Psychic Numbing and Climate Change

By Steve Lemeshko

Credit: William Murphy, CC BY-SA 2.0.

When faced with overwhelming crises, humans have a paradoxical response: we care deeply for the suffering of one individual yet become indifferent when confronted with large-scale tragedy. This psychological phenomenon, known as psychic numbing, has been widely studied in the context of genocide, natural disasters, and humanitarian crises—but what happens when it applies to something as vast and abstract as climate change?

Peta Ashworth and Kathy Witt (2023) explore this climate change-psychic numbing nexus in Australia—one of the world’s largest fossil fuel producers and, simultaneously, one of the nations most severely affected by climate disasters. From record-breaking wildfires to devastating floods, Australians have witnessed firsthand the consequences of a warming planet. Yet, despite experiencing extreme weather at an unprecedented scale, Australia remains deeply invested in fossil fuel industries.

The authors describe the numbing effect as follows:

[W]hen the reporting of statistics, such as the number of deaths, or impacts such as the number of square kilometers of bushland burned, becomes overwhelming, as was experienced with the Australian bushfires, a sense of indifference sets in. This indifference, or numbing, is linked to an individual’s perceived inability to respond effectively, which in turn makes it easier for individuals to rationalize or ignore the event.

Despite the harrowing imagery and statistics that circulated during the 2019–2020 bushfires, the urgency quickly faded. Donations and activism surged at first but declined sharply within months. Even as evidence of climate change became undeniable, Australia’s political landscape remained largely unchanged.

This, as Ashworth and Witt argue, is the challenge: how do we create enough awareness to inspire collective action without overwhelming people into inaction? How do we prevent compassion fatigue and despondency?

While their research focuses on Australia, psychic numbing is not confined to one country. Kari Marie Norgaard’s Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life (2011) explores a similar phenomenon in Norway—a nation heavily dependent on fossil fuel wealth yet highly educated on climate science. In her online excerpt, Norgaard describes how people can simultaneously know climate change is real yet struggle to integrate that knowledge into their daily lives in a meaningful way. She writes:

The numbing comes not from the traumatic event but from the crisis of meaning.

People learn to live a double life: acknowledging climate change while continuing with business as usual. The issue is not just denial—it is an inability to connect climate change to immediate personal experience. The crisis feels too large, too distant, too uncertain. This psychological distancing is what allows entire societies to avoid reckoning with their own role in climate inaction.

How do we break through this paralysis? Pure statistics might not be enough: numbers, no matter how shocking, struggle to evoke sustained emotional responses. Instead, Ashworth and Witt argue that we need a combination of science-based information and storytelling.

This aligns with findings from studies on narrative empathy, which show that stories—especially those that feature personal, identifiable individuals—are far more effective at capturing attention than abstract data. Participatory ecological storytelling, among other ways, can also be a powerful tool in climate change communication. Instead of presenting climate change as a faceless, inevitable catastrophe, storytelling allows people to emotionally connect with those directly affected.

By making climate change relatable, storytelling helps counteract numbing. It transforms an overwhelming crisis into something tangible—something that individuals can engage with, rather than passively observe from a distance.

If we are to mobilize large-scale climate action, we need to rethink how we communicate the crisis. This means moving beyond detached scientific reports and instead building ecological empathy. It means using stories, images, and participatory narratives to help people see themselves in the crisis. Above all, it means resisting the urge to tune out—because behind every overwhelming statistic is a story waiting to be told.

Full citation of the resources:

Ashworth, Peta, and Kathy Witt. “'Psychic Numbing' and the Environment: Is This Leading to Unsustainable Energy Outcomes in Australia?” Energy Democracies for Sustainable Futures, edited by Majia Nadesan, Martin J. Pasqualetti, and Jennifer Keahey, Academic Press, 2023, pp. 279–283. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822796-1.00029-2.

The MIT Press Reader. “Climate Change in the Age of Numbing.” The MIT Press Reader, 19 May 2021, https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/climate-change-in-the-age-of-numbing/.

Norgaard, Kari Marie. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. MIT Press, 2011.

For further reading, see the following articles:

Slow Risks Are Moving Faster / January 6, 2025

Overcoming Cognitive Bias and Bridging the Climate Change Communication Gap / November 28, 2024

Public Perceptions of Immigrants: The Challenge of Raising Awareness of Climate Change as a Reason for Migration / September 17, 2024