Apologies in advance, but I’m hoping that reading this will help you feel depressed—about biodiversity loss and our lack of progress over the climate crisis. The thing is, in these extreme circumstances, a bit of depression about the environment could be precisely what we need—it’s the only sane response. That humans are having an unsustainable impact on Earth may have a become a familiar message—but it is still a difficult message to hear. It presents us with a complex challenge given our reluctance to face change. Environmental campaigner Gus Speth once said he used to think the biggest problems facing the planet were biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate change. He believed that within 30 years, good science could address these problems. But, he continued: “I was wrong. The top environmental problems are selfishness, greed and apathy, and to deal with those we need a spiritual and cultural transformation. And we scientists don’t know how to do that.” So who does know how to do that? Politicians? Economists? The problem with their solutions is the same problem that scientists face—they assume rational action from reasonable humans. But humans can be largely irrational. When it comes to the environment, we often function like well-meaning addicts, earnestly promising to quit polluting the seas, poisoning the air, exploiting the natural world—and then continuing to do exactly that.
So if we continue to look outwards for practical solutions, we will continue to fail. We also need to look inwards, at ourselves. And this is the job of psychotherapy—providing the emotional and relational maps to take us from catastrophe to transformation. As a member of the Climate Psychology Alliance (a group of academics, therapists, writers and artists) I believe that psychological understanding can help with the wide range of complex individual and cultural responses to the environmental crisis. Feelings such as anger, guilt, grief, terror, shame, anxiety, despair and helplessness are all appropriate reactions. But defenses against these feelings—denial and disavowal – mean we have avoided taking the necessary action to address their cause. “Climate psychology” is a different kind of psychology. Rather than see these feelings as something to be “fixed” or “cured,” we see them as healthy understandable responses—human reactions that empathize directly with the planet. There is also value in understanding how grief, loss and mourning can shape our responses to climate change. For if we block out our emotions, then we are unable to connect with the urgency of the crisis—which may be one reason why we have so far failed to act sufficiently quickly. To view the full article visit Phys.org.