Climate science isn't giving your kid anxiety

Trump's newest argument for defunding climate science is that it's giving kids anxiety. But that's not really why kids are upset.

The Trump administration has a new argument for cutting climate change research and education funding: They’re just trying to protect kids from emotional harm.

It’s an argument I never expected to hear from Trump, who has historically been happy to gut climate research without giving any reason at all. (He’s also not exactly known for being sensitive to people’s feelings). But last week, the administration said it would stop funding a $4 million climate research and education effort at Princeton University, because it was increasing “climate anxiety” among children.

Specifically, the Trump administration announced funding cuts for the Cooperative Institute for Modeling the Earth System (CIMES), which focuses on improving computer models that show precisely how the climate is changing. In a statement, the administration said:

This cooperative agreement promotes exaggerated and implausible climate threats, contributing to a phenomenon known as “climate anxiety,” which has increased significantly among America’s youth. Its focus on alarming climate scenarios fosters fear rather than rational, balanced discussion.

If I were a busy parent who didn’t know a ton about climate science, this might sound reasonable to me. I wouldn’t want my taxes funding the creation of implausible doomsday scenarios that might unnecessarily send my kids into a unending pit of despair.

But because I’m a childless cat lady whose literal only job is to fact-check politicians about climate change, I want to assure concerned parents of two things:

1. Princeton’s climate research is neither exaggerated nor implausible. The Trump administration has presented no actual evidence that Princeton’s models are flawed. None exists as far as I can tell. But it’s a good reminder: Just because something is scary doesn’t mean it’s exaggerated or implausible.

2. Even if Princeton’s research were exaggerated and implausible, it wouldn’t be causing mental health problems in children. Because the mere existence of scary climate scenarios is not what’s causing chronic climate-related emotional distress in young people. People in power not doing anything about climate change is what’s causing that distress.
   

In reporting this story, I read as many peer-reviewed papers on climate anxiety and mental distress as I could find. I also spoke to the lead author of the most-cited peer-reviewed survey of climate anxiety in kids and young people, psychotherapist and University of Bath researcher Caroline Hickman.

Here’s what I found: The Trump administration is correct that climate anxiety has increased significantly in youth—not just in America, but around the world. A groundbreaking global survey of 10,000 people aged 16 to 25 published in The Lancet in 2021 found that nearly nearly half reported feeling distressed or anxious about climate change in a way that was affecting their daily lives and functioning. And just two months ago, another survey was released of 639 children aged 6 to 12, which found that 78 percent were worried about climate change.

But contrary to what the Trump administration claims, climate anxiety isn’t caused by scientists working to understand and communicate the problem. It’s caused by government inaction on climate change, which has made kids feel like nothing will ever be done to stop it. “They’ve cherry-picked from the research to say that children are anxious,” Hickman said. “Yes, they’re anxious. But they’re ignoring the cause of that anxiety, which is the failure of governments to act.”

According to Hickman’s survey in The Lancet, 58 percent of children and young people surveyed about their climate anxiety said governments were “betraying me and/or future generations.” Sixty-four percent said they were anxious because governments were not doing enough to avoid a climate catastrophe.

It should be noted that psychologists don’t even technically characterize climate anxiety as a mental disorder, because it’s a totally understandable and proportional reaction to climate inaction. “Climate anxiety and distress is a healthy response to what’s going on in the world,” Hickman said. Some researchers have even described climate anxiety as an adaptive behavior—or put another way, a biologically helpful coping mechanism—because people who have it tend to soothe it by engaging in activism, or another form of collective action to drive change.

Still, psychologists increasingly argue that some forms of climate anxiety should be treated as a mental health problem, because it can represent a profound source of suffering for some people. So how should it be treated? The most effective way to would be for governments worldwide to implement effective climate policies, Hickman said. ”If we were taking action on climate change, it would remove the anxiety.”

In absence of government action, however, scientists are still trying to figure out the best way to tackle the problem. A systemic review of intervention strategies published in 2021 said randomized control trials still needed to be conducted to figure out which strategy is the most helpful.

However, researchers are pretty confident about what doesn’t work to treat anxiety about catastrophic climate change: pretending catastrophic climate change doesn’t exist. “If you look at any research in mental health with regard to children, the only thing you don’t do is stop talking about the thing that’s frightening children,” Hickman said. “It’s the worst possible thing you could do.”

And yet, the Trump administration is hell-bent on doing the worst thing one could possibly do for children’s mental health when it comes to climate change: Absolutely nothing about climate change. That’s evident not just from the cuts to Princeton, but to climate science and climate action across federal and state government. In addition, Republican-led states are passing more and more laws criminalizing peaceful protest, limiting young people’s ability to engage in the one thing that’s actually been shown to ease some of their emotional distress.

Indeed, when it comes to children, the true intent of Trump’s climate policies is clear. He’s not trying to prevent kids from becoming climate-anxious. He’s trying to prevent kids from becoming climate activists. After all, one of the biggest threats to the fossil fuel industry’s future is litigation against fossil fuel companies—and the majority of successful cases have been led by children and young people, who are arguing that polluters are violating their human rights and jeopardizing their futures. It’s in this way that youth-led activism may represent one of the greatest threats to future fossil fuel industry profits.

That Trump would prioritize fossil fuel industry profits over preserving a livable planet is no surprise. But what’s so notable and so dangerous about this latest iteration is the argument he’s now using to do it. Under the guise of protecting children, Trump is proposing doing the worst possible thing for children’s future physical and mental health. The disinformation potential is off the charts. Democrats, activists, and journalists alike must work quickly to get in front of it.

---

Other stories I’m following:

• Judge orders Tump must unfreeze billions in climate funding. From the Washington Post:

  Five government agencies must release billions of dollars in funding for climate and infrastructure-related projects that had been paused by the Trump administration, a federal judge ruled Tuesday. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy, a Trump appointee, issued a temporary injunction that instructs the administration to release the funds while the lawsuit proceeds. The injunction applies nationwide.

• More women view climate change as their number one political issue. From the 19th:

  A new report from the Environmental Voter Project (EVP), shared first with The 19th, finds that far more women than men are listing climate and environmental issues as their top priority in voting. The nonpartisan nonprofit, which focuses on tailoring get out the vote efforts to low-propensity voters who they’ve identified as likely to list climate and environmental issues as a top priority, found that women far outpace men on the issue. Overall 62 percent of these so-called climate voters are women, compared to 37 percent of men. The gender gap is largest among young people, Black and Indigenous voters.

• The bees are disappearing again. From the New York Times:

  Annual loss rates have been increasing among all beekeepers over the last decade with the most significant colony collapses in commercial operations happening during the last five years. And now, compounding the troubles for the bee industry are recent federal cuts proposed by the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency to the Department of Agriculture, where researchers were studying ways to protect the nation’s honeybees.

• Republicans asked for an offshore wind exposé. They got a letdown instead. From Heatmap:

  A group of Republican lawmakers were hoping a new report released Monday would give them fresh ammunition in their fight against offshore wind development. Instead, they got … pretty much nothing. …

  
  As for whales, [the report] basically shrugs. “NOAA Fisheries does not anticipate any death or serious injury to whales from offshore wind related actions and has not recorded marine mammal deaths from offshore wind activities,” it says.

---

Catch of the Day: Reader Meaghan has informed me that Lulu, pictured below, is running for president. Her platform mostly surrounds giving fossil fuel lobbyists the side-eye.

Want to see your furry (or non-furry!) friend in HEATED? It might take a little while, but we WILL get to yours eventually! Just send a picture and some words to catchoftheday@heated.world.