ArticleRisk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis2025
A new hope or phantom menace? Exploring climate emotions and public support for climate interventions across 30 countries.
Article in Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robust Solar Radiation Modification Strategy for Achieving Temperature Targets.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2026Article
- Plentitude of Pathways: Expert Views on the Benefits and Risks of Carbon Dioxide Removal in Six Countries.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Climate change boredom: Exploring its predictors and the psychological factors that influence intention to act.PloS one · 2026Article
- A new hope or phantom menace? Exploring climate emotions and public support for climate interventions across 30 countries.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Emotions are central to human experiences of climate change. Empirical research demonstrates their importance for climate perceptions and climate-related behaviors. The intensifying severity of climate change prompts consideration of emerging, potentially controversial technologies. Alongside mitigation and adaptation, climate intervention proposes to remove carbon dioxide from ambient air (carbon dioxide removal, CDR) or reflect sunlight away from the Earth (solar radiation modification, SRM). Although such options arouse emotional reactions of diverse kinds, the intersection between climate emotions and climate intervention has received limited attention. This article employed a unique, global dataset with 30,284 participants across 30 countries (in 19 languages) to provide insights on 3 questions. We first leveraged the global dataset to map the incidence of fear, hope, anger, sadness, and worry across countries-the first time the climate emotions of adults are investigated on this scale. We also identified significant differences in emotions by level of development, with those in advanced economies reporting weaker levels of climate emotions. Second, using multiple linear regression analyses, we explored the relationship between climate emotions and support for climate-intervention technologies. We determined that the emotions of hope and worry seem to be the most consistently (positively) correlated. Third, we explored if reading about technology categories differentially affected climate emotions. Individuals randomly assigned to read about ecosystems-based CDR were significantly more hopeful about climate change (those about SRM the least). Together, our results provide the first global-level evidence of the relationship between discrete climate emotions and perceptions and support of climate interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.