Content uploaded by Lise van Susteren
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lise van Susteren on Apr 17, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 5 December 2021
e863
Articles
Lancet Planet Health 2021;
5: e863–73
*Joint first authors
Department of Social & Policy
Sciences (C Hickman MSc) and
Department of Psychology
(E Marks ClinPsyD), University
of Bath, Bath, UK; Faculty of
Theology and Helsinki Institute
of Sustainability Science,
University of Helsinki, Helsinki,
Finland (P Pihkala PhD);
Department of Psychology,
The College of Wooster,
Wooster, OH, USA
(Prof S Clayton PhD);
Department of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, NYU
Langone Health, New York, NY,
USA (R E Lewandowski PhD);
School of Environmental
Sciences, University of East
Anglia, Norwich, UK
(E E Mayall BSc); Stanford
University Center for
Innovation in Global Health
and Stanford and Woods
Institute for the Environment,
Stanford University, Stanford,
CA, USA (B Wray PhD); Centre
on Climate Change and
Planetary Health, London
School of Hygiene & Tropical
Medicine, London, UK (B Wray);
Oxford Health NHS Foundation
Trust, Oxford, UK
(C Mellor MBChB); Climate
Psychiatry Alliance,
Washington, DC, USA
(L van Susteren MD); Climate
Psychology Alliance,
Washington, DC, USA
(L van Susteren)
Correspondence to:
Ms Caroline Hickman,
Department of Social & Policy
Sciences, University of Bath,
Bath BA2 7AY, UK
c.l.hickman@bath.ac.uk
Climate anxiety in children and young people and their
beliefs about government responses to climate change:
a global survey
Caroline Hickman*, Elizabeth Marks*, Panu Pihkala, Susan Clayton, R Eric Lewandowski, Elouise E Mayall, Britt Wray, Catriona Mellor,
Lise van Susteren
Summary
Background 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 aected 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.
Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
4.0 license.
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.1 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.2 Climate anxiety is complex,3
and is recognised to often be based on constructive or
practical anxiety.1 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 anxiety1,4 because it has the beneficial eect 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.5–7
Climate anxiety can be connected to many emotions,
including worry,8 fear,9 anger,10 grief, despair, guilt, and
shame,11 as well as hope,12 although the presence of these
vary between individuals. As research in this field
emerges, certain emotions have received more attention,
Articles
e864
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 5 December 2021
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.13,14 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.1,3
Substantial levels of climate-related distress are reported
globally,15 with children and young people particularly
vulnerable.16 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,17 and a 2021 UNICEF report
estimates that one billion children are at extremely high
risk as a result.18 Qualitative research has found that many
children have pessimistic views of climate futures.19
Interviews conducted with children in various countries
between 2016 and 2021 found intense forms of climate and
eco-anxiety.3,13 Parents and educators also report hearing
great concern about climate change from young people.20,21
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.22 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),2
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.23 Children facing a future
severely damaged by climate change will need support.24
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.3,25 Children are
now turning to legal action based on government failure
to protect ecosystems, young citizens, and their futures.26
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,27
leading to moral injury (the distressing psychological
aftermath experienced when one perpetrates or witnesses
actions that violate moral or core beliefs).28 This might
include an awareness of or failure to prevent harmful
unethical behaviour. Research is required to understand
Research in context
Evidence before this study
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.
Articles
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 5 December 2021
e865
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 aliate 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
dierent countries, representing a range of cultures,
incomes, climates, climate vulnerabilities, and exposure
to diering 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,1,4,6 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 aecting 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 dierent 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. Dierences between the countries were
cautiously explored. Pearson’s correlation analysis was
See Online for appendix
Articles
e866
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 5 December 2021
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.29 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.30
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 oered 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 aected 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 1: Worry 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)
0 10 20
26
19 27 29 14 9
20 29 31 12 6
30 35 21 93
49 35 10
41
22 29 27 18 3
35 33 16 10 4
18 40 28 84
18 26 33 14 8
29 38 22 83
25 28 29 10 6
27 32 25 11 5
28
37
74
66
74
35
31
32
50
45
30 40 50 70 90 10060 80
All countries
Australia
Brazil
Finland
France
India
Nigeria
Philippines
Portugal
UK
USA
Proportion of respondents (%)
Moderately worried A little worried Not worried
Impact on functioning Extremely worried Very worried
Articles
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 5 December 2021
e867
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 indierence.
Respondents also reported a range of negative beliefs,
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
(Table 1 continues on next page)
Articles
e868
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 5 December 2021
All countries UK Australia USA India Philippines Nigeria France Finland Portugal Brazil
(Continued from previous page)
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 1: Emotions about climate change
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 74 0 733 422 480 431 616 673
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?”
Table 2: Negative beliefs about climate change and dismissal
Articles
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 5 December 2021
e869
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.
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).
To better understand patterns underlying responses to
climate change, Pearson’s correlation coecients were
calculated to explore correlations among variables
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 6 74 630 714 679 644 549 467 694 790
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…”.
Table 3: Government-related beliefs
Articles
e870
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 5 December 2021
(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).
Discussion
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
Figure 2: Feelings of reassurance and betrayal relating to government response to climate change
Data are shown for the whole sample (n=10 000) and by country (n=1000 per country). The values on the graph are mean (SD).
All countries Australia Brazil Finland France India Nigeria Philippines Portugal UK USA
0
0·5
1·0
1·5
2·0
2·5
3·0
3·5
4·0
Mean score
2·22
(0·93)
2·70
(1·00)
2·25
(0·90)
2·79
(0·96)
1·68
(0·78)
3·01
(1·10)
2·30
(0·85)
2·36
(0·98) 2·19
(0·85)
2·66
(0·90)
2·70
(1·00)
2·95
(0·91)
2·13
(0·91)
2·42
(0·96)
2·59
(0·90)
2·90
(0·96)
2·06
(0·81)
2·62
(0·95)
2·20
(0·90)
2·69
(0·95)
2·06
(0·91)
2·54
(1·09)
Reassurance
Betrayal
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.
Table 4: Correlation matrix for the study variables
Articles
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 5 December 2021
e871
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 aect 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.2,18,22,23 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”.25
Defence mechanisms against the anxiety provoked by
climate change have been well documented, including
dismissing, ignoring, disavowing, rationalising, and
negating the experiences of others.27 These behaviours,
when exhibited by adults and governments, could be seen
as leading to a culture of uncare.27 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.28 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”,27 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 dierent for young
people. For us the destruction of the planet is personal”.13
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.31,32 This provides further understanding for the
current phenomenon of climate criminology,33 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.3 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.23
Before we can oer younger generations a message of
hope, we must first acknowledge the obstacles that must
be overcome.12
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 dicult thoughts,
emotions, and functional impairment related to climate
change, we cannot indicate how severe this is in
Articles
e872
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 5 December 2021
comparison to normative samples. We aimed to
investigate whether certain emotions and thoughts were
present across dierent 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 aecting 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 oers 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 oers a preliminary
overview; further, detailed research is required to
explore the complexities and wide variety of climate
feelings. Climate anxiety is a collective experience,27 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.”13
As a research team, we were disturbed by the scale of
emotional and psychological eects 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
sucient 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.
Declaration of interests
We declare no competing interests.
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 c.l.hickman@bath.ac.uk, e.marks@bath.ac.uk, or
panu.pihkala@helsinki.fi. To gain access, data requestors must sign a
data access agreement.
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).
References
1 Pihkala P. Anxiety and the ecological crisis: an analysis of
eco-anxiety and climate anxiety. Sustainability 2020; 12: 7836.
2 Berry HL, Waite TD, Dear KB, Capon AG, Murray V. The case for
systems thinking about climate change and mental health.
Nat Clim Chang 2018; 8: 282–90.
3 Hickman C. We need to (find a way to) talk about … eco-anxiety.
J Soc Work Pract 2020; 34: 411–24.
4 Verplanken B, Marks E, Dobromir AI. On the nature of eco-anxiety:
how constructive or unconstructive is habitual worry about global
warming? J Environ Psychol 2020; 72: 101528.
5 Ojala M, Cunsolo A, Ogunbode CA, Middleton J. Anxiety, worry,
and grief in a time of environmental and climate crisis: a narrative
review. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2021; 46: 1.
6 Clayton SD, Karazsia BT. Development and validation of a measure
of climate change anxiety. J Environ Psychol 2020; 69: 101434.
7 Hogg TL, Stanley SK, O’Brien LV, Wilson MS, Watsford CR.
The Hogg eco-anxiety scale: development and validation of a
multidimensional scale. OSF Preprints 2021; published online
June 11. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/rxudb (preprint).
8 Stewart AE. Psychometric properties of the climate change worry
scale. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021; 18: 494.
Articles
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 5 December 2021
e873
9 McQueen A. The wages of fear? Toward fearing well about climate
change. In: Budolfson M, McPherson T, Plunkett D, eds.
Philosophy and climate change. London: Oxford University Press,
2021.
10 Stanley SK, Hogg TL, Leviston Z, Walker I. From anger to action:
dierential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on
climate action and wellbeing. J Clim Chang Health 2021; 1: 100003.
11 Jensen T. Ecologies of guilt in environmental rhetorics. Cham:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2019.
12 Ojala M. Hope and anticipation in education for a sustainable
future. Futures 2017; 94: 76–84.
13 Hickman C. Children and climate change: exploring children’s
feelings about climate change using free association narrative
interview methodology. In: Hoggett P, ed. Climate psychology:
on indierence to disaster. Studies in the psychosocial. Cham:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2019: 41–59.
14 Pihkala P. Eco-anxiety and environmental education. Sustainability
2020; 12: 10149.
15 Susteren LV, Al-Delaimy WK. Psychological impacts of climate
change and recommendations. In: Al-Delaimy WK, Ramanathan V,
Sánchez Sorondo M, eds. Health of people, health of planet and our
responsibility: climate change, air pollution and health. Cham:
Springer, 2020: 177–92.
16 Wu J, Snell G, Samji H. Climate anxiety in young people: a call to
action. Lancet Planet Health 2020; 4: e435–36.
17 Helldén D, Andersson C, Nilsson M, Ebi KL, Friberg P, Alfvén T.
Climate change and child health: a scoping review and an expanded
conceptual framework. Lancet Planet Health 2021; 5: e164–75.
18 UNICEF. One billion children at ‘extremely high risk’ of the
impacts of the climate crisis. Aug 20, 2021. https://www.unicef.org.
uk/press-releases/onebillion-children-at-extremely-high-risk-of-the-
impacts-of-the-climate-crisis-unicef (accessed Sept 5, 2021).
19 Strife SJ. Children’s environmental concerns: expressing ecophobia.
J Environ Educ 2012; 43: 37–54.
20 Baker C, Clayton S, Bragg E. Educating for resilience: parent and
teacher perceptions of children’s emotional needs in response to
climate change. Environ Educ Res 2021; 27: 687–705.
21 Verlie B, Clark E, Jarrett T, Supriyono E. Educators’ experiences and
strategies for responding to ecological distress. Aust J Environ Educ
2020; 37: 132–46.
22 Schneiderman N, Ironson G, Siegel SD. Stress and health:
psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants.
Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2005; 1: 607–28.
23 Patel V, Flisher AJ, Hetrick S, McGorry P. Mental health of young
people: a global public-health challenge. Lancet 2007; 369: 1302–13.
24 Sanson AV, Judith Van Hoorn J, Burke SE. Responding to the
impacts of the climate crisis on children and youth.
Child Dev Perspect 2019; 13: 201–07.
25 Jones CA, Davison A. Disempowering emotions: the role of
educational experiences in social responses to climate change.
Geoforum 2021; 118: 190–200.
26 Salas RN, Jacobs W, Perera F. The case of Juliana v. US—children
and the health burdens of climate change. N Engl J Med 2019;
380: 2085–87.
27 Weintrobe S. Psychological roots of the climate crisis: neoliberal
exceptionalism and the culture of uncare. New York, NY:
Bloomsbury Academic, 2021.
28 Grin BJ, Purcell N, Burkman K, et al. Moral injury: an integrative
review. J Trauma Stress 2019; 32: 350–62.
29 Verplanken B, Roy D. “My worries are rational, climate change is
not”: habitual ecological worrying is an adaptive response.
PLoS One 2013; 8: e74708.
30 Smidt AM, Freyd JJ. Government-mandated institutional betrayal.
J Trauma Dissociation 2018; 19: 491–99.
31 UK Government. Human rights act 1998. 1998. https://www.
legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents (accessed Sept 2, 2021).
32 Mavronicola N. Torture, inhumanity and degradation under article
3 of the ECHR: absolute rights and absolute wrongs. Oxford:
Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.
33 White R. Imagining the unthinkable: climate change, ecocide and
children. In: Frauley J, ed. C Wright Mills and the criminological
imagination: prospects for creative inquiry. New York, NY:
Routledge, 2015: 219–40.