The Planet Is Warming. And It's Okay to Be Afraid

Last Week, David Wallace-Wells wrote a cover story for of New York Magazine, "The Uninhabitable Earth," on some of the worst-case scenarios that the climate crisis could cause by the end of this century.  It describes killer heat waves, crippling agricultural failures, devastated economies, plagues, resource wars, and more.  It has been read more than two million times.

The article has caused a major controversy in the climate community, in part because of some factual errors in the piece—though by and large the piece is an accurate portrayal of worst-case climate catastrophe scenarios.  But by far the most significant criticism the piece received was that it was too frightening.

"Importantly, fear does not motivate, and appealing to it is often counter-productive as it tends to distance people from the problem, leading them to disengage, doubt and even dismiss it," wrote  Michael Mann, Susan Joy Hassol, and Tom Toles at the Washington Post.

Erich Holthaus tweeted about the consequences of the piece:

"A widely-read piece like this that is not suitably grounded in fact may provoke unnecessary panic and anxiety among readers."

"And that has real-world consequences.  My twitter feed has been filled w people who, after reading DWW's piece, have felt deep anxiety."

"There are people who say they are now considering not having kids, partly because of this.  People are losing sleep, reevaluating their lives."

While I think both Mann and Holthaus are brilliant scientists who identified some factual problems in the article, I strongly disagree with their statements about the role of emotions—namely, fear—in climate communications and politics.  I am also skeptical of whether climate scientists should be treated as national arbiters of psychological or political questions, in general.  I would like to offer my thoughts as a clinical psychologist, and as the founder and director of The Climate Mobilization.

Affect tolerance—the ability to tolerate a wide range of feelings in oneself and others—is a critical psychological skill. On the other hand, affect phobia—the fear of certain feelings in oneself or others—is a major psychological problem, as it causes people to rely heavily on psychological defenses.

Much of the climate movement seems to suffer from affect phobia, which is probably not surprising given that scientific culture aspires to be purely rational, free of emotional influence. Further, the feelings involved in processing the climate crisis—fear, grief, anger, guilt, and helplessness—can be overwhelming.  But that doesn’t mean we should try to avoid "making" people feel such things.  Experiencing them is a normal, healthy, necessary part of coming to terms with the climate crisis.  I agree with David Roberts that it is OK, indeed imperative, to tell the whole, frightening story.  As I argued in a 2015 essay, The Transformative Power of Climate Truth, it's the job of those of us trying to protect humanity and restore a safe climate to tell the truth about the climate crisis and help people process and channel their own feelings—not to preemptively try to manage and constrain those feelings.

Read more at The Planet Is Warming.  And It's Okay to Be Afraid