When it comes to sustainability or in other words when it comes to building a more equal world where people and nature can thrive, emotions play a bigger role than we might realize. Have you ever felt anger over the climate crisis? Or what about hope, when witnessing positive change, or taking part in a collective action? 

​

These emotions, ranging from frustration to optimism, don’t just shape how we feel and our attitudes, but they influence whether we act or sometimes remain on the sidelines. 

One of the leading voices in this field, which is known as affective science, is Dr. Disa Sauter  from the University of Amsterdam who has been collaborating with the Beyond Lab on emotions since 2023. . 

​

​

Disa, we are so happy to have you join us today. In your work you often speak of the metaphor of a ‘Swiss army knife’ of emotions to maintain a healthy equilibrium of well-being and to spur people into action. Considering recent global developments, do you think this idea still holds, or do we need to refine our approach?

​

We still need a Swiss Army knife of emotions, but it has gotten a bit more difficult to find some of the emotional tools. As the global political climate changes, we can easily become overwhelmed with dread and existential anxiety, concern, and worry. But that does not mean that we do not still need positive emotions as well. Negative emotions are very functional and useful. If we did not have any negative emotions, we probably would not have made it as a species because you need to be scared of actual threats. But if you are just scared, angry, and worried all the time, it becomes difficult to function in your own life, let alone creating change, the change that we need in the world. We need a wide range of different emotions because emotions are tightly linked to motivations and taking action.​

​

​

Linked to this, the climate crisis! At the beginning of January, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirmed that 2024 is the warmest year on record, based on six international datasets. From an action and policy perspective, how do we balance these emotional triggers with the need to accelerate immediate behaviour change and spur long-term engagement?

​

Different people need different things, it depends on where you are at and what you might benefit from. People who are not overly concerned about the climate crisis may need to be made to feel more concerned and worried, and that is undoubtedly a significant portion of the population. Yet, we should be careful in assuming that everybody is in the same place on this journey.  

​

There are many people who are already concerned, but don't feel like they have a lot of agency, which, in a sense, is not entirely wrong because power is very unevenly distributed. As an individual, you have limited power, especially because so much of the sustainability discourse in the West focuses on individual consumption, for example, ‘change your energy provider’ or ‘reduce your meat consumption’. But, for a lot of people, those actions don’t feel like they’re really doing that much. Also, if they see people around them not making the same effort, they may question their actions. Therefore, those individuals might benefit from a sense of having more agency and feeling what they do matters.

​

That makes sense. So how do we instill more agency?

​

For that, it is crucial to act collectively. Bill McKibben, the founder of 350.org, said it best, “The best thing you can do about climate change as an individual is to stop acting like an individual.” Indeed, as an individual person, you have some agency, some power, and when you look at individuals like Greta Thunberg, one person can obviously make a difference. However, the reason one person can have significant impact is because they create a movement and trigger other people to join them, and that is when we really start to feel like we have power and agency.

​

 

Ultimately, emphasizing what people can do, and that usually involves doing things collectively, is going to be very important for activating people who are concerned about the state of the world, but not yet doing very much, often because they don't really know what to do and what is effective.

​

​

There seems to be a network of positive resistance emerging, people who, despite the rise of conservative and extreme right-wing governments, continue to assert their own agency and take collective action. How do you see hope playing a role in these movements? And when does hope become helpful versus potentially counterproductive? ​

​

That is an important question because our understanding of hope needs to distinguish between when it empowers and when it hinders action. There is a kind of hope that I often hear, ‘techno-optimism’ or ‘other-optimism’, where people assume that someone else will come up with a solution, maybe through geoengineering or some other technological breakthrough. These narratives can be useful in that they prevent people from feeling completely overwhelmed, but at the same time, it is a very abstract hope, one that removes personal responsibility and agency, and that is potentially quite dangerous.

​

 

But there is another kind of hope, one that is much closer to determination. It is the belief in a positive future, coupled with the willingness to work toward it, to be part of a just transition. This kind of hope is not passive; it motivates action. Personally, I find it incredibly energizing to connect with people who are taking action in so many different ways. 

​

​

Speaking of interventions, based on your research findings, which emotions have the most significant impact? Does hope stand out among them?

​

Our research shows that when it comes to positive emotions, calm and hope play a particularly significant role. For negative emotions, anxiety, sadness, and loneliness stand out, which is less surprising, as these are well-established risk factors for various forms of psychopathology, including depression and anxiety disorders.

​

 

What is especially interesting is that while a great deal of research has focused on gratitude interventions, for example, counting your blessings has been shown to improve well-being, our findings suggest that momentary feelings of calm or momentary feelings of hope may actually have a greater impact.

 

We also found almost no cultural variation in these effects. No matter where people are in the world, these emotional experiences are key to how they navigate daily life. This is particularly striking because, in Western or Global North cultures, we often prioritize emotions like excitement, elation, and ecstasy.

​

​

Speaking of interventions, based on your research findings, which emotions have the most significant impact? Does hope stand out among them?

​

A big part of what gives me hope is being surrounded by other people who act, and, of course, it is also seeing when that action actually works.​

​

I participated in a campaign to push my pension fund, "Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP", which is one of the largest in the world, to divest from fossil fuels. I was just one small part of a much larger movement, with diverse groups taking different approaches. The group I was involved with focused on pressuring universities and university umbrella organizations. Others staged protests in the fund’s lobby. Some worked on direct campaigning, meeting with board members. It was a diverse, collective effort.

 

And it worked. ABP ultimately divested, pulling 15 billion euros out of fossil fuel investments.

 

Seeing the results of all those late nights on Zoom calls, stepping far outside my own comfort zone, and realizing that change happens because so many people come together, that is incredibly motivating. It makes you want to keep going. And that, more than anything, gives me hope.