Climate change poses a significant challenge to human agency, potentially leading to feelings of powerlessness. This qualitative study examines how individuals discursively construct their agency (or lack thereof) concerning climate change. The study moves beyond simplistic, individualistic perspectives on climate action, exploring how collective discourses shape individual responses. It draws from climate psychology and science communication literature, reviewing traditional views of agency as an internal psychological mechanism and more recent understandings of agency as discursively constructed in interaction. The study critiques the limitations of behaviorally oriented climate psychology, which often promotes information-focused interventions that overlook the complexities of human agency. The study aims to provide a broader understanding of how individuals express and experience agency in relation to climate change, contributing insights for more effective climate communication strategies, particularly in the context of the increasingly prevalent narrative that it may be 'too late' to prevent dangerous climate change.

Existing research highlights the diversity of climate change perceptions across societies. The authority of science is diminishing in climate change discourse, with competing narratives like the apocalypse narrative, which minimizes human agency, and narratives emphasizing individual lifestyle changes, often seen as insufficient. Studies on climate change denialism show how those who reject mainstream scientific views often utilize scientific rhetoric while presenting unscientific arguments. These arguments are frequently linked to maintaining existing social hierarchies and power inequalities. There is also a substantial body of work examining why the response to climate change has been slow, noting the tendency to view climate change as a distant problem. Studies in environmental education have called for challenging human-centric views of agency and acknowledging the complex human-climate entanglement. This study builds upon these existing insights, using a discourse analytical approach to understand how people construct agency in relation to climate change.

This study employed qualitative methods, utilizing 28 semi-structured interviews conducted via Zoom. Participants (aged 21-83, representing 11 nationalities, with a gender balance of 16 women and 12 men) were recruited via social media, mailing lists, and snowball sampling. The interviews included questions on the environment, climate change, and participants’ experiences with environmental fiction. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcribed interviews, focusing on how participants expressed human abilities, capacities, and actions related to climate change. The analysis identified discursive positions of (non)agency, with the basic unit of analysis being a clause or sentence expressing agency or non-agency. Open coding was used to develop codes and then group these into broader themes. Thematic analysis was conducted as a constructionist method, recognizing the influence of societal discourses on participants’ constructions of agency. The validity of the analysis was ensured through a detailed explanation of the analytical process and referencing to relevant previous studies.

The analysis revealed twelve broad themes of human agency in relation to climate change, ranging in frequency from 58 occurrences (Collective agency) down to 3 (Benefitting agency). These themes are categorized into three broader groups: 1) Human concrete action (Collective, Individual, Limited, Causing, Ambivalent, External); 2) Critical mental action (Critical, Reflective); and 3) Climate change influence on human agency (Threatened, Experiential, Influenced, Benefitting). **Collective Agency:** Participants frequently expressed the belief in collective action's power to mitigate climate change. Examples included voting for climate-conscious policies. **Individual Agency:** This theme highlighted individual responsibility and ability to mitigate climate change through personal actions (e.g., calculating carbon footprint, adopting eco-friendly lifestyles). **Critical Agency:** Participants displayed skepticism toward climate narratives, positioning themselves as critical thinkers who can identify problematic discourses and misinformation. **Threatened Agency:** Participants described human agency as severely threatened by climate change, often using apocalyptic language to convey an urgent need for action. **Limited Agency:** This theme portrayed human agency as weak or insufficient to address the climate crisis, emphasizing limitations in capacity or willingness to act. **Causing Agency:** Participants acknowledged human responsibility for causing climate change, although the level of responsibility varied across accounts. **Reflective Agency:** Participants highlighted the importance of thinking, learning, and reflecting on the complexities of climate change. **Ambivalent Agency:** This reflected conflicting feelings and beliefs, recognizing the limitations of individual action in the face of larger systemic issues. **Experiential Agency:** Participants discussed their personal experiences of climate change, whether through direct observation or emotional responses. **External Agency:** This highlighted agency residing outside individuals, such as governments, corporations, or scientific institutions. **Influenced Agency:** Participants viewed human agency as shaped by climate change, requiring adaptation and changes in lifestyles. **Benefitting Agency:** This theme, although less frequent, acknowledged the possibility of some individuals benefiting from aspects of climate change (e.g., increased work opportunities due to disaster response).

The findings reveal a multifaceted understanding of climate change agency, moving beyond simplistic notions of individual responsibility. The prevalence of Critical and Ambivalent agency themes suggests that existing climate change discourses may be ineffective or even counterproductive, highlighting the importance of acknowledging the complexities of individual experiences and beliefs. The high frequency of Collective agency suggests the potential of emphasizing collective action and shared responsibility. However, the vague nature of many agency constructions points to the need for more concrete narratives that connect individual actions to broader social and ecological contexts. The predominantly human-centered focus of the themes underscores the need to incorporate more relational ontologies that account for the interconnectedness of humans and the non-human environment. This could help individuals develop a more nuanced and effective understanding of their role in addressing the climate crisis.

This study identifies twelve distinct themes of climate change agency, revealing the complexity of how individuals perceive and respond to climate change. The findings challenge simplistic individualistic approaches and highlight the importance of recognizing the role of collective discourses and the need for more nuanced, relational understandings of human-environmental interactions. Future research could investigate how these agency themes vary across different demographics and cultural contexts, and explore the effectiveness of communication strategies designed to foster a more robust sense of collective climate action.

The qualitative nature of this study and the relatively small sample size limit the generalizability of the findings. The participants were relatively well-educated, potentially limiting the applicability of the results to broader populations. Future research should investigate a more diverse range of participants to increase the generalizability of the study's findings.