Climate Trauma: Part I
On September 20th, 2024 the OHPA hosted its first interdisciplinary workshop of the academic year on “Climate Trauma”, bringing together scholars from CEU, Zürich University, Ghent University, and Rheinland-Pfälzische Technische Universität Kaiserslautern-Landau. The workshop focused on the political, psychological and cultural aspect of climate trauma. The first panel was held by Prof. Alexander Etkind (Head of OHPA), and Prof. Andreas Maercker (Zürich University).
In his talk, Alexander Etkind explored the connection between trauma, premonition, and denial within the context of the climate crisis, highlighting how humanity’s interaction with the environment mirrors broader political and social challenges. He discussed the dual meaning of “climate”—both as an atmosphere and a scientific reality—and how these two interpretations are increasingly converging. Using the recent floods in Vienna as a starting point, Etkind argued that natural disasters can be seen as responses from nature to humanity’s disregard for the environment. These floods, he suggested, reflect other significant global issues, such as the war in Ukraine, upcoming U.S. elections, and shifting power dynamics in Europe, all of which signal the need for political leaders to adapt to current and future crises.
Etkind also examined the developments within OPEC, focusing on the contrast between the organization’s cutting-edge facilities in Vienna and its role in environmental degradation. He noted that while OPEC operates in modern, technologically advanced buildings, its activities, such as fossil fuel extraction, are directly contributing to climate change. This juxtaposition between progress and destruction, he argued, symbolizes the broader conflict between industrial modernity and environmental harm, exemplifying humanity’s inability to address the root causes of ecological crises.
Drawing on his earlier work on political terror in Russia and his recent book on Russian aggression in Ukraine, he identified two key dynamics of the climate crisis: denial and latency. He further explored the concept of “climate trauma,” highlighting how the denial and latency commonly seen in the climate crisis echo psychological responses to trauma. particularly the relationship between trauma, denial, and latency in the face of environmental change. Etkind questioned why, despite clear scientific evidence, humanity continues to respond inadequately to climate threats. He described “green trauma” as a psychological condition that complicates the understanding of climate denial. Unlike, traditional trauma, which involves disturbances in the representation of past events climate trauma is more complex, as it involves both present and future events, making it harder to comprehend and address. Etkind also emphasized the shift in the sources of trauma—from human interactions with each other to human interactions with nature. Natural disasters, like floods and hurricanes, are nature’s responses to human actions, yet humanity fails to fully comprehend the implications. This, he suggested, reflects the broader challenge of understanding and confronting climate change.
In conclusion, Etkind called for a deeper psychological and cultural understanding of climate change. He urged humanity to confront its denial and latency in addressing the challenges posed by the current environmental and political crises.
Following Etkind’s talk, Prof. Andreas Maercker delved into the psychological aspects of climate trauma with his presentation titled “The Pathologies of Feelings of Horror: How Diagnoses Evolve.” His talk was divided into three key sections, offering a thorough exploration of trauma theory and its relevance to the climate crisis.
In the first section, Prof. Maercker introduced the general concept of trauma, tracing the evolution of trauma theory over time. He highlighted how “climate trauma” fits within the broader framework of trauma- and stress-related psychopathologies, particularly depression. Maercker stressed the importance of understanding climate trauma in the context of existing disorders, such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Complex PTSD, Prolonged Grief Disorder, and Adjustment Disorder. He explained that each of these disorders involves a response to deeply distressing events, often characterized by persistent emotional suffering. Notably, he underscored that PTSD and Complex PTSD are often linked to serious threats to life or experiences of sexualized violence. This background provided a foundation for integrating climate-related stressors into existing trauma theories. He also echoed Prof. Etkind’s view that the roles of grief and mourning are frequently underestimated in both the humanities and psychopathology, emphasizing that these emotional responses deserve greater scientific recognition.
In the second section of his talk, Prof. Maercker focused on the cumulative impact of multiple disasters on mental health. He referred to several studies examining how recurring disasters, whether natural or man-made, affect the mental well-being of different populations. These studies consistently reveal a rise in psychological problems in communities affected by disasters, although none have explicitly linked this increase to climate change. Maercker emphasized that the accumulation of crises, including natural disasters, has a compounding effect on mental health, with the deterioration becoming more pronounced the more crises individuals experience. As climate change exacerbates the frequency and intensity of such disasters, there is an increasing need for mental health science and psychopathology to consider “climate trauma” as a distinct phenomenon.
In the final section, Prof. Maercker discussed how new diagnoses are established, using the development of the PTSD diagnosis after the Vietnam War as an example. He noted its strong association with anti-war activism and the women’s rights movement. He also explained the Kendell criteria for the creation of new diagnoses, outlining the necessary stages: widespread acceptance among clinicians, recognizable patterns of symptoms, similar underlying causes, and consistent treatment responses. Maercker suggested that emerging concepts such as “climate trauma” or “climate moaning” could potentially become official diagnoses, but they would need to meet the rigorous criteria and undergo a process of assessment and validation set by the World Health Organization (WHO) before being formally recognized.
The full talk as well as the subsequent discussion is available to view on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-Y9z7cdAdw