No abstract

Current research shows that emotions can motivate climate engagement and action, but precisely how has received scant attention. We propose that strong emotional responses to climate change result from perceiving one's "objects of care" as threatened by climate change, which motivates caring about climate change itself, and in turn predicts behaviour. In two studies, we find that climate scientists (N=44) experience greater emotional intensity about climate change than do students (N=94) and the general population (N=205), and that patterns of emotional responses explain differences in support for climate change policy.Scientists tied their emotional responses to concern about consequences of climate change to future generations and the planet, as well as personal identities associated with responsibility to act. Our findings suggest that "objects of care" that link people to climate change may be crucial to understanding why some people feel more strongly about the issue than others, and how emotions can prompt action. Keywords:Climate change, emotion, care, identity, field theory, psychological distance Highlights• This paper sheds light on why people feel specific, or any, emotions about climate change and links these emotions to support for climate action• We demonstrate a connection between objects of care, the emotions they evoke, and actions to address climate change

No abstract

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is seeking to prepare for losses arising from climate change. This is an emerging issue that challenges climate science and policy to engage more deeply with values, places, and people's experiences. We first provide insight into the UNFCCC framing of loss and damage and current approaches to valuation. We then draw on the growing literature on value‐ and place‐based approaches to adaptation, including limits to adaptation, which examines loss as nuanced and sensitive to the nature of people's lives. Complementary perspectives from human geography, psychology, philosophy, economics, and ecology underscore the importance of understanding what matters to people and what they may likely consider to constitute loss. A significant body of knowledge illustrates that loss is often given meaning through lived, embodied, and place‐based experiences, and so is more felt than tangible. We end with insights into recent scholarship that addresses how people make trade‐offs between different value priorities. This emerging literature offers an opening in the academic debate to further advance a relational framing of loss in which trade‐offs between lived values are seen as dynamic elements in a prospective loss space. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e476. doi: 10.1002/wcc.476 This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Comparative Environmental Values

No abstract