Published

1 year ago

July 19, 2024

Alice Rush

In recent years, discussions around the impact of climate change on mental health have tended to focus on climate anxiety.

This distress regarding the future of the Earth and humanity in the face of global warming is, however, far from the full picture.

Research is helping to build a better understanding of the damage that climate change, particularly extreme heat, can cause to mental health.

The latest assessment report on climate impacts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded with very high confidence that rising global temperatures have “adversely affected” mental health in regions around the world.

Research indicates that heatwaves can trigger increases in both the hospitalisation of people with mental-health challenges and emergency psychiatric visits. People with pre-existing mental-health problems also have an increased risk of dying during periods of high temperatures.

In addition, suicide rates have been shown to increase in higher temperatures and are expected to rise in a warmer world – although the links with climate change are complex and compounded by other factors.

Despite these research findings, significant gaps remain in understanding the biological, psychological, social and environmental interactions between mental health and heat.

And policymakers have a huge amount of ground to make up, with mental health barely featuring in climate-related policies and commitments around the world.

How heat can affect mental health

Being in the midst of a heatwave can feel all encompassing. Generally, being hot and uncomfortable can affect a person’s mood, leading some to feel more irritable and stressed. This can have a knock-on effect on behaviour. For example, research shows that people are more likely to tweet negative comments during a heatwave.

Extreme heat can have even more significant implications for sleep. Research shows that warming nights are eroding human sleep globally – and the effect is three times larger for residents of lower-income countries.

While lost sleep in hot and humid conditions is unpleasant for anyone, for those with mental health problems, poor sleep carries a real risk of making them worse.

Nonetheless, not all heat is bad for mental health. Many people believe that they are happier on sunny days and some research agrees.

For example, a 2023 study in Switzerland found that, in the general population, mood tends to improve as temperatures get warmer. However, the study also found that the opposite is true for people with anxiety, depression and psychosis, who were more likely to experience low mood.

Impacts of extreme heat

The impact of extreme heat on an individual’s mood has implications for social behaviours and interactions.

There is a growing body of research linking extreme heat with an increase in violent behaviour, such as homicides, sexual violence and assaults, which – in turn – can negatively impact mental health.

For example, a study conducted in India, Nepal and Pakistan found that with each 1C increase in the annual temperature there was a 4.5% increase in violent acts. This finding alone is an indicator that heat affects a person’s psychology, but there are so many other factors that need to be considered.

There are other possible social drivers that may explain this link. People living with pre-existing mental-health problems may be more vulnerable to the impact of extreme heat due to societal factors that put them at increased risk.

Due to the relationship between mental-health problems and poverty, people living with mental-health conditions may be more likely to live in less energy-efficient housing, have less access to adaptation mechanisms such as air conditioning, be more socially isolated, or work in occupations that increase their exposure to extreme heat.

Finally, certain medications for mental-health problems – such as some antidepressants or antipsychotics – may disrupt the body’s ability to regulate temperature, meaning that people taking these medications may be more vulnerable in high temperatures. This may explain why people taking these medications have been found to be at higher risk of being hospitalised or dying during heatwaves.

One patient in the UK taking antipsychotics – medication for mental-health problems where symptoms include psychotic experiences – was quoted last year in the BMJ explaining how they were affected by extreme heat. They said:

“[F]or many summers I had also noticed that I struggled to tolerate the heat as the UK weather grew more extreme. I would sweat profusely, my skin would feel clammy, and I would feel very tired, irritable and would struggle to think…I had no idea this was related to my medication.”

Prescribing appropriate medications for certain mental-health conditions and ensuring people taking them are protected from the potential negative impacts of heat represents an important clinical and policy priority.

Research gaps

To date, most studies on climate change and mental health have been conducted in Europe, North America and Australia. This means that there are huge gaps in research for the global south, which is facing some of the most severe impacts of climate change.

A new project called Connecting Climate Minds, which Wellcome funds, aims to develop a research and action agenda on climate change and mental health. As part of this project, 900 people shared their experiences on the impact that climate change is having on mental health around the world.

One of them is Laila, a teacher working in Jordan. She has been suffering from stress, anxiety and depression. At its worst, she confesses that she struggles to teach and finds communicating with the children very difficult.

Over the past few years, these episodes have become more frequent and severe. Her psychologist noticed that Laila’s mental health seemed to worsen during the country’s extreme heatwaves – something that is becoming more and more common in the region.

Watch her interview in full below.

Wellcome is also set to launch a funding call later this year focusing on uncovering the mechanisms underpinning the association between heat and mental health among the most affected communities worldwide.

The aim is to help build global understanding of the biological, psychological, environmental and social links around extreme heat, which will in turn inform better climate resilient solutions and mental health interventions.

Policymaking lagging behind

As with research, there are gaps in policymaking on mental health and climate change.

Most countries do not currently consider mental health within climate change policies, such as heat action plans. At present, only 3% of the climate pledges submitted by national governments under the Paris Agreement mention mental health.

South Australia is among the few states already doing this. The South Australian warning system incorporates public heat warnings, health advisories and targeted support for at-risk groups including those with mental-health conditions, ensuring that they can access help if needed. In Athens, a city exposed to more frequent and severe heatwaves, psychologists are being deployed to support older adults experiencing loneliness in the heat.

Nature-based policies that improve access to green and blue spaces and transport policies that encourage active modes of transport have also been shown to have co benefits for mental health and the environment.

However, for now, climate change represents one of the biggest threats to physical and mental health globally. Extreme heat is deadlier than hurricanes, floods and tornadoes combined. Heat stress can exacerbate underlying illnesses – such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, asthma – and can increase the risk of accidents and transmission of some infectious diseases. And this is not considering the huge hidden cost of increasing cases of poor mental health.

Research on how climate change is impacting mental health remains limited and disconnected. A better understanding of how and why extreme heat is negatively impacting mental health will be essential to achieve a world where no one is held back by mental health problems, even in the context of a changing climate.

The post Guest post: The growing problem of how extreme heat damages mental health appeared first on Carbon Brief.

Guest post: The growing problem of how extreme heat damages mental health

Climate Change

DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report

Published

1 month ago

August 15, 2025

Alice Rush

Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.

This week

Blazing heat hits Europe

FANNING THE FLAMES: Wildfires “fanned by a heatwave and strong winds” caused havoc across southern Europe, Reuters reported. It added: “Fire has affected nearly 440,000 hectares (1,700 square miles) in the eurozone so far in 2025, double the average for the same period of the year since 2006.” Extreme heat is “breaking temperature records across Europe”, the Guardian said, with several countries reporting readings of around 40C.

HUMAN TOLL: At least three people have died in the wildfires erupting across Spain, Turkey and Albania, France24 said, adding that the fires have “displaced thousands in Greece and Albania”. Le Monde reported that a child in Italy “died of heatstroke”, while thousands were evacuated from Spain and firefighters “battled three large wildfires” in Portugal.

UK WILDFIRE RISK: The UK saw temperatures as high as 33.4C this week as England “entered its fourth heatwave”, BBC News said. The high heat is causing “nationally significant” water shortfalls, it added, “hitting farms, damaging wildlife and increasing wildfires”. The Daily Mirror noted that these conditions “could last until mid-autumn”. Scientists warn the UK faces possible “firewaves” due to climate change, BBC News also reported.

Around the world

GRID PRESSURES: Iraq suffered a “near nationwide blackout” as elevated power demand – due to extreme temperatures of around 50C – triggered a transmission line failure, Bloomberg reported.
‘DIRE’ DOWN UNDER: The Australian government is keeping a climate risk assessment that contains “dire” implications for the continent “under wraps”, the Australian Financial Review said.
EXTREME RAINFALL: Mexico City is “seeing one of its heaviest rainy seasons in years”, the Washington Post said. Downpours in the Japanese island of Kyushu “caused flooding and mudslides”, according to Politico. In Kashmir, flash floods killed 56 and left “scores missing”, the Associated Press said.
SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION: China and Brazil agreed to “ensure the success” of COP30 in a recent phone call, Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported.
PLASTIC ‘DEADLOCK’: Talks on a plastic pollution treaty have failed again at a summit in Geneva, according to the Guardian, with countries “deadlocked” on whether it should include “curbs on production and toxic chemicals”.

15

The number of times by which the most ethnically-diverse areas in England are more likely to experience extreme heat than its “least diverse” areas, according to new analysis by Carbon Brief.

Latest climate research

As many as 13 minerals critical for low-carbon energy may face shortages under 2C pathways | Nature Climate Change
A “scoping review” examined the impact of climate change on poor sexual and reproductive health and rights in sub-Saharan Africa | PLOS One
A UK university cut the carbon footprint of its weekly canteen menu by 31% “without students noticing” | Nature Food

(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)

Captured

Factchecking Trump’s climate report

A report commissioned by the US government to justify rolling back climate regulations contains “at least 100 false or misleading statements”, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists. The report, compiled in two months by five hand-picked researchers, inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed” and misleadingly states that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”80

Spotlight

Does Xi Jinping care about climate change?

This week, Carbon Brief unpacks new research on Chinese president Xi Jinping’s policy priorities.

On this day in 2005, Xi Jinping, a local official in eastern China, made an unplanned speech when touring a small village – a rare occurrence in China’s highly-choreographed political culture.

In it, he observed that “lucid waters and lush mountains are mountains of silver and gold” – that is, the environment cannot be sacrificed for the sake of growth.

(The full text of the speech is not available, although Xi discussed the concept in a brief newspaper column – see below – a few days later.)

In a time where most government officials were laser-focused on delivering economic growth, this message was highly unusual.

Forward-thinking on environment

As a local official in the early 2000s, Xi endorsed the concept of “green GDP”, which integrates the value of natural resources and the environment into GDP calculations.

He also penned a regular newspaper column, 22 of which discussed environmental protection – although “climate change” was never mentioned.

This focus carried over to China’s national agenda when Xi became president.

New research from the Asia Society Policy Institute tracked policies in which Xi is reported by state media to have “personally” taken action.

It found that environmental protection is one of six topics in which he is often said to have directly steered policymaking.

Such policies include guidelines to build a “Beautiful China”, the creation of an environmental protection inspection team and the “three-north shelterbelt” afforestation programme.

“It’s important to know what Xi’s priorities are because the top leader wields outsized influence in the Chinese political system,” Neil Thomas, Asia Society Policy Institute fellow and report co-author, told Carbon Brief.

Local policymakers are “more likely” to invest resources in addressing policies they know have Xi’s attention, to increase their chances for promotion, he added.

What about climate and energy?

However, the research noted, climate and energy policies have not been publicised as bearing Xi’s personal touch.

“I think Xi prioritises environmental protection more than climate change because reducing pollution is an issue of social stability,” Thomas said, noting that “smoggy skies and polluted rivers” were more visible and more likely to trigger civil society pushback than gradual temperature increases.

The paper also said topics might not be linked to Xi personally when they are “too technical” or “politically sensitive”.

For example, Xi’s landmark decision for China to achieve carbon neutrality by 2060 is widely reported as having only been made after climate modelling – facilitated by former climate envoy Xie Zhenhua – showed that this goal was achievable.

Prior to this, Xi had never spoken publicly about carbon neutrality.

Prof Alex Wang, a University of California, Los Angeles professor of law not involved in the research, noted that emphasising Xi’s personal attention may signal “top” political priorities, but not necessarily Xi’s “personal interests”.

By not emphasising climate, he said, Xi may be trying to avoid “pushing the system to overprioritise climate to the exclusion of the other priorities”.

There are other ways to know where climate ranks on the policy agenda, Thomas noted:

“Climate watchers should look at what Xi says, what Xi does and what policies Xi authorises in the name of the ‘central committee’. Is Xi talking more about climate? Is Xi establishing institutions and convening meetings that focus on climate? Is climate becoming a more prominent theme in top-level documents?”

Watch, read, listen

TRUMP EFFECT: The Columbia Energy Exchange podcast examined how pressure from US tariffs could affect India’s clean energy transition.

NAMIBIAN ‘DESTRUCTION’: The National Observer investigated the failure to address “human rights abuses and environmental destruction” claims against a Canadian oil company in Namibia.

‘RED AI’: The Network for the Digital Economy and the Environment studied the state of current research on “Red AI”, or the “negative environmental implications of AI”.

Coming up

17 August: Bolivian general elections
18-29 August: Preparatory talks on the entry into force of the “High Seas Treaty”, New York
18-22 August: Y20 Summit, Johannesburg
21 August: Advancing the “Africa clean air programme” through Africa-Asia collaboration, Yokohama

Pick of the jobs

Lancaster Environment Centre, senior research associate: JUST Centre | Salary: £39,355-£45,413. Location: Lancaster, UK
Environmental Justice Foundation, communications and media officer, Francophone Africa | Salary: XOF600,000-XOF800,000. Location: Dakar, Senegal
Politico, energy & climate editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: Brussels, Belgium
EnviroCatalysts, meteorologist | Salary: Unknown. Location: New Delhi, India

DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.

This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.

The post DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report appeared first on Carbon Brief.

DeBriefed 15 August 2025: Raging wildfires; Xi’s priorities; Factchecking the Trump climate report

Climate Change

New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit

Published

1 month ago

August 15, 2025

Alice Rush

The specter of a “gas-for-wind” compromise between the governor and the White House is drawing the ire of residents as a deadline looms.

By Deep Vakil

Hundreds of New Yorkers rallied against new natural gas pipelines in their state as a deadline loomed for the public to comment on a revived proposal to expand the gas pipeline that supplies downstate New York.

New York Already Denied Permits to These Gas Pipelines. Under Trump, They Could Get Greenlit

Climate Change

Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims

Published

1 month ago

August 14, 2025

Alice Rush

A “critical assessment” report commissioned by the Trump administration to justify a rollback of US climate regulations contains at least 100 false or misleading statements, according to a Carbon Brief factcheck involving dozens of leading climate scientists.

The report – “A critical review of impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on the US climate” – was published by the US Department of Energy (DoE) on 23 July, just days before the government laid out plans to revoke a scientific finding used as the legal basis for emissions regulation.

The executive summary of the controversial report inaccurately claims that “CO2-induced warming might be less damaging economically than commonly believed”.

It also states misleadingly that “excessively aggressive [emissions] mitigation policies could prove more detrimental than beneficial”.

Compiled in just two months by five “independent” researchers hand-selected by the climate-sceptic US secretary of energy Chris Wright, the document has sparked fierce criticism from climate scientists, who have pointed to factual errors, misrepresentation of research, messy citations and the cherry-picking of data.

Experts have also noted the authors’ track record of promoting views at odds with the mainstream understanding of climate science.

Wright’s department claims the report – which is currently open to public comment as part of a 30-day review – underwent an “internal peer-review period amongst [the] DoE’s scientific research community”.

The report is designed to provide a scientific underpinning to one flank of the Trump administration’s plans to rescind a finding that serves as the legal prerequisite for federal emissions regulation. (The second flank is about legal authority to regulate emissions.)

The “endangerment finding” – enacted by the Obama administration in 2009 – states that six greenhouse gases are contributing to the net-negative impacts of climate change and, thus, put the public in danger.

In a press release on 29 July, the US Environmental Protection Agency said “updated studies and information” set out in the new report would “challenge the assumptions” of the 2009 finding.

Carbon Brief asked a wide range of climate scientists, including those cited in the “critical review” itself, to factcheck the report’s various claims and statements.

The post Factcheck: Trump’s climate report includes more than 100 false or misleading claims appeared first on Carbon Brief.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-trumps-climate-report-includes-more-than-100-false-or-misleading-claims/