Qualitative research on climate action reveals psycho-social hurdles in Canada, highlighting emotional impacts.
Climate change generates considerable uncertainty about impacts, vulnerability, and broad‐scale change to society. While scientific consensus is well established, social consensus—on what the issues are, what it means for nations, communities, and every life, and what we ought to do about it as a society and civilization—is harder to achieve. This “human” layer of the climate challenge is crucial yet seldom sufficiently integrated into climate action. Publics can struggle to connect their climate concern with support for climate action, while others exhibit fear, resistance, forms of denial, and pushback against climate policies. This occurs against a cultural backdrop of increasing polarization, particularly in pluralistic liberal democracies like Canada. This paper presents qualitative research in the Canadian context in which climate actors across sectors examined the current sensemaking challenges regarding climate change. Sensemaking refers to how people mentally, emotionally, cognitively, and socially construct an understanding of the world. Respondents discussed key psycho‐social and sensemaking challenges regarding climate action, many of which pertain to the emotions provoked around perceptions of a ‘just transition,’ such as feeling left behind by unfair distribution of benefits from climate action investments and feeling frustration, lack of autonomy, and loss of agency regarding changes in identity and livelihoods due to climate action. The paper submits that a better understanding of these psycho‐social and sensemaking challenges—specifically, those involving affect, emotions, worldviews, and identity—could help generate agency, uptake, and social support of climate practices and policies, as well as lessen the divides between anti‐ and pro‐climate action views.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hochachka et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: