The heat tightens again in Spain. In some regions of the country the 40 degrees are exceeded again and with them come the already recurrent health alarms: the closure of public areas to pedestrian traffic; Avoid going out at rush hour, and that companies restrict the hours their employees spend in the sun. With each new wave, many people are asking the same questions: Is this heat normal? What if it gets even worse? Isn't it a little scary? In some areas of the planet temperatures have become unbearable. In others, the current heat is unprecedented. The Nordic countries have reached temperatures of between 30 and 40 degrees, turning the Stockholm archipelago into a kind of Canary Islands where every square inch of grass by the water becomes a makeshift tanning booth. In a country where time is a recurring topic of conversation, it has gone from begging not to rain again in Midsommar or San Juan to asking if the heat will last again all summer.
More information
The cry of the last generation. Gluing Your Tail to the Stage Can Help Save the World
Climate change generates a series of affective reactions that researchers call "climate emotions". For example, in cold climates such as the Nordic the increasingly warm and sunny summers are synonymous with happiness since they allow you to enjoy nature, family and friends outdoors with pleasant temperatures and sunlight, a fundamental good for health almost impossible to savor during the long and cold Nordic winters. At the same time, in the face of increasingly hot summers, many feel that the right thing to do would be to be concerned about their cause and to act immediately in the face of the crisis.
In our interdisciplinary research project Climate Change and Emotional Dilemmas (2023-2025), psychologist and researcher Kirsti Jylhä and I combined philosophy and psychology to design tools to understand the emotions that climate change provokes in ourselves and others. The study of climate emotions arises within environmental psychology, focused on the investigation of the psychological effects caused by our environment, including nature. The destruction and disappearance of animal species and unique landscapes provokes emotions similar to those we experience when a family member or loved one dies and that researchers call environmental mourning, an emotional response to the disappearance of natural elements of great value for our lives without us being able to do anything to remedy it.
Dozens of people cool off in Madrid Río, on June 12, 2022. Europa Press News (Europa Press via Getty Images)
Until now, climate emotions research has been mainly descriptive: it has focused on identifying the types of emotions that climate change provokes in us, to what extent they affect us, and which groups are most likely to experience them. Here stands out the field research led by Maria Ojala of the University of Örebro, Sweden, specialized in the study of the psychological impact of climate change on children, young people and adolescents, its correlation with anxiety, well-being or environmental action, and its role in educational processes.
However, the multidimensional nature of climate change generates affective conflicts that for many are difficult to understand and manage. The increasingly frequent high temperatures give rise to a situation of emotional perplexity that makes us wonder if it is right to go out to enjoy the sun and heat "as if nothing" given that they are a direct result of a phenomenon with potentially devastating consequences for life on our planet, a concern that several international media have echoed: "Am I the only one who is terrified of heat?" (The Guardian, February 26, 2019); "Can you worry about climate change while enjoying abhorrently hot winter days" (The Washington Post, March 2, 2017); "Can we enjoy, or should we be ashamed?" (Göteborgs-Posten, August 3, 2019). The answer to dilemmas like these lies in the rules that govern our emotions.
Funded by the Swedish Research Council for Sustainable Development and based at the Stockholm Institute for Future Studies, our project explores the norms that govern our climate emotions to provide tools that help people understand the affective reactions that the current crisis provokes in themselves and others. Normativity, the terrain of right and wrong, is a fundamental aspect of our emotions that helps us regulate them according to the reality of the facts to which they respond and contributes to psychological well-being. Emotional regulation is not something relegated to clinical practice, but is integrated into our daily social practice. The "don't be sad, it's not that bad" that is said to a child who cries inconsolably because the lollipop has fallen on the ground is an example.
Most emotions and reactions are governed by rules. Cultural or social norms are an example. Everyone knows that excessive joy is not the most correct emotion to feel or show at a funeral, even if the deceased is not close to us. Rational norms determine if our emotions and their intensity correspond to the magnitude of what provokes us, or if we are reacting excessively. Another way to know if our emotions are appropriate is to ask ourselves if they contribute to motivation and action or if they paralyze us, as well as our psychological well-being and that of those around us. Feeling happiness in the heat and sunlight of warmer summers is a rational reaction with positive psychological value. However, given their cause, it has become customary to refer to these temperatures with concern, and it remains to be determined whether such happiness contributes to or paralyzes climate action.
A protester in Cardiff, Wales, on November 6, 2021. Matthew Horwood (Getty Images)
Climate change does not generate the same emotions in all of us and individual differences also generate conflicts. Recent studies indicate that climate anxiety is a frequent emotion among young people and adolescents. We are uncertain about the magnitude with which climate change will negatively affect our lives, those of our children and those of generations to come. This, coupled with the possibility that the effects will be devastating, translates into anxiety and anguish. But the worst effects of climate change are yet to come and will especially affect today's young people and their descendants, so it is not surprising that they are more prone to climate distress. Swedish activist Greta Thunberg's famous words at the 2019 World Economic Forum reflect this sentiment: "I don't want your hope. (...) I want you to panic, I want you to feel the fear that I feel every day. And then, I want you to act ... as if your house is burning, because it is." Faced with this situation, several universities have integrated departments specialized in psychological care for students with climate anxiety, increasingly abundant.
In response to Thunberg's speech, Donald Trump suggested on Twitter that the activist had an "anger management problem" inviting her to "relax," and Vladimir Putin hinted that she was a "child" who was being used for adult interests. It is important to understand what the affective differences between different climate actors respond to. Some of them are inevitable because we are predisposed to feel differently, which can influence when judging the climatic emotions of others. However, criticism of the climate emotions of others may be due to certain interests. The rhetoric of fallacies employed by Trump and Putin focuses exclusively on Thunberg's age and the form of her message, ignoring the content. They do not allude to the fact that Thunberg's emotional reaction is disproportionate or that it does not correspond to the current crisis. This suggests that her words seek to delegitimize and silence the emotional state of millions of people who, like Thunberg, are distressed by the imminent consequences of climate change and frustrated by the lack of action.
Each climate emotion responds to a specific aspect of climate change. Lack of action is one of the most reactive aspects of the climate crisis. Political inaction causes us frustration and anger. National and international representatives have failed us; Despite the imminence of the crisis, governments remain prisoners of corporate interests and votes. Many feel anger or even fury at the selfishness of putting the private interests of a few before those of millions of citizens, present and future.
The lack of structural change puts ordinary citizens in a situation where their actions hardly count. Many are willing to contribute to mitigating climate change. More and more people are motivated to use the train or buy an electric car instead of flying, eat less meat, or install renewable energy in their homes. However, many feel that their effort is in vain. For example, for people to choose to go by train, good connections, schedules and prices must be offered, a difficult task when competing with subsidized sectors such as aviation. In addition, a large number of citizens are still oblivious to sustainable options, making collective action and large-scale demand change impossible. Therefore, the current situation is one of lock-in: those who want to contribute to change find little incentive to do so, while those who do not contribute will equally benefit from the climate transition. This is why many feel demoralized to see that their efforts are in vain and powerless because they cannot contribute their grain of sand and channel their efforts through the system.
Climate activist Greta Thunberg is demonstrating in Paris on June 23. THOMAS SAMSON (AFP via Getty Images)
The Swedish term flygskam (in English, "shame for flying") emerged in 2017 to refer to the attitude of shame or humiliation for flying, especially when flying unnecessarily, and became popular during the following years in the debate around how to travel sustainably. The choice of whether or not to have children is also viewed through the lens of climate change. Each person we bring to the world contributes significantly throughout their lives to the increase in emissions, especially with the lifestyle and level of consumption of Western countries. Here arises the Swedish term barnskam (in English, "shame for having children"), referring to the attitude of being ashamed for increasing the family without considering its climatic effects.
Criticism of the attitudes of others contributes to modulating behavior in society. Even if it is well-intentioned, the way we criticize others has important effects. When we make someone feel ashamed about something they have done, felt or thought, we are negatively attacking the core of that person or their identity in general: who they are, their tastes, their feelings, and so on. That is why the shame and humiliation that sometimes accompanies it does not awaken in us an activating or motivating power, so provoking these feelings according to the climate choices of others is a bad strategy to encourage change. Assuming that there are reasons for them and that they are made from respect, criticism of the behaviors or choices of others are more effective if they arouse remorse or guilt for not having lived up to the responsibility in a certain circumstance.
Climate change is a multifaceted phenomenon that still carries unknowns. Little by little and together we try to reach new rules that guide our actions and emotions in the face of the current situation. In the meantime, flexibility and tolerance should be maintained to avoid unnecessary blame and humiliation, both one's own and others. This contributes to cohesion and collective action, fundamental pieces to solve the climate crisis. So there's nothing unusual if you're rejoicing in the heat at the same time you're worried about climate change, now that temperatures are rising again.
Julia Mosquera (Vilalba, Lugo, 1989) holds a PhD in philosophy from the University of Reading (United Kingdom) and is a researcher at the Institute for Future Studies in Stockholm (Sweden).
Sign up for the weekly Ideas newsletter here.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Read more
I'm already a subscriber