Essay by Eric Worrall
“… participants angry about other people’s inaction and apathy had more symptoms of depression and anxiety. …”
Climate anger can lead to action—or curdle into despair: Researchers find out why
by Samantha Stanley, Iain Walker, Teaghan Hogg and Zoe Leviston, The Conversation
…
Our new research surveyed 5,000 Australians and found almost half (49%) are angry about our warming world. So what do people do with their climate anger?
…
13 kinds of climate anger
Far and away, the most common type of anger was directed at the inaction and apathy of other people. About 60% of our angry participants were angry at what they saw as a lack of action and concern.
Who was this directed at? Sometimes, it was aimed at leaders: “a lack of action by government.” Or it was directed at regular people who “don’t care and aren’t willing to help change it.” Businesses or entire nations were also targets.
The next most common grievance (about 13%) was at those who deny climate change. For instance, “There are a lot of people who still think that climate change is not happening.”
…
Which types of anger lead to action?
…Interestingly, participants angry about other people’s inaction and apathy had more symptoms of depression and anxiety. But participants angry about government inaction and apathy had fewer of these symptoms.
…
Read more: https://phys.org/news/2024-12-climate-anger-action-curdle-despair.html
The quoted study;
The various forms of anger about climate change in Australia and their relations with self-reported actions, intentions, and distress
Author links open overlay panel
Samantha K. Stanley ab, Zoe Leviston cd, Teaghan L. Hogg e, Iain Walker fca
a UNSW Institute for Climate Risk & Response, University of New South Wales, Australia
b School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Australia
c School of Medicine and Psychology, Australian National University, Australia
d School of Arts and Humanities, Edith Cowan University, Australia
e Discipline of Psychology, University of Canberra, AustraliafMelbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, University of Melbourne, Australia
f Melbourne Centre for Behaviour Change, University of Melbourne, AustraliaReceived 23 July 2023, Revised 16 September 2024, Accepted 20 November 2024, Available online 22 November 2024, Version of Record 19 December 2024.
Handling editor: Wokje Abrahamse
Highlights
- •We investigated what makes Australians angry about climate change.
- •The most prevalent cause of anger was perceived inaction and apathy.
- •Anger categories differently related to behaviour, intentions, distress.
- •Anger about government inaction predicts greater action, lower distress.
Abstract
Action on societal issues is often precipitated by feelings of anger. This has been demonstrated reliably for responses to social inequality, but less for other issues. We build on nascent research documenting the links between climate anger, pro-environmental action, and psychological distress, by focusing on the contents of eco-anger. Using a sample of 5244 Australians, we found that 48.6% reported being at least ‘somewhat’ angry about climate change. Content analyses of the focus of this anger revealed diverse reasons for people’s anger. The most common focus was others’ inaction and apathy on climate change, followed by anger directed at deniers, and at big polluters. Altogether, we identified 13 major categories of anger in our corpus of data. In further exploratory analyses, we examined the correlations between anger forms, self-reported pro-environmental behaviour, collective action intentions, and distress. Our findings suggest that behavioural engagement with climate change could depend, in part, on whypeople are angry.
Read more: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494424002639?via%3Dihub
Assuming the 49% figure is correct, 49% of people angry about climate inaction is an awful lot of anger, and not a lot of action.
There is precious little indication those angry people are personally trying to lead low carbon lifestyles. For example, the percentage of EVs on Aussie roads is nowhere near 49%.
The Green Party vote in Australia in the most recent election was only 12.2%. Australia has compulsory voting, you get fined if you don’t vote and can’t provide a good reason. Only a quarter of those angry people voted for the one party which is utterly committed to climate action at any cost.
Clearly the majority of those angry people have other priorities, whatever anger they feel about climate inaction is less important to them than those other priorities, like hanging on to the gas guzzler, or voting for political parties other than the Green Party, parties which best represent their interests.
It seems odd to me that all this alleged climate anger appears to lead to so little tangible action. Let us hope those angry people have their lives brightened by the company of loved ones on Christmas Day.
Sounds like an example of Mattias Desmet’s Mass Formation Psychosis.
Along with TDS, and budding Elon Derangement Syndrome. I laughed when I read that TDS is a real, recognized psych disorder, even though it’s all around my lib/prog Western state.
I know AWFL’s that were hoping the assassin didn’t miss. I used to kinda like her/them. Most of the time politics never came up but when she said this to my gal friend (her neighbor and that’s how I know her) I have a very difficult time even engaging at all with her any more. She probably is a big fan of LOOGI too. Sick leftists.
Angry white female liberals are a special bunch. It’s so pleasant to have lunch with them and hear all about the first world problems they experience daily.
Trust me, you’re way better off at the golf course getting mad at a little white ball.
Dude,
What is AWFL?
What is LOOGI?
Ta. Geoff S
Lemme see… as a meteorologist going on 40yrs, I have worried about global warming since, um….NEVER!
A significant proportion of Democrats in the U.S. support Luigi assassinating a healthcare CEO due to a tenuous causation that he “killed” people.
A significant proportion of Democrats also believe that “global warming” is an existential threat to all of humanity.
By their “logic”, if it was OK to gun down the CEO, then it is definitely OK to gun down global warming “deniers”.
The inmates are currently running the asylum.
Hence I avoid these creeps like the dangerous plague they are.
These same people believe that health insurance companies have an obligation to pay out on every single claim made. As someone who works with medicaid, I can assure you that the government’s claims processing is at least as strict as any private company’s.
You would be surprised how many claims are fraudulent. Even more would be if the standard was to pay every claim made, without checking.
Yes. I used to to wheelchair repair. The number of denials for parts from Medicaid and Medicare was pretty high.
Have been for some time now.
The part of this which really confuses me, if the health fund of the murdered CEO is being really hard about claims, why not vote with your feet and switch to another health fund? Or start a new health fund?
You don’t murder the head of Walmart because the price of a product is too high, you try another store. Or see if you can get a better price online.
why not vote with your feet and switch to another health fund?
Unfortunately it’s not that easy anymore. Most employers only offer one option, or at most two (rare), so if you want any employer contribution or discount (group rates) you have no choice. Even if you have the option to change, you can’t do it any time, you must do it during “open enrollment” typically around the end of the year – or after a “major life change”
If it’s medicare/medicaid, you have similar limitations.
If you go with something NOT employer-based it’s generally a good bit more expensive for worse coverage. I’m not sure if they have the open enrollment issues the others do but it wouldn’t surprise me.
Plus, your choices are limited. You can only choose from insurance offered in your state. Interstate sales of (medical) insurance isn’t allowed in the US. (As I understand, this is something Trump wants to change)
‘A significant proportion of Democrats in the U.S. support Luigi assassinating a healthcare CEO due to a tenuous causation that he “killed” people.’
Even worse, a significant majority of Americans believe that health care delivery in the US is a prime example of an unfettered free market. In other words, they are clueless. It would be interesting to find out how much a typical American thinks they would pay for groceries if the food sector of the economy was regulated to the same extent as health care.
They also believe that health insurance should pay for everything.
How much do you think car insurance would cost if car insurance paid for every oil change and every new set of wiper blades?
They also believe that health insurance should pay for everything.
The problem is that it’s no longer insurance, despite it being called that – it’s a “health plan”. When I was younger, I just paid cash for regular visits (good luck finding a doctor who will do that), and had actual insurance to cover big problems.
As far as I know, that isn’t something you can find anymore.
Anyone calling for ending fossil fuels or for socialism is tacitly advocating for genocide.
Psychologists and sociologists…
… what they are looking at is the effect of constant propaganda and brain-washing has on scientifically illiterate people.
It is totally meaningless.
“Climate Anger”… seriously !!
I don’t just laugh at them…
… I fart in their general direction !!
I’d lob the holy hand grenade of Antioch…
Be careful how you aim that…. You could end up in court.
If I aim properly, they won’t be in any condition to do that 😉
They can’t insult me – I’ve been insulted by experts.
Water off a duck’s back.
ditto.. taught in high school for 20 years and at Uni for 15 years
Bring it on !! 🙂
Yes, wrt the insults, I’ve heard worse from more sincere people.
In order to be damaged by said ‘insult’, one must first value the opinion of the person.
Life is too short and precious to waste it being angry. Go with the flow. Accept that other people don’t think like you, don’t agree with you, just don’t care about what you care about. All you can do is what you do. Can’t be focused on making others do what you wish they would do.
‘Can’t be focused on making others do what you wish they would do.’
We have no right to coerce others, but we have every right to prevent others from coercing us. If the Left wishes to cease and desist from implementing its dystopian vision of the future, fine, otherwise I’ll stay focused on opposing them.
I have a Climate Alarmist at work who is fully bought in, drives a pure EV, can’t stop talking about the Climate Emergency, turns every conversation into an activisim sermon.
I took great pleasure in his reaction when I told him I just bought a full sized, gas powered truck. He winced and choked up, glaring at me like I’m a child torturer. Stalked off in a huff…
Hysterical.
I can-not-deal with those types. Nope. But I will engage them with inconvenient FACTS on occasion when given the chance.
with inconvenient FACTS
Do you ever get one to listen?
Well done! 🙂 When you meet one of these klimate kooks, rub it in their faces.
Like eating a burger in front of an activist vegan 🙂
Or continuing to use male pronouns for a trans. 🙂
I keep hoping that the social sciences will finally come around and do something constructive. Things aren’t looking good. If they spent half as much time investigating whether what they believe is true as they do investigating people who are angry over false issues we would all be better off. I have no respect for them.
The “social sciences” aren’t sciences at all. Ask them to conduct a controlled experiment. Ask them to follow the scientific method.
Psychology is generally considered a social science. It is however divided into two parts, the clinical and the experimental. At least I think the other side is called experimental psychology. Possibly I misrecall since it has been decades since I had any reason to think about it.
People on this side perform many double blind experiments, more or less constantly. Whether or not their results are very replicable or not, or can reasonably be applied to the conditions outside their labatory, I can’t say but they do try.
“double blind experiments”
Are those the ones where they have both eyes shut, rather than just being one-eyed? 😉
My daughter is in her senior year of psychology studies. I used to think that psychology was a very fuzzy field of study at best. According to my daughter, that was mostly true in the past. However, following her studies the past few years has convinced me that much of psychology (not all) has turned the corner and learned to properly apply the principles of science to studying human behavior. As a former astrophysics major, I was pleased to see her being taught proper scientific procedures.
Not saying everything is fixed, but for the last decade or two the field seems to be moving in the right direction.
“However, following her studies the past few years has convinced me that much of psychology (not all) has turned the corner and learned to properly apply the principles of science to studying human behavior.”
How do you study human behavior when people will outright lie to their therapists?
We assume that many people do at the outset…and gradually establishing trust is the main task initially.
They are actually getting pretty clever about asking additional questions, such as in the pre- and post- questionnaires that can often identify untruths in the key questions. Or adding additional questions to misdirect the subject from knowing what the study is even about. She showed me studies where there were 50 questions in the questionnaire but only 10 were actually used. The rest were misdirection. So they do recognize self-reporting as error-prone and try to take that into account.
Sure there are limitations when you are dealing with humans but most of the stuff I read was genuinely trying to apply the scientific method as correctly as possible.
In her classes, she is being taught about the difficulties of low sample sizes and effects that are hard to measure and how to try to improve those situations. I really do see more actual science being done in psychology than I expected to see, considering my own engineering background.
I’m heartened to hear this, but believe graduate level Ph.D. programs may have succumbed to the libtard drumbeat since I went through decades ago. I do not know ANY other climate-rational clinical psychologists and no longer participate in professional organizations…just too many cow patties to step over. If I was up for it I’d do a study on quality of care and outcomes based on the political orientation of the psychologist.
This report signals to me that the tide has turned.
Yep – 51% can’t be bothered to lie about climate change concern.
Article says:”13 kinds of climate anger”
I wonder if they have my kind of climate anger? I am angry that so much time and money has (and will be) wasted on a none issue. I am angry that so many people LIE about CO2 causing warming. I am angry that people who claim they don’t accept CAGW continue to use the language of the warmists. I am angry that businesses with lots to lose constantly cave in. I am angry at politicians that say ALL energy production forms are good.
There are a couple others, but you get the idea. There are more than 13 kinds.
Just think how angry they are going to be when then find out it really was natural variation well within historic norms. What will really piss them off is that Trump was right.
It looks to me like natural factors are turning to the cold side in the very near future. The Hunga-Tonga effect is wearing off and the AMO is due to turn within 5 years, probably less. This could lead to a cooling of 0.5 – 1.0 C. No reasonable explanation exists other than the science was wrong.
I got one TDS person to agree that certain described practices of Federal bureaucrats were a genuine problem. ‘The system needs to be reformed’ says she. Then I told her about the specific things Trump had done in regard to three specific conditions (which Biden quickly undid). OH NO, says she, those were not acceptable actions. Trump can not do anything good or right.
Anger is the result of fear, which must come first. The fear mongering is what produces anger in the general populace.
Look no further than the people who claim they have “New research that shows….” whatever argument they were trying to make.
It’s the tell that identifies fear mongers.
Oh no. A child may be angry because it is raining and not sunny. No fear involved.
The child fears missing out on fun which causes the anger. Try again.
If I see someone hurting a child, I get pissed. The only fear involved will be on the part of the person doing the hurting.
You fear for the safety of the child which causes the anger. Try again.
“Fear Mr. Christian, fear.
Mark 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
Jesus wasn’t afraid of the crowd or that the man he was about to heal wouldn’t be healed. The verse tells you why he was angry.
The hate is flowing at the Guardian!
Guardian slammed after ‘more than 70 journalists given notice’ on contracts
Guardian and Observer journalist Carole Cadwalladr has revealed her contract is being ended after 19 years
https://apple.news/AxOHM4QV-Rs-V02KLbe8RCg
Oops, no worker’s rights in that organisation….
What !!???? They had 70+ journalists creating that load of tosh.
Incredible and bizarre at the same time.
They’ll just use “AI” now. You won’t be able to tell the difference, apart from fewer typos.
I want only one thing from the lefty woke green climate alarmists including governments and that is exactly how their ideas will actually improve the planet. They cannot and never will be able to answer because climate change is predominantly NOT man made. We are are all suffering a totally unnecessary life of high energy costs and hence the exorbitant cost of everything else.
I get a strong sense they are waiting for the right wing engineers to figure out a solution which doesn’t involve them inconveniencing themselves in any way. Maybe skeptics are being blamed because they haven’t sorted it out yet.
“right wing” engineers know a solution isn’t needed.
A lot of the scientists in the world have been hoodwinked into believing that burning fossil fuels is a significant contributor to global warming. The lack of correlation between CO2 level and average global temperature for the last half-billion years while CO2 level was above about 300 ppmv, and the observation that during previous glaciations, temperature change preceded CO2 change demonstrate that CO2 change is not a significant cause of climate change.
Carbon dioxide has no significant net effect on climate. The recent rapid increase in temperature (especially since about 1960) has been contributed to by the measured increase in water vapor (which is a ‘greenhouse gas’) resulting from the surge in population and irrigation especially since about 1960. The increase in water vapor, has averaged about 1.4 % per decade according to measurements by NASA/RSS using satellite-based instrumentation and can explain all planet warming attributable to humanity. This is further explained at the analysis made public at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
“the measured increase in water vapor (which is a ‘greenhouse gas’)”
should read…
the measured increase in water vapor (which is THE ‘greenhouse gas’)
From your link:”…energy travels from ghg molecule to ghg molecule (or between surface and ghg) at the speed of light (in the atmosphere which is 99.97 % of the speed of light in a vacuum) but effectively dwells in each CO2 molecule for up to about 1.1 second making the molecule warmer.”
Unless the “energy” causes an increase in translation of the molecule it is not “warmer”.
Where are the people angry at alarmism? A suspecious sample for sure.
Let’s all be angry until the climate agrees to do as we tell it. It’s not too much to expect sunshine and summer breezes on weekends, deep skiable snow during every school break, gentle sustained rain but only during planting season and tropical typhoons that only make land fall on the shores of renegade states who compete unfairly with our precious trade.
And for those really peeved about climate inaction I’m having a special this week. Forget the gazillions of dollars of our tax money going to climate correction. I can give you the exact same results for a paltry fee of say $150 per head and I’ll guarantee that my inaction is just as effective as anyone else’s. But wait, there’s more. If you act now, I will also remove all the annoying pixies and gnomes from your back gardens.
“deep skiable snow during every school break,”
Gees, if we get that down here in Australia.. something really kooky has gone wrong with the weather. !! 🙂
Authors: “We investigated what makes Australians angry about climate change.”
Where is the intellectual discipline? What is “climate change”? Options include-
1. Repeatable measurements of variations in selected parameters linked to decades-long changes in wind patterns, ocean circulations, temperatures and compositions of land, sea, air, rates of change of these. In short, variation of the way that our natural surroundings are felt or measured by us.
2. A theme reported frequently in scientific and mass media under the banner “climate change” whether there is acceptable proof or not of the theme. Alarm is a dominant part of the theme.
3. Anything that dedicated non-elected organisations such as iPCC, WMO and WEF choose to describe as climate change.
4. Anything taught in schools as climate change.
5. The normal forces of Nature being observed and labelled as climate change.
6. A Ponzi scheme to move money from the gullible unaware to scheming criminals under invented threats of disaster.
7. Whatever a person chooses to accept as defining climate change.
The authors’ finding that 49% of folk surveyed have climate anger is meaningless. 100% of folk can be angry, depending on which climate change definition is thrown at them.
Geoff S
Gees Geoff….. a simple “balderdash” would have been sufficient . 🙂
Anger at injustice can lead to lead to violence, a common phenomenon with ‘protesters’.
Anger at “perceived” injustice, you mean. !
And these clowns can “perceive” injustice, just because they are given a different coloured pen, or something equally daft.!
And this is their unspoken desire – violence (or even the threat of it) creates power. But the secondary effect which they are forgetting is the backlash against them, as seen in our most recent election. Ultimately use of violence to create political change will fail.
“There is precious little indication those angry people are personally trying to lead low carbon lifestyles. For example, the percentage of EVs on Aussie roads is nowhere near 49%.”
This presumes (ass U me)s that the % of EVs on the roads reduces the production of CO2 and that CO2 concentration DRIVES global temperatures.