Why the climate crisis and ecological emergency concern us, and what we can do

In 2007, as an undergraduate psychology student, I sat in my university library, reading the latest from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I should have been working on my dissertation, but instead was drawn to the scientific report I'd seen referenced in a BBC news headline, about catastrophic climate change heading our way.

In between the scientific modelling, statistics, and future projections on fossil fuel use, this is what jumped out at me: Annual crop failures in most countries. Drinking water availability reduced by 50 per cent. Mass migration. And this would happen before 2050, when I would be 67, and presumably, still around to see it.

Reading that IPCC report was the point at which I realised that climate change, and the related ecological emergency of ecosystem damage and biodiversity loss, was a human problem. Caused by humans. But – and here's where I felt reading an IPCC report, when I should have been working on my dissertation, was actually hugely relevant to my Psychology degree – solvable by humans. Humans made these problems. But we could fix them.

My dissertation was on how structural changes to prefrontal cortex in the primate lineage had enabled us to develop the cognitive capacities to shape our environment, in a way that no other species ever has before. (Huge expansion of grey matter, connecting white matter fibres, and 70 per cent more dendritic spines, if you're interested.)

Since then, I developed a career as an academic neuroscientist, studying how prefrontal function is altered in neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental conditions, and more recently, how a four-day working week changes mind, brain, and body. But the nagging feeling that I needed to do more on sustainability – much more – never went away.

As a postdoctoral researcher, I took small actions, in my own way, such as giving up flying to academic conferences in 2015. But it felt like a terribly niche interest, for an academic who doesn't work on climate change directly. Few colleagues spoke about these issues.

Then in 2019, we had a sea-change moment… a perfect storm of Greta, Extinction Rebellion, and Fridays for Future changed public awareness and concern. In July 2019, my University declared a climate emergency. And now, in 2023, the environmental concerns held by psychologists now feel entirely mainstream, with the 2023 European Congress theme being 'Uniting communities for a sustainable world'.

Here in 2023, the vast majority of psychologists are aware of the seriousness of the situation, and the urgency to act. Applied psychologists see climate anxiety in clinic. Developmental psychologists report escalating worry and anger amongst children, who are acutely aware of the damage being wrought. And as academic psychologists, we are increasingly aware that our research activities are creating an environmental footprint. But, researchers are also increasingly aware that psychology could hold the key to solving these crises, by better understanding human emotion, thought, and behaviour.

The footprint of psychological research

Myself, and many colleagues across British universities, have come to recognise the 'inconvenient truth' that our academic activities – from uncovering the mysteries of the mind, to understanding mental health, to picking apart neurodegeneration – have a downside. And that downside is the environmental cost of our research practices.

These environmental costs come at all points within the lifecycle of academic research, from data collection, to analysis, to sharing our findings and communicating our results. There are also wider impacts in the broader university landscape, from pensions to grant funding.

In a recent article, I and three academic colleagues, concerned about the environmental impacts of our work, proposed four main areas that academic psychologists and neuroscientists need to tackle: 1) our research practices, 2) our workplaces, 3) our academic values, and 4) our wider communities (see image above).

My own research in cognitive neuroscience relies on MRI brain scanners. These require liquid helium to cool the super-conducting magnet. Helium is a naturally occurring substance in the geological environment, existing almost entirely in reserves of natural gas, buried in the Earth.

This means the only way we obtain helium for our scanners is as a by-product of fossil fuel extraction. The manufacture of MRI scanners, and indeed all scientific equipment, also has an impact, in the energy used to assemble it, and the ecosystem impact from mining for oil to make plastic, and ore to make metal.

Once I have my brain scans, to analyse them, I use a server that is made up of many high-performance computers. Every time I run an analysis, this uses energy. Even when I'm not analysing data, just storing my scans has an energy cost, because server rooms in data centres require air conditioning, which consumes energy.

With the UK energy mix being only 36 per cent renewable in 2021, we have some way to go before these analyses are fossil fuel free. And don't forget those computers had to come from somewhere – the raw materials came out of the ground, and were then shipped around the world.

Within my research team, we have begun a project to work out how to reduce the energy required to run our MRI scan analysis. This might mean using slightly different settings in the analysis software, such that we still get high quality results, but with less computing power required. We are also hoping to develop a scheduling tool, to run our analyses at times of low energy demand within the National Grid.

For example, analyses run at night-time will have a lower carbon footprint, because the wind is blowing, and we aren't switching the kettle on! In contrast, running analyses at times of peak demand (e.g. early evening) will increase the carbon footprint of that computing, because fossil fuels are supplementing renewables in the National Grid.

Another important aspect of our research nowadays is that of open science. By sharing our raw data, our analysis code, and all the resources that colleagues beyond our team would need to reproduce our results, we ensure openness and transparency in our research. We typically share our projects via online repositories, such as the Open Science Framework.

However, just as with storing data on our institutional servers, open science repositories also rely on data centres, containing many server racks of computers, consuming energy just in the storage, due to air conditioning. The more we share, the more servers are required. Together with colleagues in the field, we are developing best practice guidance on exactly what MRI files need to be shared, and which can be dropped.

Neuroscience colleagues conducting work in laboratories, for example investigating neuron function, face a litany of environmental issues. Single-use plastics such as pipette tips and tubes are widespread, discarded after one use. Low-temperature freezers used to store samples can consume a lot of energy. Switching to reusable glass lab items, and slightly increasing the temperature of freezers, can help. The Laboratory Efficiency Assessment Framework (LEAF) is a kitemark scheme to assist lab scientists in identifying impacts, and suggesting solutions.

Beyond our day-to-day research activities, there are many aspects of academic workplaces that can be addressed. Academics can set up department green committees, introduce new sustainability policies to reduce meat consumption or plane travel, campaign for divestment of university and pension funds from fossil fuels, and incorporate environmental psychology into teaching curriculums.

Part of changing academic practice for the better will involve thinking about our values and priorities, such as commitments to fly less, and incorporating sustainability statements in grant applications and journal publications.

Finally, as professional scientists, we also have a key role to play as ambassadors in our wider communities. We are trusted professionals who can understand and interpret data, and communicate this effectively to lay audiences. If you are invited to give a talk to a community group, include content on what psychologists know about climate change, and the action we are taking within our own spheres of influence.

In addition to these four critical areas, in my 2022 article we also proposed a cross-cutting action, the most important of all – to talk about it. By discussing the climate crisis and ecological emergency with colleagues, and frequently, we change social norms on what psychologists feel is important to attend to, and act on. The setting of sustainability as the overarching theme for the 2023 European Congress is a fantastic example, in which we create a strong social norm for thousands of psychologists that the environment is central to our work.

In talking to colleagues about our environmental worries, we also create a support network to express our distress, and help us feel less isolated. Crucially, talking to others also fosters opportunities to work together, and create the much-needed frameworks for larger institutional change.

Working together

In speaking with colleagues, I realised I was not alone in recognising the need to address the environmental footprint of psychological research. This led me to found with colleagues two sustainability groups within my academic societies, the British Neuroscience Association (BNA), and the Organization for Human Brain Mapping (OHBM).

Within the BNA, we have created bursaries to allow colleagues to take a 'train over plane' travel approach when attending society meetings; enabled conference speakers to present online; and ensured conference catering is low carbon.

Our Sustainability and Environment Action group within OHBM has conducted a detailed analysis of the carbon footprint of previous society conferences, which in large part comes from international attendees travelling to the meeting via plane. On average, every year, we emit approximately 10,000 tonnes of carbon to enable 3,000 neuroscientists to meet and discuss our work over five days. The largest part of this footprint comes from colleagues travelling by long-haul flights, since the longer that planes are in the air, the more fossil fuel they burn.

This means that going forwards, a more distributed and local approach will be important, to enable us to still connect in person, while recognising we can no longer afford our previous emissions. For example, a 'hub' approach in which we could choose to travel to the nearest of three locations (Europe, Americas, Australasia) would save 74 per cent of emissions.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the global academic community had no alternative but to switch all conferences to 100 per cent online. Going forwards, while the majority of academics want to access the strong benefits of meeting in person at conferences, offering a hybrid approach, in which delegates can choose to attend online instead, will have significant accessibility and sustainability benefits.

In the grand scheme of things, the carbon footprint of my MRI scan analyses and my MRI society conference are small. And sometimes, I encounter resistance or even apathy to change research practices amongst my fellow psychologists. But that doesn't mean we don't need to address them: our global carbon footprint comes from all areas of human activity, and if we are to limit warming as much as we possibly can, we must tackle all domains.

Some colleagues comment, 'but it's governments that need to act, to change our transport and energy systems, make it easier for us to go green'. It is true that governments need to urgently put in place legislation and structures to decarbonise societal systems.

But changing how we do MRI scanning and our conferences is one thing that we can act on, right now – and importantly, only we can change – governments don't know how to reduce the environmental footprint of MRI scans! Most of all, there is a moral imperative: if professional scientists can't put their own house in order, how can we expect members of the general public to?

Solutions from psychology

Ultimately, to decarbonise our societies and protect ecosystems, humans need to change behaviours on an individual, collective, and societal scale. The growing field of environmental psychology is helping us to understand the factors and mechanisms behind pro-environmental behaviour change, with research revealing the importance of social norms, demographics and personality, collective action, individual resources, and emotional responses.

Communicating information on changing social norms, such as the numbers of people choosing to eat less meat, can sometimes be effective in increasing how many people take action. However, demographic factors such as gender and political position remain strong influences on whether someone is willing to do so or not. It also seems that individual differences in beliefs about the efficacy of personal, collective and government action are associated with different levels of enthusiasm for taking action in one's own life, versus supporting government policies.

Collective action refers to an action taken together by a group of people with a common objective. This can range from joining a protest group, to co-developing a new sustainability policy in the workplace. Joining a group and working together fosters the creation and solidification of inter-personal relationships, and this helps support further future action.

However, just being concerned about the environment does not always directly translate to action, either as an individual, or in a group. Lack of time and personal resources can be significant barriers. And furthermore, worries about the environment can also provoke a withdrawal response, instead of approach and proactive action. Eco anxiety is becoming increasingly common, especially in children and young people. In contrast, feeling angry about the state of the planet has been shown to be the most effective emotion at provoking action.

Altogether, psychological research is revealing that in the right circumstances, humans are remarkably able to face the very troubling situation we are in, and work together to address it. However, some key psychological barriers remain. This highlights the importance of efforts at governmental levels, to complement what we can achieve as citizens and colleagues. Psychological research will be critical in helping inform policymakers as to effective ways they can create the frameworks for change we need.

By 'Uniting communities for a sustainable world', the 2023 Congress will showcase the latest research findings in this area from psychologists across Europe and beyond. And if there is one action that everyone reading this takes, it should be to talk with colleagues, at every opportunity, about the climate and ecological emergencies. As the climate scientist Katherine Hayhoe said in her TED talk, and we emphasised in our 2022 article: 'The most important thing you can do to fight climate change: Talk about it.'

Dr Charlotte Rae is a Lecturer & Psychology Faculty Green Officer, School of Psychology, University of Sussex. [email protected]. Twitter: @NeuroRae