Chapter 1. Introduction

Effective climate communication is now recognized as an essential component of good public governance. As climate change accelerates, governments must convey its realities to citizens in ways that are responsible, scientifically grounded, and empathetic. Why is this so critical? For one, public trust hinges on transparency and accuracy. Citizens look to government for guidance during climate emergencies and for honest information about long-term risks. If communications are misleading or overly alarmist, trust can erode – yet if they downplay scientific facts, the public may be unprepared for what lies ahead. Striking this balance is a core duty of governance (1). Responsible, evidence-based communication helps communities understand both the challenges and the solutions related to climate change, from reducing emissions to preparing for impacts.

In short, how governments talk about climate change can either mobilize collective action or deepen confusion and despair.

High-quality information delivered with clarity and care empowers people to engage in climate solutions, comply with safety guidance, and support necessary policies. In contrast, poor communication – whether through spreading unwarranted panic or false reassurance – not only hinders effective climate action but can also harm public morale and mental well-being. Thus, a strategic approach grounded in scientific evidence and tailored to community contexts isn’t just preferable – it’s imperative (1).

Equally important is the tone and framing of climate messages. Research and practice have shown that communications which solely emphasize dire warnings can backfire, leading to paralysis or cynicism, whereas those that pair realism with hope and agency are more likely to inspire constructive responses. For example, public health experts in Canada have observed that the “distressing diagnosis” of climate change – essentially, the constant stream of bad news – can itself become a source of public anxiety (2). One expert noted that if we “preach so much doom and gloom” about the climate crisis, people (especially youth) may become overwhelmed or lose hope (2). Responsible governance means acknowledging these psychological dynamics. It means communicating urgency without hysteria, and progress without complacency. By providing factual information alongside clear steps people can take, governments can avoid inducing a sense of helplessness. In summary, effective climate communication in governance must be grounded in science, but also attuned to human emotions – a theme that will be explored throughout this chapter.

The Dual Challenge: Climate Change and Mental Health Impacts

Climate change poses a dual challenge to governments: addressing the physical scientific reality of a changing climate, and addressing the growing mental health impacts associated with it. Traditionally, climate change was viewed through environmental and economic lenses – rising seas, wildfire damage, agricultural losses, infrastructure costs, and so on. Today, we understand that it is also a profound psychological and mental health challenge (1). This means that governments must respond not only with policies for emissions reduction and climate adaptation, but also with support and communication strategies that mitigate trauma, anxiety, and chronic stress among the population.

On the one hand, the scientific realities demand action: more frequent extreme weather events (floods, heatwaves, hurricanes, wildfires) are already testing our emergency management and infrastructure. On the other hand, these events – and even the anticipation of future crises – are taking a toll on mental health. Consider the immediate trauma of a disaster: losing one’s home in a wildfire or being evacuated from a flood is often a traumatic experience that can lead to acute stress or longer-term conditions like post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). At the same time, the slower, pervasive changes (melting permafrost, shifting seasons, ecological degradation) and the overarching existential threat of climate change contribute to chronic psychological stressors. People may experience persistent anxiety about the future, grief over environmental losses, or a sense of dread and powerlessness when confronted with ominous scientific reports. Indeed, awareness of climate change’s magnitude can itself provoke distress – an effect noted by health professionals who say we must “acknowledge the emotional impact of the data” when we communicate climate science (2).

Emerging Evidence of Climate-Induced Distress

In recent years, a growing body of scientific evidence has documented these mental health impacts of climate change. Terms like eco-anxiety, climate grief, and solastalgia have entered public discourse, capturing different facets of climate-related distress. Eco-anxiety (or climate anxiety) refers to the chronic fear of environmental doom – a sense of worry or anxiety triggered by awareness of the threats of climate change (3). Solastalgia, a term coined by philosopher Glenn Albrecht, describes the distress caused by environmental change affecting one’s home – essentially, feeling homesick while still at home as the familiar environment is irreversibly altered (3). These responses have been called “psychoterratic syndromes” in the literature, meaning psychological reactions to earth changes; importantly, they are not necessarily pathological disorders, but natural human responses to a profound global threat (3). Nevertheless, they can be severe and debilitating for many individuals.

Surveys confirm that climate-related emotional distress is widespread. A recent national survey of young people in Canada found that a majority felt strong negative emotions about climate change – at least 56% reported feeling afraid, sad, anxious, and powerless when thinking about the climate future (4, 5). Similar international studies echo these findings, with many youths reporting a sense of betrayal and anger at governments for not doing enough. For example, in one global survey of youth, 65% agreed with the statement “Governments are failing young people” on climate action (6). These feelings, often termed eco-anxiety or climate grief, are especially common among young people, but by no means limited to them. Frontline communities – those who directly witness environmental destruction – also report deep grief and trauma. For instance, survivors of catastrophic wildfires or hurricanes may experience classic PTSD symptoms, while also mourning the loss of treasured places and ways of life. Even climate scientists and park rangers, who confront ecological damage in their work, have been found to experience eco-anxiety and burnout (3).

Crucially, climate-related mental health impacts are not distributed evenly. They intersect with social vulnerability and issues of climate justice. Populations already facing social and economic inequities tend to be hit harder by both the physical and psychological strains of climate change (3). In Canada, specific groups are disproportionately affected, including Indigenous peoples, rural and remote communities, low-income families, the elderly, people with disabilities, and those with pre-existing mental health conditions (3). Often, these communities have fewer resources to adapt or evacuate, and they may endure multiple stressors at once – for example, an Indigenous community might face the combined impact of a climate disaster and the weight of intergenerational trauma from colonialism. The concept of climate injustice recognizes that those who contributed least to climate change (such as marginalized communities and developing nations) often suffer its worst consequences. Psychologically, this adds layers of anger and moral distress on top of physical danger. A farmer who loses crops to drought may feel despair and economic anxiety, but if that farmer also belongs to a historically disadvantaged group, the event can reinforce a sense of injustice and hopelessness about the future.

Given this emerging evidence, it’s clear that governments must view climate change not only as an environmental or economic problem, but also as a mental health and equity issue. A warming planet is amplifying emotional strains and trauma risk for many citizens (3). Ignoring this reality can leave governments “wholly unprepared” – as some public health leaders warn – to support the well-being of their people (2). Thus, the dual challenge for government is to tackle both the external crisis (through mitigation and adaptation policies) and the internal crisis of fear, trauma, and stress that climate change ignites.

Evolving Government Roles and Responsibilities

How are government roles evolving in response to this dual challenge? Simply put, governments are expanding their toolkit beyond traditional policy measures – they are learning to communicate in ways that are psychologically aware, trauma-informed, and culturally sensitive. This evolution is driven by necessity. As climate impacts mount, public officials find themselves not only implementing climate policies (like building seawalls or setting emissions targets) but also consoling communities, addressing public anxiety, and helping people build emotional resilience. Climate change is testing government in new ways that blur the line between environmental policy and public health stewardship.

One aspect of this evolving role is the integration of mental health considerations into climate responses. Around the world, health authorities and governments are beginning to acknowledge that mental well-being must be part of climate adaptation plans. The World Health Organization, for example, has called on governments globally to integrate mental health support into climate action, noting that climate change “exacerbates many social, environmental and economic risk factors for problems in mental health” (7). In 2022, the WHO released a policy brief with recommendations such as developing community-based mental health services for climate-impacted areas and training health workers in psychological first aid for climate disasters (7). This kind of high-level guidance underscores that mental health is now firmly on the climate agenda. We see this trend in Canada as well. The federal Health of Canadians in a Changing Climate assessment (2022) included, for the first time, a dedicated chapter on Mental Health and Well-Being, and concluded that climate change is likely to increase the overall burden of mental illness in Canada (3). It urged that mental health “ought to become a government priority” in climate policy development (2). Such statements are shifting norms: where it was once rare for environment ministries or city planners to talk about emotions or trauma, it’s increasingly accepted that public communication about climate change must address how people feel, not just what people must do.

In practice, governments are finding innovative ways to fulfill this expanded role. Some are partnering with mental health professionals to shape outreach campaigns. Others are embedding social equity and cultural understanding into their communications, so that messages resonate with diverse communities. For example, after the devastating 2019–2020 bushfires in Australia, the government not only funded counseling services for those affected, but also coordinated clear public messaging around mental health support (8). They provided emergency hotlines, free therapy sessions, and communication guidelines emphasizing community solidarity and hope during recovery. This response recognized that official statements and resources after a disaster need to help people feel safe and supported, not just rebuild infrastructure. In Canada, public health agencies have begun to host webinars and publish guides on coping with eco-anxiety, signaling that it’s normal to feel distress about climate change and encouraging proactive coping strategies. Even at the municipal level, some city governments are working with youth councils or Indigenous leaders to ensure climate plans are communicated in ways that honor local values and histories – for instance, using storytelling and dialogue circles rather than top-down announcements.

A key part of this evolving role is culturally sensitive communication. Different communities experience climate change differently, and a one-size message does not fit all. Indigenous peoples in Canada, for instance, have a unique relationship with the land and a history of trauma from colonization. Climate communication with Indigenous communities is most effective when it respects traditional knowledge, acknowledges historical injustices, and invites Indigenous voices to lead. An illustrative example is the work of the First Nations Health Authority (FNHA) in British Columbia, which launched an Indigenous Climate Health Action Program (9). This program supports First Nations in developing climate health strategies that weave together scientific information, community values, and mental wellness. When FNHA communicates about climate hazards (like extreme heat or water shortages), they do so in a way that also speaks to cultural resilience – reminding communities of the strength drawn from elders, language, and the land itself. Similarly, communications are adapted for other equity-seeking groups: for newcomers and immigrants, messaging might connect climate action with community inclusion and emphasize resources in multiple languages; for northern remote towns, outreach might involve local radio and trusted community champions to discuss not just weather changes but also coping with uncertainty.