Using Ecopsychology to Untangle the Emotional Roots of Inaction

I’ve been thinking a lot about COP29. These conferences were created to provide a space for global leaders to convene and discuss how we can move forward together to combat climate change. Treaties like the Paris Agreement came about to be a legally binding way to keep everyone accountable, but much like we’ve discussed, there’s no penalty besides “naming and shaming” those who are not living up to their pledges. We can see this now as the US remains absent at COP this year and the only pledges our president-elect has made is to refrain from climate action. 

This is something that comes up a lot for me–when it comes to climate change, why is it so easy for others to act, and even easier for others to deny or be skeptical?

I’m sure a lot of us have experienced at least once in our lives that feeling of helplessness when it comes to climate change. We understand the science and know it’s important to act. But sometimes it feels hopeless, especially when world leaders are actively saying they don’t believe in climate change and will roll back policies that will help incentivize change.

I think some of us experience a collective shame that can spur us to action. Shame can transcend the individual level, becoming collective when it’s tied to a shared social identity. 

Ecopsychology emphasizes that humans exist within interconnected natural and social ecosystems. It challenges the dominant worldview of humanity as separate from or superior to nature, which underpins much of the denial and inaction surrounding climate change. Ecopsychology also proposes reframing social identities to include nature and promote interdependence, shifting the focus from individualism to collective well-being. Recognizing shared humanity and ecological interconnectedness can help alleviate shame and motivate collective action. 

I know most of my audience understands this idea. We can affirm our shared group values and acknowledge our contributions without vilifying anyone. Our collective action gives us the power to mitigate climate change and elevate the visceral threat through storytelling and lived experiences, making the crisis more tangible for us. 

What we’re seeing with world leaders like Donald Trump, who is an avid denier of climate change solely based on the reasoning that we still have winters, is climate denial as an emotional and ideological defense. They fall under groups that face collective shame for their role in climate harm. It’s easier to adopt strategies that minimize responsibility (“it’s not that bad”), system justification (“our economy depends on this”), blame shifting (“other countries pollute more”), and othering (assigning responsibility to stereotyped groups [environmentalist vs working-class Americans]). 

No group is a monolith nor is denial limited just to conservatives, nor are conservatives limited to this denial. However, studies do show higher instances of denial or justification of environmental harm among groups with strong “American” identities–nationalism, individualism, system justification, free-market ideologies, etc. Arguably, environmentalist ideals threaten this social identity leading to conservatives mobilizing around a belief they have been shamed and stigmatized by a secular, liberal “elite”. This can create a sense of perceived cultural displacement that intensifies a sense of embattlement. And as younger generations move away from traditional conservative values or norms, this can perpetuate the threat to their identity. By framing climate action as a secular-liberal agenda, this denial becomes a machine deepens the divide between "environmentalists" and "patriots." Environmentalism becomes a marker of elitism, while denial becomes a badge of loyalty to traditional values and resistance to cultural displacement.

As an aside, I want to make it clear that you can be a conservative and still believe in climate science. These things are not mutually exclusive. 

Trump’s rhetoric has frequently dismissed climate science while championing industries like oil and gas as central to rural economies. He claims decarbonizing this industry will lead to a loss of jobs and livelihoods, without acknowledging that since the IRA was signed into law, clean energy projects have created more than 330,000 jobs in nearly every state in the country. 

There are many pathways we can take when engaging with climate denial groups. As much as they are not trying to understand our perspectives, we can be magnanimous and try to understand their economic, cultural, and ideological stakes. We can advocate for policy that accounts for the real fears of economic collapse and social exclusion, offering solutions that preserve dignity and identity on both sides. 

It’s time to reframe the narrative. This is not individual sacrifice but rather collective opportunity. We can bridge the gap between polar opposite identities by finding shared values that resonate across divides. A few examples of this include:

• Appeal to shared values - frame climate action as an act of patriotism, community resilience, stewardship, and protecting future generations.

• Offer inclusive solutions - this is an opportunity to revitalize industries, strengthen communities, and foster innovation. These changes are pathways to economic security and social dignity. 

• Build bridges across identities - create narratives that unite not divide. Demonstrate that climate action aligns with their identity and values rather than threatens them.

• Empower action over shame - focus on what people can do rather than emphasizing guilt for past inaction. Empower stories that celebrate collective success.

We need to tell better stories about sustainability. Our collective action to reach net zero still involves those who would deny its importance.