Highlights psychologists' ethical responsibility and potential contributions to climate action through collective engagement.
The climate crisis is a public and mental health emergency and amplified risk for those who are already vulnerable with significant implications for population-level quality of life and human rights. The relevance and urgency of the climate crisis is reflected in numerous “calls to action” from psychologists, health professionals, scientists, academics, and others to prioritize professional engagement with this issue. Such engagement is highly consistent with professional ethical codes and psychologists are uniquely positioned to contribute to mitigation and adaptation efforts due to their content expertise, professional training, research practice and networks affording them positions of influence. The present paper highlights three broad issues. First, it positions psychologists' involvement as an ethical and professional responsibility. The ethics codes and position papers of a number of psychology organizations are reviewed. Second, the paper discusses potential contributions of psychological science to collective and individual action as well as expertise in different areas of practice (clinical, educational, health, organizational, community, conservation, research). Last, practical ways in which any psychologist (student or qualified) in various roles (e.g., clinician, researcher, employee), in different arenas (work, community), utilizing different strategies (e.g., individual and collective advocacy/action) are identified. The paper emphasizes the importance of collective action to enact systems change. We argue that across their numerous roles and subdisciplines, psychologists not just can but should support necessary mitigation and adaptation efforts, empowering themselves and colleagues to mobilize and address the most pressing and impactful societal issue of our time.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Houlding et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: