Mental health problems induced, in part, by climate change are becoming increasingly common as the world warms, including the number of people experiencing “ecological grief”.
Ecological grief is one of the emotional responses seen in those living with the impacts of climate change-induced extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts or heatwaves.
In addition to crop failures due to extreme weather, individuals can experience ecological grief in response to declining yields and other changes, particularly where this directly impacts their lives and livelihoods.
This is particularly true of those in the global south, who are disproportionately affected by climate change, despite historically contributing less to the problem.
In a recent study of farmers in the Upper West Region of Ghana, I looked at how the grief caused by ecological loss can manifest in multiple ways, including causing mental health and psychosocial problems ranging from emotional distress to anxiety, depression, helplessness, hopelessness and sadness.
This research shows the potential for including ecological grief and other mental health impacts in the strategies of countries – especially those in the global south – looking for ways to adapt to climate change.
What is ecological grief?
As people increasingly live with the impact of climate change, research has tried to identify the impact it has on people’s lives.
For example, people who have been exposed to life-threatening extreme climate events are at a considerable risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder as a result. Symptoms of this include flashbacks of the event, increased reactivity and avoidance of cues to the memory of the event.
In addition to this, several new concepts for climate change-induced distress have been introduced, to describe the long-term emotional consequences of anticipated or actual environmental changes.
Ecological grief refers to the mourning of ecological losses, including loss of species, ecosystems and meaningful landscapes, often shaped by acute or chronic ecological change.
The concept explains grief experienced in response to actual or anticipated losses in the natural world. This mourning of the loss of ecosystems, landscapes, species and ways of life has become a frequent lived experience for people around the world.
In 2018, a study published in Nature provided a conceptual clarification and understanding of climate change-induced ecological grief. It highlighted the implications of climate change-induced ecological loss on the mental health and wellbeing of people, as well as how people respond to ecological change that has both direct and indirect effects on the natural environment.
Ecological grief provides a conceptual understanding of the lived experiences of people who retain close living, working and cultural relationships to the natural environment.
Most of these people depend almost exclusively on the natural environment for livelihood needs, such as smallholder farmers who live in poor communities in the global south.
Research gap
Despite the effects of climate change on people in the global south, there is a dearth of understanding of ecological grief within the context of developing countries.
As such, paying closer attention to climate change-driven ecological grief within the context of developing countries could inform the design of climate change response strategies, decision-making, policies and interventions at the local level.
My current research aims to understand the lived experiences of climate change-induced ecological grief in the Upper West Region, Ghana’s most climate-vulnerable region.
It identifies climate change-induced ecological losses and how farmers in the region emotionally respond to those losses. The work highlights different non-economic experiences of climate change effects, focusing on emotional and mental health dimensions, which remain a relatively unexplored area.
Ecological grief in Ghana
Farmers’ understanding of ecological grief revolves around their emotional response to the loss of their livelihoods. This reaffirms farmers’ strong connection to their environment, on which their livelihoods are predicated.
First, farmers grieve the loss of their crops to extreme climate events, such as floods, droughts, heatwaves and climate-induced pests. The grief associated with the loss of crops has almost become perennial, as these extreme climate events have become more frequent.
In interviews undertaken as part of the research, farmers compared the feeling of losing their crops with the emotional pain of losing a loved one.
Second, farmers grieve the disappearance of their indigenous seeds and genetic resources.
Local seeds have been replaced with drought-resistant seed varieties, which farmers are encouraged to adopt to provide resilience in the face of the increasing impact of climate change.
Interview responses demonstrate that the adoption of the new seeds is causing the loss of farmers’ own seed varieties, which can be freely saved, exchanged and reused yearly. With the adoption of new seed varieties, farmers are losing their genetic resources and the culture associated with it. This is becoming a great source of worry and grief for farmers in the Upper West Region of Ghana, the research shows.
Third, farmers grieve the loss of their traditional ecological knowledge that was passed down to them by previous generations. This knowledge includes their ability to predict weather patterns, know farming seasons, determine soil types, know crop varieties and select seeds, among many other areas.
Without this knowledge system, farmers cannot practice agriculture as they have done in previous generations. The culture, values, norms and beliefs of farmers are tied to their traditional ecological knowledge, which often manifests through practice.
My research suggests that farmers are no longer able to predict weather patterns and farming seasons, an emerging trend that makes them feel as though they have lost their wisdom. This makes them worry.
Another source of grief for farmers is their inability to pass on their traditional ecological knowledge to their children, the research shows. This is because their ecological knowledge is becoming worthless as a result of climate change.
Way forward
My research explored ecological grief, an under-explored area of climate change-induced mental health problems in developing countries.
Indeed, farmers in developing countries are vulnerable to prolonged mental health problems if extreme climate events continue.
Moreover, a lack of alternative livelihoods and access to mental health services greatly increases farmers’ vulnerability to climate change-induced mental health problems.
This is compounded by a social culture that prohibits help-seeking.
Further research within these spaces would enable the design of targeted strategies and the provision of mental health services in rural areas.
The post Guest post: How climate change is causing ‘ecological grief’ for farmers in Ghana appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: How climate change is causing ‘ecological grief’ for farmers in Ghana
Delegates will soon gather in the Turkish resort city of Antalya for UN climate negotiations, against a backdrop of war, energy crisis and climate extremes.
At COP31, nations will try to find agreement on various issues, including climate finance for developing countries and a global “just transition” towards a cleaner economy.
This summit is unusual due to its joint presidency, which means that Australia is leading the negotiations while Turkey hosts the conference.
Outside the formal negotiations, Turkey is also pushing its own priorities as part of a wider “action agenda”, including electrification, oceans and “green industrialisation”.
In order to track parties’ positions on key negotiating points and wider issues at COP31, Carbon Brief has analysed around 100 documents and captured them in the interactive table below.
The first column shows the countries and UN negotiating blocs, the second shows the topics up for debate and the third indicates specific issues within those topics.
The final column indicates the positions that the parties have expressed on each topic. These range from “priority” – meaning the party is likely to be pushing the issue – to “oppose”, meaning it is likely to push against it.
This is a “living document” that will be updated over the course of COP31.
Please get in touch if you would like to offer additions by emailing policy@carbonbrief.org.
Brief explanations of the key issues and jargon-filled language that permeate the talks can be found below the interactive table.
Just transition
At COP30 in Brazil in 2025, nations agreed to establish a practical mechanism to help drive a “just transition” to a low-carbon economy.
Key aspects of this “Belém-Antalya mechanism” (BAM) – often referred to as the “just transition mechanism” (JTM) – were agreed during the June climate negotiations this year, but many details are missing and dividing lines remain between parties.
Parties have disagreed about the scope of the mechanism and whether it should be tied to the provision of finance.
Nevertheless, following progress in June within the “just transition work programme” (JTWP), civil society groups highlighted that getting the mechanism up and running is a “key expected outcome” from COP31.
Climate finance
Climate finance is always a highly contested issue at UN climate negotiations.
Developing countries have successfully pushed for a “work programme” on climate finance to feature on the conference agenda.
These parties see this programme as a way to pressure developed countries into providing more funding from their public coffers, specifically under Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement. Some are even proposing a “burden sharing” arrangement for climate-finance provision.
This comes against a backdrop of major donors cutting their aid budgets and the Trump administration in the US pressuring multilateral development banks (MDBs) to drop their climate objectives.
Developed countries, which have traditionally been responsible for providing finance, would prefer to keep a broader focus on issues such as improving access to existing finance and broadening the range of donors. Some developing countries, such as small-island states, also support these goals.
Nations have also been discussing Article 2.1c of the Paris Agreement under the “Veredas dialogue”. This focuses on making all global “financial flows” consistent with climate action.
Countries have different views about what this involves, with developing countries again hoping to keep the focus on developed countries’ responsibilities to financially support them.
Adaptation and mitigation
At negotiations in June, parties were unable to agree on the details of a “global goal on adaptation” (GGA), which is intended to drive climate adaptation worldwide.
Having agreed at COP30 on a list of 59 “indicators” – ways to assess progress towards the GGA – nations now need to refine these before COP32 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. This is a highly technical process that involves a taskforce working out how to use and track these indicators.
Broadly, developing countries stress the importance of finance to fund adaptation efforts, rather than simply to track progress. They also want reassurances about a pledge made last year to “triple adaptation finance”.
At the June climate negotiations, negotiators also failed to make any progress when discussing the mitigation work programme (MWP) – the only formal agenda item that concerns cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
Among other things, parties disagreed on whether the MWP should continue running over the next few years, or simply be brought to a close.
Global stocktake and NDCs
Back in 2023, the first “global stocktake” (GST) of the Paris Agreement set out the state of climate action and what needed to be done to set the world on course.
On mitigation, nations agreed to a package of measures, including “transitioning away from fossil fuels”, tripling renewable energy and “halting and reversing deforestation” by 2030.
Some of these outcomes remain contentious among certain parties, particularly large, developing countries and those with economies that rely on fossil-fuel exports.
Developing countries have persistently argued that they need more climate finance to implement the global stocktake outcomes.
Parties were meant to update their climate plans under the Paris Agreement, informed by the first global stocktake, by 2025. These plans, known as nationally determined contributions (NDCs), cover the period out to 2035.
So far, only 150 parties – responsible for three-quarters of global emissions – have submitted new NDCs.
Iran, Vietnam, Egypt and Argentina are among those without new NDCs – and the US has withdrawn its climate plan under the Trump administration.
Some parties, such as the EU, have stressed the need for countries to submit their new NDCs ahead of COP31 – and to ensure they are aligned with the 1.5C temperature limit.
COP31 will also see the launch of the second global stocktake, which will conclude in 2028.
Action agenda and other issues
Turkey will be pushing its “action agenda” priorities at COP31, including global targets for electrification, reducing waste and reducing building-sector emissions.
(The Australian “presidency of negotiations” is intending to pursue a “cover text” decision at COP31 that may capture some of these wider targets, such as the electrification goal.)
The action agenda is meant to provide a complementary track to the formal negotiations, where governments and non-state actors can advance specific, real-world solutions.
A new COP31 presidency effort dubbed the “climate implementation bridge” is also meant to complement these ambitions by turning NDC goals into an “investable project portfolio”
Some parties have explicitly signalled their support for various elements beyond the formal negotiations, in the run-up to COP31.
For example, a joint letter signed by 105 parties called for COP31 to “put the ocean at the heart of climate action” by embedding ocean-based climate action in the UNFCCC architecture.
The post Interactive: Who wants what at the COP31 climate change summit appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Interactive: Who wants what at the COP31 climate change summit
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
