“I was terrified. … I vividly remember being extremely anxious.”

On April 6, 2022, Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, traveled to downtown Los Angeles, where he would soon be handcuffing himself to the door of a JPMorgan Chase bank along with three other scientists.

“There was a moment,” he recalls about his decision to partake in civil disobedience, “when I realized I just had to go through with it, to muster that bravery.”

Kalmus was among over 1,000 activists in nearly 30 countries who marched under the banner “1.5C is dead, climate revolution now!” – a movement spearheaded by Scientist Rebellion, a group of scientists, academics, and students dedicated to disruptive, non-violent actions to highlight the climate crisis.

“I was genuinely afraid,” Kalmus repeats during a call, worrying about his peers', law enforcement's, and especially his employer’s reactions. “I felt there was a big chance of losing my job, which was my primary concern.”

But at that point, he felt he'd run out of other options. For Kalmus, civil disobedience was the result of years of trying to raise climate awareness through other means. With approximately half the country seemingly ignorant about the climate urgency, Kalmus felt this was the only step left – and also the most impactful.

During his emotionally charged speech that day, which has since gained global attention, Kalmus broke into tears, telling the crowd: “I’m here because scientists aren’t being heard. I’m willing to risk it all for this beautiful planet – for my kids,” as he struggled to steady his voice. “I’ve been warning for decades, and now we’re heading towards a catastrophic disaster.”

Following a standoff with police and eight hours in detention, Kalmus was charged with misdemeanor trespassing, although the charges were later dismissed. The initial arrest was exhilarating and liberating, but the incident sparked a prolonged investigation by NASA’s ethics and HR departments, causing Kalmus significant stress and exacerbating his medical condition. Despite remaining employed at NASA, where he still works today, Kalmus feels the institution mishandled the situation by not supporting his activism.

Rubber Band Snapping

The potential impacts on employment, health, and professional reputation are genuine concerns for scientists who publicly speak about climate change, especially when emotions are intense. They are trained to be objective researchers, not emotional advocates of their data.

Rose Abramoff, a scientist and a peer of Kalmus, faced termination from Oak Ridge National Laboratory after she and Kalmus unfurled a protest banner at an American Geophysical Union meeting in 2022. Abramoff now holds a fellowship at the Ronin Institute and a residency at the Sitka Center of Art and Ecology.

She describes experiencing emotional shocks from witnessing environmental calamities firsthand, such as forest devastation and melting permafrost. “It’s deeply unsettling and disheartening,” she says from Oregon. “Each incident felt like a rubber band snapping.”

Her turning point came upon joining the review panel for the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report in 2019, concluding that while the goal to limit global warming was increasingly unreachable, some irreversible effects could still be mitigated by immediate, substantial emissions reductions.

Shaken by the findings, Abramoff began volunteering with Extinction Rebellion and later committed to risks including arrests, the most recent being for chaining herself to a pipeline drill in 2023.

Reflecting in a New York Times op-ed, Abramoff criticized the lack of impact from conventional scientific decorum, advocating instead for urgent protest actions.

Eco-Anxiety

Kalmus and Abramoff are among the growing number of individuals frustrated by the lack of action on climate change. The American Psychological Association defines eco-anxiety as “a chronic fear of environmental doom,” affecting more than half of U.S adults.

This anxiety manifests in various forms – from increased emergency room visits and suicide rates linked to rising temperatures to severe mental health issues caused by climate-related stress.

Susie Burke, a psychologist from the University of Queensland, likens climate anxiety to death-related anxiety, emphasizing the effectiveness of acceptance-based therapies for managing climate distress.

Burke promotes ACT, or acceptance and commitment therapy, which helps individuals reconcile with their emotions and focus on meaningful actions despite their fears.

Burke notes that those deeply engaged with climate issues are more likely to feel significant distress, affecting their well-being drastically.

Letters of Loss

Science communicator Joe Duggan launched the Is This How You Feel? project in 2014, asking scientists to pen their feelings about climate in hand-written letters. The submissions reveal a myriad of emotions – from frustration to sadness, echoing the distress within the scientific community.

In subsequent research, Duggan found that group therapy and safe spaces can provide crucial emotional support for scientists, helping them continue their work with renewed hope.

The Good Grief Network, offering a peer-to-peer support system, helps individuals deal with eco-anxiety by fostering a sense of community and collective action.

By voicing their grievances in grief circles, activists like Abramoff find emotional relief and motivation to pursue climate action.

‘A Good Way to Live a Life’

Kalmus expresses his disillusionment with society's lack of urgency in addressing climate change. He points out the continued reliance on fossil fuels and the insufficient actions by political leaders to tackle this issue.

Abramoff emphasizes that the root of the problem lies in power dynamics, not a lack of information. Despite the dire situation, she insists on the importance of ongoing efforts to mitigate climate impacts.

Both agree that climate activism is driven by love for the planet and a commitment to a better future. They emphasize the ongoing need for activism and living in alignment with one's values despite the challenges.

Duggan, driven by the urgency of the situation and the need to act for future generations, continues to advocate for change. Schmidt, promoting a proactive approach, likens efforts to planting seeds of change.