlates more closely with narrative framing than proportional empirical risks, promoting a causal view where media amplification, not inherent threat levels, sustains emotional peaks.

Critical Perspectives

Skepticism on Validity and Measurement

Critics argue that eco-anxiety lacks robust empirical validation as a distinct psychological construct due to its heavy reliance on subjective self-report scales, which are prone to response biases such as social desirability and inflation from heightened media exposure to climate narratives. Unlike established anxiety disorders, eco-anxiety has no validated biomarkers or objective physiological indicators, such as cortisol levels or neuroimaging patterns, to differentiate it from transient worry or general distress. A systematic review of 12 climate anxiety scales identified 57 disparate symptoms with limited consensus on core features, underscoring measurement inconsistencies and potential overgeneralization of normal emotional responses. Academic discourse itself may exacerbate reported eco-anxiety levels by framing environmental data in alarmist terms that induce rather than merely reflect distress, as evidenced by analyses of research narratives emphasizing existential threats without proportional adaptation successes. This framing effect suggests self-reported prevalence could be artifactual, driven by priming from scholarly and media amplification rather than inherent pathology. Empirical tests of incremental validity reveal eco-anxiety adds little explanatory power beyond simpler constructs like eco-worry or general anxiety when predicting outcomes such as behavioral intentions or emotional . In a 2025 study of 1,911 Spanish adults, eco-anxiety measures failed to predict environmental engagement or distress beyond eco-worry, except in signaling heightened alarm, questioning its uniqueness as a diagnostic entity. Such findings imply eco-anxiety may represent repackaged general rather than a novel warranting separate categorization. Proponents of further contend that labeling eco-anxiety risks overpathologizing adaptive concern, potentially medicalizing rational responses to uncertain environmental without of dysfunction. Longitudinal show weak, mixed associations between eco-anxiety indices and clinical impairment, supporting views that it constitutes a non-disordered reaction rather than a treatable condition.

Controversies Over Exaggeration and Cultural Factors

Critics have argued that eco-anxiety is often exaggerated through media amplification of climate threats, leading to emotional responses disproportionate to empirical risks. A 2023 study in the International Journal of Environmental Studies and Education found that climate crisis media reporting significantly evokes eco-anxiety by serving as the primary information source, potentially heightening perceptions of immediacy and doom. , in critiquing climate alarmism, contends that pervasive fear-mongering fosters unnecessary anxiety and suboptimal policies, diverting resources from more pressing global issues. This perspective aligns with data showing climate-attributable mortality remains low relative to total global deaths; for instance, abnormal temperatures account for approximately 0.6% of warm-season deaths across studied countries, far below alarmist narratives of existential peril. Cultural factors further fuel debates, with eco-anxiety predominantly observed in Western and affluent contexts where indirect exposure via media predominates, contrasting with resilience among the global poor. Surveys indicate stronger links between anxiety and in relatively wealthy Western nations, suggesting socioeconomic privilege enables rumination on future risks rather than immediate . A 2025 BMJ analysis highlights underappreciation of the "bottom billion"—the world's poorest—who face vulnerabilities but exhibit limited documented eco-anxiety due to pressing daily hardships, poor information access, and adaptive coping in the Global South. This disparity underscores a Western-centric that overlooks historical adaptation successes in developing regions, potentially inflating anxiety in low-risk, high-awareness settings. Controversies also center on the instrumental use of eco-anxiety to advance stringent policies, versus calls for adaptive realism emphasizing human ingenuity over panic. Early psychological proposals on widespread climate grief faced skepticism as speculative, though acceptance has grown amid media shifts, such as noted changes in outlets like by 2022. Detractors argue this narrative weaponization prioritizes ideological goals over evidence-based responses, like cost-effective adaptation, which has historically mitigated environmental threats more effectively than alarm-driven interventions. Such debates highlight tensions between emotional amplification and causal assessment of manageable risks.

Interventions and Outcomes

Therapeutic Strategies and Self-Help Measures

(CBT) has been adapted for eco-anxiety by focusing on reframing distorted thoughts about environmental threats, such as shifting from passive catastrophizing to identifying actionable steps within one's control. These adaptations often incorporate environmental identity elements, using techniques like to challenge unhelpful beliefs about inevitability. Internet-delivered CBT variants tailor modules to climate-specific distress, emphasizing problem-solving for triggers like reports. Mindfulness-based approaches, including elements from (ACT), aim to foster acceptance of uncertain environmental futures while reducing rumination on apocalyptic scenarios. A 2021 scoping review identified interventions as common recommendations for managing eco-anxiety symptoms, often integrated with to detach from overwhelming fears. Group therapies have emerged since 2020, particularly in educational and community settings, to address shared eco-triggers through facilitated discussions and process-oriented models. These sessions, such as climate cafés, encourage collective processing of emotions tied to specific events like wildfires or policy failures, with protocols updated in models from . Campus-based pilots since 2022 have piloted group formats for students, incorporating for climate-related stressors. Self-help measures include deliberate exposure, such as technology-free walks or in green spaces, to counteract disconnection from the environment. Engaging in actions, like local advocacy or volunteering, channels anxiety toward tangible contributions, as suggested in psychological resources. materials recommend balancing information intake with proactive steps to mitigate helplessness, such as reducing media overload on climate news.

Evidence on Effectiveness and Potential Drawbacks

on interventions for eco-anxiety remains sparse, with few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating robust, sustained reductions in distress. A pilot RCT of tailored internet-delivered (ICBT) for climate anxiety reported reductions in associated psychological distress, but the sample was small (n=30) and effects were preliminary without long-term follow-up. Similarly, a 2025 RCT evaluating a nature-based intervention found no decrease in eco-anxiety levels; instead, anxiety increased alongside gains in climate-related knowledge and capability, suggesting interventions may heighten awareness without alleviating emotional responses. Cross-sectional correlations from a 2024 BMC meta-analysis indicate eco-anxiety links to elevated distress, depression, and anxiety symptoms (r=0.20-0.60), but therapeutic targeting yields only small effect sizes in available data, often confounded by baseline pro-environmental motivation. Research highlights that reducing anxiety symptoms alone may undermine adaptive outcomes, as eco-anger—rather than anxiety mitigation—predicts improved , pro-climate , and personal behaviors. A 2021 Journal of Climate Change and Health study using Australian survey data (n=1,000+) showed eco-anger associated with lower depression and higher engagement (β=0.15-0.25), while eco-anxiety correlated with poorer without equivalent action gains. Interventions emphasizing symptom risk fostering passivity; for instance, pathologizing eco-anxiety as a disorder could inadvertently validate catastrophic narratives, potentially exacerbating helplessness in high-exposure populations where direct impacts amplify distress. Potential drawbacks include inefficacy against comorbidities and opportunity costs of anxiety-focused approaches over resilience-building. No studies as of 2025 demonstrate long-term prevention of linked conditions like depression or via eco-anxiety treatments, with scoping reviews noting gaps in scalable, evidence-based protocols. Experts advocate shifting to strategies harnessing motivational anxiety dimensions for action and , as symptom-centric therapies may divert from building adaptive , such as meaning-focused reframing, which better sustains amid ongoing environmental uncertainty. This aligns with calls for non-pathologizing frameworks that prioritize , given academia's tendency to overemphasize distress amplification in climate discourse.

Broader Implications

Influence on Behavior, Activism, and Policy

Eco-anxiety has been associated with increased in pro-environmental behaviors, such as reduced consumption and , though evidence remains mixed. A 2023 found that higher levels of eco-anxiety at baseline predicted more frequent pro-environmental behaviors one month later among participants, suggesting a motivational role for moderate anxiety in prompting actions like . However, other research from the same year indicated that heightened attention to impacts, often co-occurring with anxiety, correlated with reduced pro-environmental , potentially due to overwhelming rumination. A 2025 cross-sectional analysis further showed that personal impact anxiety positively predicted pro-environmental behaviors, while affective components like worry sometimes diminished them, highlighting variability by anxiety subtype. In , eco-anxiety appears to catalyze participation, particularly among . Worry about has been shown to predict climate activism in multi-wave studies, with activism in turn reinforcing anxiety to a lesser degree, forming a feedback loop. The Fridays for Future movement, initiated in 2018 by , exemplifies this, as participants reported eco-emotions including anxiety and fear as drivers of sustained strikes and protests, with mitigating despair. A 2024 study confirmed that rising climate anxiety levels forecasted pro-environmental intentions and activism, independent of political affiliation, among Americans experiencing distress. Yet, severe eco-anxiety can foster and disengagement; for instance, intense forms have been linked to paralysis and burnout, reducing willingness to act despite awareness. Regarding policy, eco-anxiety-fueled activism has amplified calls for aggressive interventions, influencing agendas like expanded renewable subsidies and emissions targets. Youth-led protests, including Fridays for Future events peaking in 2019 with millions participating globally, pressured entities such as the to advance the Green Deal framework in 2019, emphasizing rapid decarbonization. However, critics argue that anxiety-driven advocacy overlooks implementation costs; for example, stringent regulations have correlated with rising energy prices, contributing to fuel poverty affecting over 30 million Europeans in 2022, where policy haste prioritized emissions reductions over affordable transitions. Empirical data on direct causal links remain limited, with much policy influence inferred from correlational rises in public concern and legislative responses rather than controlled studies.

Societal Costs and Adaptive Interpretations

Eco-anxiety contributes to societal costs through increased strain on resources and reduced functional outcomes. A 2025 study examining anxiety in regions like and found negative associations with emotional and functional , including diminished daily functioning and across demographics. This aligns with broader economic analyses indicating that climate-related anxiety impairs by reducing focus and efficiency, leading to measurable losses for businesses and economies. Such burdens extend to healthcare systems, where untreated issues linked to environmental concerns exacerbate overall treatment demands and indirect costs from . Adaptive interpretations frame eco-anxiety as a signal of genuine environmental concern that can drive positive societal responses, including heightened motivation for sustainable practices and . shows that moderate levels of eco-anxiety correlate with increased pro-environmental behaviors, serving as a catalyst for individual and rather than mere distress. For instance, it has been linked to innovative problem-solving in environmental contexts, potentially accelerating technological advancements in response to perceived threats. This perspective posits eco-anxiety not as but as an evolutionary prompt for , fostering resilience through directed efforts like or technological development. In 2025 debates, eco-anxiety's societal role is contrasted with stoic approaches emphasizing acceptance of solvable challenges, particularly amid evidence of progress such as CO2 emissions decoupling from . The reported that global emissions growth in 2024 lagged behind GDP expansion by over 1 , restoring long-term decoupling trends driven by renewables and gains. European data further highlight reversal in major economies, with emissions declining despite GDP rises, underscoring causal factors like technological deployment over alarmism. Advocates of argue this progress favors rational focus on controllable variables, predicting better well-being than unmanaged anxiety, which may amplify pessimism disproportionate to empirical advancements.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667278221000444
  2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666622723000230
  3. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1560024/full
  4. https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-psychological-distress-prevalence/
  5. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.08.28.22279314.full
  6. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424000999
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10744953/
  8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424001130
  9. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.981814/full
  10. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196%2821%2900278-3/fulltext
  11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9537110/
  12. https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-024-06274-1
  13. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2817&context=honorstheses
  14. https://dokumen.pub/engaging-with-climate-change-psychoanalytic-and-interdisciplinary-perspectives-9780415667609-0415667607.html
  15. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1429571/full
  16. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/03/mental-health-climate.pdf
  17. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/03/ce-climate-change
  18. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8499625/
  19. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2020/02/climate-change
  20. https://time.com/6338759/climate-change-anxiety-google-search-trend/
  21. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/28324765.2025.2490524
  22. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-00998-6
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378025000524
  24. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09540261.2025.2523457?src=
  25. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494424000021
  26. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494422001499
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096322000481
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361664910_The_psychological_consequences_of_the_ecological_crisis_Three_new_questionnaires_to_assess_eco-anxiety_eco-guilt_and_ecological_grief
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12351118/
  30. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjhp.12746
  31. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-does-eco-anxiety-compare-other-kinds-anxiety-britt-wray-phd-yplhc
  32. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1375803/pdf
  33. https://icd.who.int/
  34. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/070674371105601202
  35. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/
  36. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
  37. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
  38. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01761-5
  39. https://english.deltaprogramma.nl/three-topics/flood-risk-management/delta-decision
  40. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61608-1
  41. https://www.eib.org/attachments/lucalli/20250135-120625-economics-working-paper-2025-06-en.pdf
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8431103/
  43. https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-025-02773-2
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494423001780
  45. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13504622.2023.2286929
  46. https://ipa.org.au/read/kids-and-climate-change-stop-the-doom-and-gloom
  47. https://www.theinvadingsea.com/2024/09/15/climate-anxiety-education-action-mental-health-trauma-outdoor-learning-interdisciplinary-hope/
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395758700_Does_social_media_use_make_us_more_environmentally_knowledgeable_or_more_eco-anxious_A_multi-country_investigation
  49. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/eco.2023.0013
  50. https://premierscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/pjes-24-002.pdf
  51. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/13/6162
  52. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618525000854
  53. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7836
  54. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-024-00172-8
  55. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/19485506221129160
  56. https://mentalhealth.bmj.com/content/28/1/e301380
  57. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00207640251380066
  58. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12403316/
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12183214/
  60. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1480337/full
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10558031/
  62. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10303262/
  63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40084048/
  64. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11577747/
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9326410/
  66. https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-024-02244-0
  67. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/nov/ethical-environmental-and-political-concerns-about-climate-change-affect-reproductive
  68. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.13048
  69. https://climahealth.info/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/PIIS2542519625001378.pdf
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618524000938
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12532391/
  72. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S088761852300083X
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12324874/
  74. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2311400122
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7830022/
  76. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348854075_From_anger_to_action_Differential_impacts_of_eco-anxiety_eco-depression_and_eco-anger_on_climate_action_and_wellbeing
  77. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5820433_Solastalgia_The_Distress_Caused_by_Environmental_Change
  78. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pan3.70090
  79. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373360219_When_eco-anger_but_not_eco-anxiety_nor_eco-sadness_makes_you_change_A_temporal_network_approach_to_the_emotional_experience_of_climate_change
  80. https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2001/08/02/the-truth-about-the-environment
  81. https://nypost.com/2025/09/15/opinion/fearmongering-predictions-about-climate-change-keep-falling-apart/
  82. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1290465
  83. https://lomborg.com/news/environmental-alarmism-then-and-now
  84. https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/Lomborg_ClimateChange_web_240903.pdf
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887618524001336
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9944577/
  87. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/24/16628
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494421001663
  89. https://www.ijese.com/article/the-influence-of-climate-crisis-related-media-reporting-on-the-eco-anxiety-of-individuals-13044
  90. https://news.sky.com/story/bjorn-lomborg-climate-alarm-is-a-bigger-threat-than-climate-change-it-leads-to-anxious-lives-and-bad-policies-12067383
  91. https://ourworldindata.org/part-two-how-many-people-die-from-extreme-temperatures-and-how-could-this-change-in-the-future
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494422001323
  93. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/06/health/climate-anxiety-therapy.html
  94. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005796723001869
  95. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-cognitive-behaviour-therapist/article/environmental-identitybased-therapies-for-climate-distress-applying-cognitive-behavioural-approaches/9D9F2AE2B80BA7EF93E268D60C97AE26
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8464837/
  97. https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nyas.15344
  98. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2025/06/youth-climate-anxiety-action
  99. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2022/09/12/climate-change-stress-college-therapy-programs/
  100. https://www.everydayhealth.com/eco-anxiety/how-to-cope-with-eco-anxiety/
  101. https://psyche.co/guides/how-to-cope-with-climate-anxiety-and-take-action
  102. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12497743/
  103. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667278221000018
  104. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00963402.2023.2266942
  105. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-03829-001
  106. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373413331_Eco-Anxiety_motivates_pro-environmental_behaviors_a_Two-Wave_Longitudinal_Study
  107. https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-025-03340-5
  108. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424002901
  109. https://edepot.wur.nl/569683
  110. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14742837.2023.2178406
  111. https://news.uoregon.edu/content/uo-research-shows-how-climate-anxiety-can-catalyze-activism
  112. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424001555
  113. https://fridaysforfuture.org/
  114. https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/eco-anxiety-a-public-feeling/
  115. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/10/eco-anxiety-what-why-growing-in-young-people/
  116. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691825010376
  117. https://climate.sustainability-directory.com/question/what-are-the-economic-impacts-of-climate-anxiety/
  118. https://hbr.org/2024/07/the-hidden-costs-of-climate-change-on-the-workforce
  119. https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/15/6838
  120. https://www.thezoofamily.com/de-de/blogs/news/what-is-eco-anxiety
  121. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2025/co2-emissions
  122. https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/jrc-news-and-updates/world-emissions-hit-record-high-eu-leads-trend-reversal-2025-09-09_en
  123. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/disaster-by-choice/202509/measuring-eco-anxiety-or-not
  124. https://lifestyle.sustainability-directory.com/term/stoic-environmentalism/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.