Eco-anxiety refers to the profound psychological distress individuals experience due to the escalating climate crisis, as growing environmental uncertainties provoke deep concerns about the stability and viability of their future(Coffey et al., 2021a). As reported by Pihkala, (2022) ecological grief is conceptualized as a multifaceted emotional construct that encompasses a range of affective responses—including deep sorrow, mourning, and a profound sense of loss—arising from both the actual and anticipated degradation of the natural environment. It reflects the psychological impact of witnessing the decline of ecosystems, biodiversity loss, and the irreversible consequences of the global ecological crisis, often experienced on both personal and collective levels. While climate anxiety is not classified as a mental disorder in itself, it functions as a significant psychological stressor that can exacerbate existing mental health challenges. Its impact is especially pronounced among individuals with heightened vulnerability—such as those lacking sufficient personal resilience, social support, or a sense of agency. When compounded by additional life stressors, climate-related distress may contribute to a marked deterioration in overall psychological well-being, increasing the risk of emotional dysregulation, chronic anxiety, or depressive symptoms,(S. D. Clayton et al., 2023a). In addition, Ogunbode et al., (2022) have been argued that certain discrepancies observed in the existing literature could stem from a failure to sufficiently consider the specific nature and content of climate change-related media to which individuals are regularly exposed. This oversight may influence how emotional or cognitive responses to climate issues are interpreted or reported in research findings

Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that emotional reactions to climate change, particularly those not stemming from direct personal experience, are significantly shaped by the surrounding social and cultural context. The perception and evaluation of climate-related risks are inherently subjective processes, influenced by individual worldviews, values, and shared societal narratives. Consequently, the extent to which concern or anxiety about climate change is deemed proportionate or excessive is often determined by prevailing social norms and collective interpretations of environmental threats (S. Clayton, 2020b). Young individuals across the globe are increasingly reporting significant emotional distress in response to the climate crisis, experiencing a broad spectrum of intense and often overwhelming emotions. These include feelings of sadness, fear, anger, powerlessness, helplessness, guilt, shame, despair, emotional pain, grief, and even depression. Such emotional responses reflect not only their deep concern for the future of the planet but also a growing sense of uncertainty, moral burden, and personal vulnerability in the face of environmental degradation,(Helm et al., 2018). Correspondingly, a number of adolescents also articulate a deep sense of fear, emotional turmoil, and despair as they confront the unsettling reality that their generation is being unfairly burdened with the responsibility of addressing the escalating challenges and long-term repercussions of climate change (Léger-Goodes et al., 2022b).

Environmental guilt led individuals to try to rationalize or explain their perceived unsustainable actions, while also motivating a stronger intention to act in more environmentally friendly ways (Nielsen et al., 2024b). Besides, guilt is often rooted in a profound sensitivity to potential social exclusion or judgment from others, reflecting an internalized awareness of having violated social or moral norms. This emotional state frequently acts as a powerful motivator for corrective or prosocial behavior aimed at restoring damaged relationships or reaffirming one’s moral standing. Individuals experiencing guilt are commonly driven to take actions such as offering sincere apologies, making reparations, or providing compensations in an effort to rebuild trust and strengthen social bonds (Tam, 2019). Several alternative terms have been employed to characterize the psychological distress experienced by children in response to environmental threats, including ecophobia, climate anxiety, environmental grief, and eco-despair. These expressions encapsulate varying dimensions of fear, emotional turmoil, and existential concern stemming from an acute awareness of ecological degradation and the anticipated consequences of climate change. Such terminology reflects an evolving understanding of the nuanced and deeply felt anxieties young individuals may harbor in the face of an uncertain environmental future,(Léger-Goodes et al., 2022b). Additionally, according to Cairns & Pihkala, (2024) Individuals' also responses to climate-related emotions can be assessed as either adaptive or maladaptive, depending on the perspective from which they are viewed. In some cases, a coping strategy might promote psychological well-being or emotional stability at the personal level, yet simultaneously prove counterproductive or ethically problematic when evaluated through the lens of climate responsibility and environmental action. This highlights the complex and often conflicting nature of emotional coping mechanisms in the context of climate change, where what benefits the individual may inadvertently undermine collective ecological goals.

Consumers often experience profound feelings of guilt and shame when they partake in consumption behaviors that are perceived as unethical, immoral, or socially damaging. Actions such as deceptive practices, indiscriminate littering, or excessive indulgence in substances like alcohol—commonly referred to as binge drinking—can trigger a strong emotional response rooted in internalized moral standards and societal expectations. These emotions frequently arise from an acute awareness of having violated personal or collective norms, highlighting the psychological toll that harmful consumption patterns can impose on individuals who value ethical responsibility and social accountability,(Baek & Yoon, 2017). Interestingly, in line with the views of Nielsen et al., (2024) our findings revealed that the social dimension of eco-guilt and eco-shame plays a pivotal role in shaping individuals’ emotional experiences related to environmental issues. In particular, eco-shame was frequently provoked by an underlying fear of social judgment, criticism, or moral disapproval from others. This suggests that individuals are not only concerned with the environmental impact of their actions but are also deeply influenced by how those actions are perceived within a broader social and ethical context, intensifying their emotional responses and possibly shaping their future behavior.

Climate-related emotions can cut both ways: at moderate levels, eco-anxiety or environmental guilt often galvanize action, but when overwhelming, they can paralyze. Many young people report intense feelings about climate change – worry, grief, guilt, even anger – that push them toward change. For example, global youth movements vividly illustrate how eco-anxiety can drive collective action. In a U.S. survey, students who were more familiar with Thunberg not only believed more strongly in collective efficacy but also expressed higher intentions to engage in climate advocacy, regardless of party affiliation (Sabherwal et al., 2021). Similarly, school strikes and youth coalitions worldwide report that concern and moral outrage about climate have spurred millions into public activism (Neas et al., 2022). Beyond protests, many worried individuals channel their emotions into lifestyle changes (e.g. plant-based diets, waste reduction, eco-volunteering) as personal forms of climate action. In fact, psychological studies find that feeling guilty about environmental harm strongly predicts information-seeking and eco-friendly choices such as purchasing green products (Hong & Jeon, 2025).

In short, eco-anxiety or climate guilt can be adaptive motivator – for example, young people with high concern are more likely to donate to climate causes, volunteer, or lobby their government (Benoit et al., 2025).Youth activism examples: Movements like Fridays for Future (school climate strikes) and Sunrise Movement show youth rallying around eco-concern (Neas et al., 2022; Sabherwal et al., 2021). Teachers and parents note that many adolescents who feel climate grief choose to join protests or start local green projects.

Emotional drivers: Psychological theories explain this link. For instance, Cognitive Dissonance Theory suggests people feel stress when their beliefs (“the planet is threatened”) conflict with inaction, leading them to align actions with beliefs. Adolescents in particular have a low tolerance for dissonance – research finds they more readily convert worry into action (angry demands for policy change) rather than rationalizing inaction(Benoit et al., 2025). Likewise, Protection Motivation Theory (from health psychology) holds that perceiving a severe threat plus believing in effective coping steps both motivate protective action (Chamroonsawasdi et al., 2021). Applied to climate, if people see climate as personally dangerous (high threat) and believe they can do something (high self-efficacy), they’re more inclined to engage in mitigation (e.g. reducing carbon use or voting for climate policies). Finally, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) posits that internal motivation for pro-environmental behavior is strongest when actions satisfy basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Studies framed by SDT argue that an emotional connection to nature and meaningful values can boost intrinsic motivation: youths who feel an inner bond with the environment and a sense of purpose are more likely to sustain climate action(Spitzer et al., 2024). In other words, when empathy for the Earth and personal values guide behavior, climate concern becomes a lasting drive rather than fleeting worry (Spitzer et al., 2024).

Emotional Barriers to ActionYet the very emotions that can mobilize can also inhibit. When eco-anxiety or guilt overshoots a threshold, individuals may feel overwhelmed and withdraw. Researchers describe several maladaptive patterns:

Burnout/Eco-Fatigue: Intense or chronic climate engagement can exhaust emotional reserves. Activists often report feeling exhausted, frustrated, or “burned out” when relentless news and stress accumulate. Psychological reports note that moderate anxiety spurs activism, but extreme anxiety triggers “emotion-focused coping” – essentially giving up on action to protect one’s mental state (Maduneme, 2024). In one survey of college students, moderate climate worry predicted strong pro-environmental intentions, but very high worry reversed the effect: highly anxious students were less likely to act (Maduneme, 2024). This U-shaped response indicates that beyond a point, anxiety becomes demotivating. Correspondingly, some psychologists use terms like “eco-fatigue” or activist burnout to describe withdrawal after intense involvement.

Doomism and Learned Helplessness: Pervasive pessimism (“it’s too late to fix things”) can set in when people repeatedly see grim outcomes. This doomism breeds inaction: if one believes the crisis is hopeless, why try? For example, a UK survey found that many youth reported feeling powerless or demoralized if individual actions seemed futile (“The Kaiser Family Foundation/Washington Post Climate Change Survey - Main Findings − 9349,” 2019). In psychological terms, repeated helpless experiences can lead to learned helplessness. Feelings of disempowerment, helplessness or demoralization arise when people sense that government response is inadequate – a factor strongly correlated with distress in youth (Jones & Davison, 2021; Salomon et al., 2017).

Emotional Numbing/Disengagement: As a coping defense, some individuals blunt or suppress their feelings to avoid pain. This might look like tuning out climate news, trivializing impacts, or dissociating emotionally. Though less often studied than anxiety, clinicians note that prolonged stress can lead to emotional numbness. Social media trends hint at “climate distancing” (e.g. memes joking about no future), reflecting a collective disengagement. In essence, this is a classic trauma response: numbness and avoidance protect the psyche, but leave action stalled.

Avoidant Coping (Denial, Distancing): When anxiety spikes, some react by outright denial or minimizing the problem (the mind’s attempt to reduce fear). While full denial of climate science is distinct from emotional denial, psychologically the effects overlap: both serve to relieve anxiety at the expense of engagement. Surveys and interviews frequently find that youths under stress may withdraw, distract themselves with other concerns, or become defensive (e.g. “I just can’t think about it”) – all maladaptive means to avoid emotional overwhelm (Benoit et al., 2025).

These barriers highlight the double-edged nature of climate emotions. Left unchecked, high-intensity emotions can produce a negative feedback loop. Studies confirm this: higher climate anxiety (beyond a moderate point) was linked to avoidance and emotional withdrawal (Maduneme, 2024).Indeed, a University of Oregon study showed that while some climate worry drove lifestyle changes and support for climate policy, very high worry made students disengage, leaving the anxiety unmanaged(UO Research Shows How Climate Anxiety Can Catalyze Activism, 2024). The phenomenon is akin to chronic stress: at first it energizes, but beyond a certain point it exhausts coping capacity.

Real-world data illustrate these effects on youth. The “Greta Thunberg effect” underscores the mobilizing power of emotion-informed leadership. A representative U.S. survey found that young people who knew of Thunberg’s activism felt more collective efficacy and had stronger intentions to join climate action initiatives (Sabherwal et al., 2021). In practice, millions of students worldwide have skipped school on Fridays to protest carbon emissions — direct proof that eco-concern can translate into mass action. Educational case studies from this movement note young strikers’ heightened empowerment, moral outrage, and community support as fuels for sustained engagement. At the same time, surveys document high levels of distress. In one large global study, 84% of 16–25 year olds reported at least moderate worry about climate change, and 59% said they were very or extremely worried(Benoit et al., 2025). Over half of those young people felt sad, anxious, powerless or guilty as a result(Benoit et al., 2025). Similarly, a U.S. survey of 16–25 year olds (16,000 respondents) found nearly 60% were “very” or “extremely” worried about climate change, and 85% reported some level of climate anxiety (Dietz, 2024). These distress levels were remarkably consistent across regions and political affiliations, indicating a widespread emotional impact. Moreover, surveys of mental health treatment seekers highlight that some young people are so distressed by climate concerns that they seek therapy or support groups (though precise percentages remain hard to quantify). Taken together, the data reveal two sides: a majority of young people report using their climate feelings constructively (e.g. discussing the issue, changing personal habits, participating in activism), but a substantial minority experience overwhelming stress or disengagement. For example, one global analysis found that, alongside high worry, many adolescents also spoke of feeling “powerless” or “betrayed,” suggesting risks of frustration (Benoit et al., 2025). While robust statistics on treatment-seeking are sparse, anecdotal accounts of counselor surveys and mental health hotlines indicate rising numbers of youths mentioning climate anxiety or climate-related grief. These numbers underscore the fine balance: action and distress often co-occur.

Overall, the evidence paints a balanced picture: climate emotions are neither inherently good nor bad, but their effect depends on context, coping skills, and support systems. In many cases, eco-anxiety and climate guilt have a catalyzing effect. As Benoit et al., (2025) note, when climate anxiety is paired with hope and agency, it can motivate activism. Figures like Greta Thunberg harnessed fear and moral urgency into a global demand for change (Sabherwal et al., 2021). Psychological research emphasizes that perceived efficacy is key: moderate fear combined with clear paths to action tends to boost motivation(Frantz et al., 2024). Self-Determination Theory further suggests that when climate action fulfills inner needs (meaning, competence, connection to nature), it becomes self-sustaining and positive (Spitzer et al., 2024). By contrast, fear or guilt without agency can spill over the tipping point into despair. Maduneme’s study showed this curvilinear effect: only “some slice” of climate anxiety was beneficial (Maduneme, 2024). Similarly, Frantz et al., (2024) found that climate messages increased behavioral intentions only when both threat and efficacy were appealed to; fear alone could demotivate. In plain terms, “a little anxiety pushes action, too much triggers withdrawal.” This aligns with clinical insight: anxiety prompts action only up to a threshold, after which it requires coping management. For example, intense fear especially when paired with guilt can leave a person “paralyzed and unable to engage” (Stoknes, 2015). Importantly, social support and framing matter. Youth who feel they are part of a community or movement often handle anxiety better. Outreach programs that highlight collective success, peer solidarity, or concrete solutions tend to transform anguish into empowerment. Research shows that interventions increasing climate hope and efficacy can sustain pro-environmental engagement. For instance, even simple “selfie” videos on social media (as one trial tested) raised teens’ sense of agency and hopeful intent, pointing to the power of positive framing (Benoit et al., 2025). Likewise, education that emphasizes mastery (e.g. teaching practical green skills) and connection (e.g. nature immersion programs) can fortify youths against feeling helpless.

Ultimately, it may be useful to think of an emotional threshold or “tipping point.” Below this threshold, climate concern acts like fuel; above it, it overloads the system. The exact threshold varies by individual resilience and context, but the principle holds: fear with support breeds action; fear without support breeds despair. As one synthesis concludes, managing climate anxiety means “learning to manage emotions, rather than trying to suppress them,” and pairing concern with agency. This underscores that interventions and social contexts (e.g., having supportive peers, clear action plans, policy response) are critical in shaping whether climate worry leads to burnout or breakthroughs.

In summary, climate emotions are a double-edged sword. On the one hand, emotions like anxiety, guilt and moral outrage can motivate powerful collective responses – from lifestyle changes to mass protests – especially when young people feel efficacious (Frantz et al., 2024; Neas et al., 2022; Sabherwal et al., 2021). On the other hand, unchecked emotional intensity can trigger maladaptive coping (avoidance, despair) that stalls action(Benoit et al., 2025; Maduneme, 2024) The goal, then, is not to eliminate climate emotions, but to keep them in the productive range. By providing psychological support, fostering community and ensuring that youth feel their actions matter, society can help young people use their valid feelings of fear and urgency as catalysts for sustained climate engagement rather than as barriers. In this way, we walk the tightrope of emotion – harnessing its motivating edge without tipping into overwhelm.

Several scholars have adopted alternative terms to describe eco-anxiety, such as climate change distress, reflecting variations in how the phenomenon is conceptualized across the literature (Pihkala, 2020a). Certain scholarly reviews exhibit a preference for alternative terminologies in place of the more universally acknowledged terms “eco-anxiety” or “ecological anxiety,” thereby contributing to increased ambiguity and further complicating the conceptual precision of the discourse. The literature remains heavily dominated by research from Western nations, with limited representation of culturally diverse or vulnerable populations. In the report of Coffey et al., (2021) the majority of empirical studies depend on non-representative samples, thereby constraining the extent to which their findings can be generalized across diverse sociocultural or geographical contexts.

Empirical evidence suggests that anxiety associated with climate change, pollution, and environmental degradation is interconnected, supporting the view of eco-anxiety as a multidimensional construct. A 13-item scale developed by Hogg et al., (2021) identified four distinct but stable dimensions: affective symptoms, cognitive rumination, behavioral expressions, and anxiety about one’s environmental impact. These were found to be empirically distinct from general anxiety, stress, and depression.

Further research indicates that these dimensions show varying stability and are linked to mental health and climate-related beliefs (Hogg et al., 2021a). Youth, in particular, appear to be disproportionately affected. One participant in a qualitative study described climate anxiety as especially prominent among young people, though broader engagement with the topic—especially in Buddhist contexts—was limited (Cairns & Pihkala, 2024). In a ten-country comparison, young adults in climate-vulnerable nations such as the Philippines and India reported the highest levels of negative eco-emotions, including anxiety, guilt, and despair (Eckstein et al., 2021; Lackner et al., 2025). Participants also expressed concern for future generations, with some viewing them as part of their in-group “our future children” while others emphasized the need to educate younger generations, framing them as a separate group (Wang et al., 2018).

Incorporating viewpoints from the Global South is imperative to fostering a more inclusive and equitable comprehension of eco-anxiety, ensuring that diverse sociocultural and geopolitical contexts are adequately represented in the discourse. Climate justice frameworks draw attention to the unequal distribution of climate impacts and how these shape emotional responses (Musicaro et al., 2024; Ogunbode et al., 2021a). For instance, Indonesia—a developing country similar to those in the study—shows comparable psychological patterns among its youth (S. D. Clayton et al., 2023a). A global survey found that 45% of Indonesian respondents expressed extreme concern about climate change, and 34% reported moderate concern (Leiserowitz et al., 2022).

Several specific areas warrant deeper exploration to enrich the field of climate emotion studies:

Very few studies test interventions or support programs. Future work should develop and evaluate school-based or clinical programs to build resilience. For example, Bakul et al., (2025) found that climate anxiety varies by disaster experience in Bangladesh and recommended “tailored interventions” for Gen-Z. Similarly, research should design curricula or therapy models (e.g., hope-focused education, climate storytelling) and test whether they reduce distress or promote action.

Filling these gaps is essential for advancing both theory and practice. Without a more inclusive and culturally grounded understanding of climate emotions, policies and interventions risk being ineffective or even alienating to non-Western communities. Moreover, as youth mental health increasingly becomes intertwined with the climate crisis, psychologists, educators, and policymakers must be equipped with evidence-based tools to support emotional resilience and mobilization. Expanding the scope and depth of research can help ensure that emotional experiences are not pathologized, but understood as valid, context-sensitive responses that can catalyze personal and collective transformation.