Neuroscience and climate action: intersecting pathways for brain and planetary health

Abstract

The climate crisis and the human brain are intricately connected. Climate change impacts neurocognitive health, while climate actions both shape and are shaped by the brain. However, research examining these connections remains scarce. This review highlights how neuroscience can deepen the understanding of the reciprocal relationship between climate action and the brain. First, we discuss how both individual and collective climate action can, directly and indirectly, benefit our brain health, mental health and cognitive functioning and how emphasising this holds the potential of harvesting self-interest as a driving force for change. Second, we explore the role of the brain’s emotional and decision-making systems in motivating climate action. We also discuss neuroscience’s potential to predict population-level behaviours and aid in the systematic development of interventions. By addressing current knowledge gaps, we identify the next steps for deepening our understanding of the interwoven connections between climate action and the brain.

Introduction

Climate change poses a significant threat to both planetary and human well-being [1]. Rising temperatures, increased extreme weather events, and air pollution all have detrimental effects on human health, including impacts on brain health, mental health, and cognitive functioning (Table 1). Notably, the brain is not only affected by the environmental crisis, but it is also the driver of the very behaviours that can help address it. Neuroscience, therefore, offers a promising avenue for advancing our understanding of the reciprocal relationship between the human brain and the changing environment [2].

Table 1. Examples of climate change–related environmental factors and their associations with neurological function, mental health and sociocognitive functioning.

Climate change impacts	Neurological function and mental health	Sociocognitive functioning
Heat	Increased risk of migraines, ischaemic stroke, and exacerbated multiple sclerosis symptoms [7] Increase in acute presentations of psychiatric disorders and related emergency visits, including schizophrenia, substance use, somatoform, or mood disorders [7−9] Increase in mental health-related mortality [10]	Impaired cognitive performance [4] Increased interpersonal violence [6,11] Increased risky decision-making [12]
Air pollution	Neuroinflammation [13] Ischaemic stroke [5] Neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease [5] Anxiety disorder, substance abuse disorder, depression, schizophrenia [3]	Impaired cognitive functioning and decision-making [3], particularly visible in the ageing population [14,15] Increased criminal and unethical behaviour [3]
Other extreme weather events (e.g. hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc.)	Increased rates of PTSD and depression after disasters [16] Increased rates of depression, anxiety and ADHD after disasters [17] Increased rates of mood disorders, substance use disorders [8]	Working memory deficits [18] Attention deficits [19] Impaired cognitive functioning [20]

PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder; ADHD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

This paper first outlines how engaging in individual and collective climate action¹ can, directly and indirectly, impact neurocognitive functioning. By emphasising how climate action improves brain health and well-being, we highlight the personal, economic, and societal co-benefits. These have the potential to serve as incentives for sustainable behaviour by appealing to individual self-interest. Next, we examine the brain’s central role in shaping human responses to climate change. We focus on how its affective and motivational systems reveal potential processes through which sustainable actions can be initiated, reinforced and sustained. Understanding these mechanisms could provide promising starting points for the development of impactful interventions to encourage climate action.

Climate action for the brain

The environmental consequences of climate change have adverse effects on brain health and sociocognitive functioning (see Table 1). Negative climate change impacts, such as extreme weather events, air pollution, and increased heat, have been linked to a variety of adverse outcomes, such as deficits in cognitive and social functioning [3,4], an increase in neurological and psychiatric disorders [5] and increased interpersonal violence [6]. Thus, engaging in climate action holds promise to not only prevent a global environmental and socioeconomic catastrophe but also comes with numerous co-benefits for neurocognitive health.

Critically, engaging in climate actions can benefit us both directly and indirectly (Figure 1). Here, we highlight actions that create win-win scenarios, where behaviours that benefit the environment also benefit people’s health and well-being. When adopted on a large scale, these behaviours can lead to significant benefits for both the individuals involved and society at large.

Figure 1.

Illustration of how climate action can have direct and indirect effects on neurocognitive health and functioning. Designed using resources from Flaticon.com.

Direct effects of climate action on the brain

Certain climate actions offer direct benefits for neurocognitive health. For example, adopting active transport methods like walking or cycling can significantly reduce emissions [21] while supporting brain health and cognition. Regular physical activity enhances brain function [22], decreases the risk of neurodegenerative diseases, and improves cognitive abilities, including memory and executive functioning [23]. For instance, evidence in humans provides insights into potential mechanisms connecting aerobic exercise (e.g. walking or cycling) and improved cognition by revealing enhanced oxygen and nutrition supply through increased cerebral blood flow and vascularisation [24]. Furthermore, exercise promotes neurogenesis, reduces neuroinflammation, and increases the release of dopamine and serotonin — key factors in maintaining cognitive health [25]. Beyond encouraging physical activity, active transportation often involves exposure to natural environments, which has been shown to enhance mood, reduce mental fatigue, and improve overall well-being [26,27].

There is substantial evidence highlighting the positive effects of natural environments on both physical and mental health, including their beneficial impact on the brain [28,29]. Even brief exposure to nature can diminish neural responses to aversive experiences, including acute stress or pain, and neuroimaging can help unravel their underlying mechanisms. For example, previous evidence indicates that changes in stress are associated with altered amygdala activity [30], implicating shifts in emotional processing, while changes in pain are linked to modifications in nociception-related, rather than emotion-related brain areas [31]. Thus, implementing nature-based solutions, such as urban greening or nature conservation, not only sustains biodiversity and aids in climate change mitigation and adaptation but also provides health benefits via various neural pathways.

Likewise, switching to a low-carbon diet (i.e. focusing on plant-based products while reducing red meat and processed foods) can benefit neurocognitive functioning. Even small dietary changes have been shown to provide substantial gains for both human health and the environment [32]. For instance, reducing red meat intake is associated with better cognitive function [33,34]. Higher fruit and vegetable consumption has been associated with improved cognitive and mental health [35] and a reduced risk of stroke [36]. Moreover, sustainable diets rich in fibre promote a healthier gut microbiome [37], which plays an important role in neurocognitive health through various mechanisms linked to the gut–brain axis [38]. For example, it has been suggested that a diverse gut microbiome, supported by a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, promotes the production of short-chain fatty acids, which can reach the brain directly, enhance cognitive and emotional processing [39] and foster neurogenesis [40]. Finally, reducing overall consumption, such as through fasting or lowering calorie intake in regions with overconsumption, holds promise for benefiting both planetary and brain health [41].

Engaging in collective climate actions also provides direct benefits for individuals. Activities, such as community-led environmental projects or climate advocacy, can have direct effects on mental and physical well-being [42–44]. Participating in such shared efforts fosters social connections and promotes a sense of collective efficacy — the belief that working together can lead to meaningful change. This not only boosts psychological well-being by reducing feelings of isolation and climate anxiety [43] but may also lead to more enduring engagement in climate action. Moreover, many collective activities, such as communal gardening or clean-up events, inherently involve physical engagement, which, as outlined above, can offer additional benefits for brain health.

It should also be noted that combining multiple climate-friendly actions — such as active transportation, urban greening, and/or a low-carbon diet — can amplify their positive effects on individual brain health. When multiple actions are adopted at the collective level, this will have far-reaching benefits for both public and planetary health.

Although few studies currently provide direct evidence for the neural mechanisms linking climate-friendly behaviours to brain health and cognitive function, the examples illustrated above showcase how neuroscience may help uncover the underlying processes. Importantly, all these behaviours will also indirectly affect brain health through climate change mitigation and reducing related risks, such as pollution, heat waves, and other extreme weather events (Figure 1).

Indirect effects of climate action on the brain

While not all climate actions come with direct effects on brain health, they offer significant indirect benefits by reducing exposure to pollution, heat, and extreme weather (Figure 1). For example, cutting emissions and reliance on polluting fuel sources leads to cleaner air, which is vital for brain health [45,46]. Harmful pollutants, like fine particulate matter and heavy metals, are linked to neuroinflammation, cognitive decline, and neurodevelopmental disorders (see Table 1). Furthermore, mitigating climate change and implementing adaptive measures reduces the frequency and impact of heat waves and other extreme weather events, which have been associated with neurological and psychiatric disorders and deficits in sociocognitive functioning (Table 1). Together, these indirect benefits underscore how climate action safeguards mental and neurological health, adding to the numerous positive outcomes of climate mitigation and adaptation.

A growing body of research has focused on quantifying the co-benefits of reducing emissions for human health [46–48]. However, most studies focus primarily on mortality reductions, with less attention on how such actions might reduce morbidity and enhance quality of life. Understanding the impact of emission reduction on factors like neurocognitive health, chronic disease incidence, and overall well-being remains largely unexplored. These studies could provide a more complete picture of the personal health benefits of climate action and potentially drive further climate initiatives (see Box 1).

Box 1. Communicating co-benefits to stimulate climate action.

Quantifying and communicating the direct and indirect personal and societal benefits of climate action is important as it opens the potential for harvesting self-interest as a driving force for change. Self-interest may serve as a powerful motivator for both individual lifestyle changes and broader system-level shifts in response to climate change. Evidence suggests that climate change communication strategies focusing on the co-benefits of mitigating climate change for our health and well-being could indeed be a fruitful strategy to stimulate climate action. For instance, a series of studies have shown that a public health frame was more effective than a climate change frame at stimulating support for climate policies [49]. Similarly, an experimental study involving participants from five countries showed that health framing bolsters support for climate policies [50].

There is a high level of uncertainty in how to promote climate action effectively [51]. By framing climate action in terms of immediate benefits to public health, well-being, and not exclusively climate-related outcomes, it may be possible to engage individuals and policymakers more effectively. Emphasising the health benefits of reducing air pollution or the economic advantages of increased energy efficiency can appeal to self-interest and has been shown to create a stronger incentive for action [49,50,52]. Such framing shifts the focus from abstract climate impacts to more tangible and personally relevant outcomes, potentially enhancing engagement and facilitating both individual and structural changes. This approach could be especially effective in mobilising support for climate policies by aligning environmental goals with the public’s intrinsic desire for improved quality of life.

Thus, on an individual level, evidence for personal benefits like improved cognitive performance and brain health could be a better and more sustainable way to engage people. On a systems level, quantifying these benefits and emphasising the cost-effectiveness of specific climate change mitigation measures for improving public health could be a promising strategy. Some researchers have started quantifying such benefits, showing that measures aimed at reducing air pollution can be cost-effective considering their substantial health benefits [53], further suggesting such a strategy could be promising.

The brain as a key driver of climate action

Complementing this focus on brain health co-benefits, recent work in environmental social neuroscience provides a framework for understanding how the brain itself drives climate-related behaviours [2,54–56]. This field integrates insights from social and affective neuroscience, neuroeconomics, and behavioural sciences, exploring how we make environmentally impactful decisions amid the tension between immediate self-interest and long-term collective benefits. Understanding these brain processes is important, as the brain is central to driving both individual and collective climate action. Yet encouraging impactful climate actions remains a challenge. By identifying specific brain mechanisms involved in processes, including, but not limited to, motivation, affective responses, cognitive control, and perspective-taking, environmental social neuroscience provides valuable insights into how sustainable actions are formed, reinforced, and maintained, paving the way for more targeted, effective interventions (see Table 2 for an overview of methods used in the field and relevant research).

Table 2. Select neuroscientific methods and evidence for investigating the impacts of climate change on the brain and the impacts of the brain on climate change.

Neuroscientific approach	Description	Example research and/or potential future direction
Structural brain imaging	Measurement of neuroanatomical differences Typical method: structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)	Climate change → brain Climate anxiety is associated with decreased midcingulate grey matter volume [62]. Heat exposure is associated with lasting impacts on children’s white matter microstructure [72]. Air pollution is associated with a reduced volume of the hippocampus, an area critical for memory [73]. Future longitudinal research could follow people moving between places with different levels of pollution to pinpoint which areas show the largest structural changes. Brain → climate change Greater cortical thickness in areas associated with self-control and perspective-taking (dorsomedial and dorsolateral PFC) is associated with more sustainable intergenerational behaviour [69]. Future research could investigate whether the volume of certain brain areas is associated with reduced susceptibility to (climate) misinformation.
Functional brain imaging	Measurement of changes in brain function such as blood flow, electrical activity, and metabolism Typical methods: functional MRI, electroencephalography (EEG), positron emission tomography (PET)	Climate change → brain Air pollution is associated with longitudinal changes in brain network connectivity development measured by fMRI [74]. Temperature and humidity alter the power of EEG alpha, beta- and delta-bands during cognitive tests [75]. Future research could use functional imaging to investigate negative emotional reactivity to climate change imagery or communication messaging and their relationship to climate anxiety. Brain → climate change Using fMRI, researchers showed higher baseline activation in the lateral prefrontal cortex is associated with a higher frequency of pro-environmental behaviour [76]. An fMRI study showed that prospective thinking about sustainable behaviours engages brain regions linked to memory and valuation while thinking about reducing unsustainable behaviours activates regions related to inhibitory control [77]. Patterns of functional connectivity across areas involved in cognitive control (measured via fMRI) can be linked to pro-environmental attitudes [78]. Future research could study the neural bases of decision-making associated with collective climate activism or support for climate change policies.
Brain stimulation	Modulation of brain activity by external stimulation or inhibition Typical methods: transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS)	Climate change → brain Future research could test whether external stimulation of certain brain areas mitigates cognitive impairment(s) caused by heat. This could answer questions about whether the areas are causally involved in the heat-related impairment(s). Brain → climate change Stimulating the right TPJ (area associated with perspective-taking) was shown to increase sustainable decision-making [71]. Manipulating self-control capacity by applying inhibitory high-definition transcranial current stimulation (HD-tDCS) influences participants’ sustainable decision-making [68] but see also Ref. [79]. Future research could establish causality of other brain areas identified using neuroimaging in sustainable decision-making.
Psychopharmacology	Increasing or reducing the availability of certain neurotransmitters or hormones	Climate change → brain Future research could investigate the interaction of certain psychopharmacological substances with air pollution or heat on the brain, cognition and behaviour. Brain → climate change Future research could study the role of dopaminergic and opioidergic reward circuits in modulating pro-environmental decision-making and real-life behaviours or the role of certain hormones like oxytocin or testosterone.

PFC, prefrontal cortex.

Neuroscience also offers valuable tools that allow us to observe discrepancies between people’s explicit self-reported preferences and their implicit preferences inferred from neural signals. For example, one study showed that people reported a preference for green advertisements; however, their brain activity suggested otherwise: when viewing green ads compared to conventional ones, lower activation was observed in brain areas involved in reward and valuation (i.e. the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and ventral striatum) [57]. Importantly, these findings do not imply that the reward system always preferentially processes conventional information to green. One study even showed that under certain conditions, a product with an eco-label can elicit a stronger reward response than a product without such a label (see section Affective and motivational systems in climate action for more on the role of reward). They rather showcase the potential benefit of a neuroscientific approach to identify gaps between what people explicitly report they prefer and how their brains implicitly respond and highlight the unique insights that would be unobservable without such a methodology.

Affective and motivational systems in climate action

Affective processes play an important role in shaping and influencing climate-related beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours [58,59]. Research has shown that both positive and negative affects and emotions can promote climate action under certain conditions [59]. However, negative emotions, in particular, can have complex and even unintended consequences. For example, fear-based messaging can stimulate low-effort public behaviours but has also been shown to backfire by reducing more effortful private behaviours [51]. Furthermore, while research has shown that intrinsic anger about the injustice of climate change is not related to individual climate action, it is the strongest predictor of engagement in collective climate actions, such as climate activism [60]. These examples highlight the complex ways in which negative emotions can influence both individual and collective climate actions. While neuroscience will not entirely resolve this complexity, it provides valuable tools for unravelling the brain systems involved in affective and motivational responses to climate change.

One particularly promising approach from affective neuroscience is to study the role of positive emotions. Leveraging positive emotions can activate the brain’s natural reward pathways when engaging in climate action. Inducing ‘warm glow’ — the positive feeling individuals experience when ‘doing good’ — can lead to a feedback loop that motivates more frequent climate actions [59]. Importantly, the brain’s reward-related responses have been shown to be particularly predictive of people’s behaviour [61]. Thus, neuroscience can aid in testing the potential of interventions using positive emotions to stimulate climate action. Using methods like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), researchers can assess people’s affective responses to interventions framing climate actions as personally rewarding — through benefits like health improvements as outlined above, financial savings, or social recognition. That would help design effective campaigns that tap into affective processes to inspire and sustain individual and collective climate action.

Neuroscientific methods can also help to investigate individual differences in responses to climate information. For example, recent research found that climate-anxious individuals show altered neural connectivity in regions processing threat and emotionally salient information [62]. While high levels of climate anxiety can be overwhelming, heightened sensitivity to emotional appeals may also drive engagement in climate action by emphasising urgency. Studying these responses at the neural level can reveal how affect, motivation, and cognition interact in shaping climate action and how their interplay can be leveraged most effectively across different groups of individuals.

From brain activity to population-level behaviour

Neuroscience provides valuable tools for predicting climate-related behaviours on both individual and collective levels. Neuroforecasting is an approach where aggregated neural responses are used to predict population-level choices [61,63]. For example, when individuals evaluated eco-labelled light bulbs, activity in their reward system successfully predicted consumer demand for similar sustainable products in a national survey [64]. Drawing on individual neural responses to predict population-level demand can thus be particularly useful in the field of climate change.

Moreover, neural activity has also been shown to predict behavioural change more accurately than self-reported intentions. In health messaging, brain activity was shown to be a better predictor of whether an individual will succeed in quitting smoking than their stated intentions [65]. Furthermore, it has been recently shown that neural signals predicted behaviour more reliably cross-culturally (compared to self-reports) [66]. In climate communications, this approach can identify which messages are most likely to motivate behaviour change, such as reducing meat consumption or joining climate protests. Thus, neuroforecasting may help design campaigns that inspire meaningful climate action at both individual and collective levels and across cultures.

A need for impactful and systematic investigation

To deepen our understanding of sustainable decision-making, systematic research is necessary, ideally via studies that use paradigms with real-world consequences. Indeed, assessing pro-environmental behaviour via paradigms that solely rely on hypothetical scenarios/choices has been criticised due to limited ecological validity and their tendency to overestimate pro-environmental behaviour, as individuals often express stronger intentions than they would act on in real-world settings [67]. Multiple approaches have recently been developed that leverage real-world impact (see Ref. [67] for a review); however, their use in combination with neuroscientific methodologies has remained scarce. In one notable exception, researchers used brain stimulation to investigate the role of cognitive control in sustainable decision-making and implemented a paradigm with real personal and environmental consequences. Participants decided between a financially beneficial but polluting option and a carbon-neutral choice that came at a personal cost, with real impact through carbon credit purchase and retirement [68].

Regarding the need for systematic research, which is direly needed in this domain, a series of papers on the neural mechanisms of pro-environmental behaviour illustrates the potential of using neuroscience to investigate the processes underlying climate action and inform real-world interventions. Initial research found that both the structure and the functional connectivity of brain regions supporting mentalising and perspective-taking (like the temporoparietal junction [TPJ]) predict intergenerational sustainable behaviour [69,70]. More concretely, one of these studies recorded neural activity while participants were engaging in an intergenerational sustainability task and showed that connectivity between areas supporting mentalising (TPJ/dorsomedial prefrontal cortex) and cognitive control (anterior cingulate cortex/dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) was increased in participants when behaving sustainably. Importantly, acting sustainably in the experiment was associated with real costs for the participants (i.e. more sustainable choices resulted in less payoff for the participant). Subsequently, researchers set out to test the causal role of mentalising by stimulating the TPJ. Indeed, they showed that this significantly increased sustainable decision-making [71], suggesting mentalising could be a promising strategy to stimulate climate action.

Building on these insights, behavioural scientists tested the impact of a mentalisation-based intervention at a larger scale in a mega-study spanning 63 countries [51]. The intervention prompted participants to consider the impact of their actions on future generations. Of the 11 interventions tested, the mentalisation-based one emerged as one of the most effective approaches for enhancing climate change beliefs and policy support on a global scale.

Together these results highlight the potential of systematic development of neuroscience-based interventions to stimulate climate action, spanning various contexts and even cultures. As we continue to bridge insights from neuroscience with behavioural science, this approach provides a roadmap for developing scalable, evidence-based strategies that support long-term climate action — from neurons to individuals and collectives.

Future directions

The aim of this paper is to highlight two key aspects by which neuroscience research may stimulate climate action. These are (1) to evaluate the effects of climate (in) action on neurocognitive health and (2) to better understand the mechanistic drivers and obstacles to more pervasive and sustainable climate action. While we have identified and reviewed promising first evidence in both domains, the general scarcity of research shows that further and more intense efforts are needed (see Table 2 for more examples of research using neuroscientific methodology and suggestions for future studies).

A critical consideration for future research on neurocognitive health is that populations are not equally affected by the interconnected impacts of climate change. Emerging evidence highlights significant disparities in brain health across the globe [80]. Variations in exposure, sensitivity, and the capacity to adapt to adverse environmental factors contribute to this uneven distribution. These factors can also interact among themselves or with others, like socioeconomic status and marginalisation, to exacerbate these inequalities [81]. To generate robust knowledge that can inform policies, global population neuroscience can play a critical role in quantifying the negative effects of climate inaction and the positive effects of climate action across diverse populations.

Regarding the mechanisms underlying sustainable action, systematic investigations are needed to inform the development of impactful strategies. One potential direction to move in would be to focus on emphasising both the personal and societal co-benefits of climate action. That will also help shift away from a conflict frame (between self and collective interest) toward win-win strategies. Notably, it is necessary to work together with interdisciplinary teams, including neuroscientists, medical professionals, climate scientists, and behavioural scientists, to help identify the strategies with the greatest potential to stimulate impactful climate action. These strategies should then be tested extensively and across cultures to ensure they are effective, inclusive, and adaptable to diverse contexts, maximising their potential to address the global climate crisis.

Conclusions

Our understanding of how climate change impacts brain health and how neuroscience can help address the climate crisis is still emerging, but the potential for cross-disciplinary insights is immense. The evidence presented here suggests that addressing climate change is not only necessary for planetary well-being but also for protecting and enhancing neurocognitive health. Whether individual or collective, climate actions can promote better mental health, cognitive functioning, and overall well-being. Neuroscience also offers an important window into how climate action can be driven and sustained, helping us to better understand the underlying mechanisms and optimise interventions.