Climate denial as disavowal: Applications for social work education and practice

Abstract

Eco-social work positions climate change as a core planetary boundary breach. It demands urgent attention from social work, as a profession which centralises social justice within its theory and practice. This article argues that social works’ engagement with climate change needs to be contextualised within broader societal narratives that shape experiences of climate disengagement. Conceptual tools, including societal climate management strategies and climate denial as disavow, are drawn on to illustrate the complexity of climate ambivalence and disengagement. They provide important opportunities to better understand experiences of climate disengagement, including their implications for social work practice.

Introduction

The earth is entering a phase of deep transition, with significant ruptures to the climate impacting a myriad of ecological, social and economic systems (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2023). Climate science is clear regarding the level of existential threat faced (Gergis, 2024; IPCC, 2023). Social work is struggling to centralise a climate response, with eco-social work continually placed as a distinct field of practice, as opposed to a core tenant for the profession (Alston, 2022; Boetto, 2019). Considering the societal and political context affecting Australian practitioners, it is crucial to explore experiences of climate disengagement to advance the profession’s response to the climate crisis. Without this, the transition of eco-social work into a core professional attribute will struggle to materialise. The following discussion introduces climate change as a planetary boundary breach (Richardson et al., 2023). It then explores societal climate management strategies and climate denial as disavowal as opportunities to better understand the complexity of climate disengagement within the current Australian socio-political context. Finally, it highlights how each can support social workers to conceptualise climate disengagement within their work. In the ensuing discussion, climate engagement is understood as a process of exploring the realities of climate change within its broader societal and political contexts. The aim is to support a broader cross-section of social workers to actively engage with the implications of climate change in their theoretical and practice base. Climate engagement demands an examination of the transition to the Anthropocene, including critical reflection on related discourses and key political dynamics (Ife, 2021). It is best understood as an incomplete and evolving journey (Bailey and Gerrish, 2024).

Planetary boundary framework

In 2009, the Stockholm Resilience Centre partnered with 28 climate experts to develop the nine planetary boundaries framework. The scientifically based model predicts the level of human interference which can occur to each planetary boundary, prior to a substantial altering of earth systems (Richardson et al., 2023; Steffen et al., 2015). It distinguishes each earth system’s boundary to the threshold, when the boundary has been breached (Richardson et al., 2023; Steffen et al., 2015). The framework foregrounds the level of risk faced when any of the planetary boundaries are crossed, with the potential to trigger non-linear and cascading environmental changes. In a 2015 update, climate change and biosphere integrity were identified as core planetary boundaries which cannot be crossed without endangering humanity’s survival (Steffen et al., 2015). The 2023 update identified an alarming six of the nine planetary boundaries had been breached (Richardson et al., 2023), with the September 2025 update increasing this to seven (Stockholm Resilience Centre, 2025).

When planetary boundaries are breached, a fundamental disruption in planetary make-up occurs. Some describe this as the shift from the Holocene to the Anthropocene, representing a transition away from approximately 10,000 years of relative stability embedded within the relationship between the human and the more-than-human world (Hamilton, 2015, 2017; Muir et al., 2020). The Anthropocene highlights a period, or epoch, where humans are the dominant drivers of ecological and systemic change, with the relationship between the human and more-than-human world predicated on increasing uncertainty and risk (Hamilton, 2015, 2017; Muir et al., 2020). This places humanity in an unprecedented situation, where escalating risk and instability drastically changes, or collapses, the basic systems which humanity currently depends on for survival (Bendell, 2018). The theory and practice of establishment social work is fundamentally altered by the level of existential risk faced (Ife, 2021). It is within this context that the current discussion is contextualised.

Eco-social work

A key response to the wickedness of climate change has been developed in areas of social work generally defined as eco, green, ecological or environmental (Donkers and Robinson, 2025). Given the common usage of eco-social work within the Australian context, it will be used in the following discussion. Eco-social work theorises the intersection between social and ecological justice (Alston, 2022), highlighting the professions skills in climate mitigation (Boulet, 2021; Powers et al., 2019) and adaptation (Ife, 2021; Kenkel, 2020). Social work’s modernist underpinnings are critiqued as fundamentally contributing to the unfolding climate crisis (Besthorn, 2014; Boetto, 2019; Coates, 2003). Eco-social work also highlights the need for a transformative shift away from the human/nature separation, towards recognition of humanity’s inherent connection with the more-than-human world (Boetto, 2017, 2019; Coates, 2003). This requires a fundamental shift, from an anthropocentric stance to an eco-centric ontology (Besthorn, 2014; Boetto, 2019; Coates, 2003).

Decolonising practices which centre First Nations perspectives are foundational to Australian social work’s response to the climate crisis (Boetto, 2019; Green, 2024). Australian scholarship (including Fricker, 2024; Hammond and Miller, 2023) highlight the importance of embedding Indigenous pedagogies into all work conducted, including relational practices and co-created knowledge grounded in Country. Bawaka Country and colleagues (2015: 279) invite the consideration of practicing a ‘methodology of attending’ which understands research, and potentially practice, as an embodied and relational process in which listening, feeling, acting and being with Country cultivate responsiveness and ethical care beyond notions of separateness. To truly embody practices which centre First Nations knowledges requires deep critical reflection (Redfern and Bennett, 2022), decolonisation of self (for the non-Indigenous social worker) and deep listening (Ungunmerr-Baumann et al., 2022).

Contemporary social work theory and practice increasingly integrate an eco-focus. Yet Australian constructs of the profession have not widely embraced ecological issues (Bexell et al., 2019; Bowles et al., 2018; Mason et al., 2017). Key eco-social work scholars argue that the limited take-up of a climate response throughout the profession stems from the absence of frameworks that integrate an eco-transformative approach into many social work practice settings (Boetto, 2019; McKinnon and Alston, 2016; Molyneux, 2010). Recent reviews (Bexell et al., 2019; Mason et al., 2017) reveal the marginal presence of sustainability and environmental content in social work literature. Mason and colleagues (2017) assert the profession needs to better engage with climate mitigation and prevention, to minimise being pigeonholed in disaster response in an increasingly climate affected world.

The lack of eco-social work take-up requires contextualisation within the historical and structural tensions that have shaped the Australian profession since its inception. Social work has always navigated contradictory roles; advocating for empowerment and social justice, while simultaneously acting as an agent of the state, enforcing legislation and social control (McAuliffe et al., 2024). Dominelli (2009) describes this as a tension along a care-control continuum, with practitioners balancing responsibilities as regulators and gatekeepers, alongside work in advocacy and progressing human rights. These tensions have been exacerbated by the pervasive influence of neoliberalism within the Australian community sector (Wallace and Pease, 2011). In addition, Australian social work has a checkered past of advocating for the rights of First Nations communities, whist simultaneously being actively involved with racist policies and practices, such as those relating to the Stolen Generations (Walter and Baltra-Ulloa, 2019). Significant work remains to decolonise Australian social work and deeply connect with First Nations ways of understanding and relating to Country and culture.

For social work to adequately respond to climate change, a repositioning of eco-social work is required (Boetto, 2017, 2019). This includes addressing barriers at the individual, cultural, organisational and structural levels that have resulted in establishment social work remaining largely disconnected from climate action to-date (McKinnon, 2013). The use of the term establishment social work acknowledges the influence of modernity, neoliberalism and colonialism in shaping dominant professional discourse and practice in settings such as Australia (Morley et al., 2026). Beyond political and structural change, social work needs frameworks to help practitioners understand their relationship with climate action, especially for those who do not naturally identify with eco-social work, or climate activism (Donkers and Robinson, 2025). Many eco-social frameworks do not actively explore experiences of climate disengagement or uncertainty, which can result in the complexity of these experiences being silenced. Given social work practitioners operate in a society where climate involvement is contested (Salamon, 2020), integrating literature into eco-social work frameworks which explores broader societal climate disengagement and denial can offer a more nuanced response to this key dilemma. The following question is subsequently posed; what can the integration of climate-management strategies and the notion of climate denial as disavowal, including the paradox of knowing and not knowing simultaneously, offer eco-social work? More specifically, how might this integration further speak to the complexity of climate engagement for social work practitioners? The following discussion draws from a narrative literature review, which explored key psychological and sociological publications regarding climate engagement and climate change denial.

Broader climate disengagement

Understanding social workers’ experiences of climate engagement requires contextualisation within wider patterns of climate denial and disengagement that continue to characterise the Australian context. Compared to the degree of risk articulated through key scientific predictions, a lack of collective climate engagement and action remains (Gergis, 2024). As one example, a National Climate Action survey by Grifith University with 4000 participants discovered that a majority of respondents believe climate change was happening in 2023, yet only 15 percent believed it to be a significant (Paas et al., 2024). Thirty-four percent believe it would be by 2050. Four percent of respondents self-identified as sceptics, while 19 percent were not convinced of the level of threat faced (Paas et al., 2024). The Australian Institute’s biannual Climate of the Nation report (Morison et al., 2024) highlighted that 12 percent of overall respondents believed the Australian government was doing too much in response to climate change (Morison et al., 2024). These results need to be contextualised within a national context marred by grossly inadequate national climate action. Australian federal politics has recently seen an upsurge in climate politics, including the recent decision from the coalition to shift from their commitment to the Paris Agreement (Armstrong and Truu, 2025) and recent reporting that Australia will miss its 2035 national targets unless significant change is engaged with (Evans, 2025). It is imperative to recognise the impact of political climate denial and inaction on the ability and perceived need for individuals’ and communities to engage and actively develop a degree of climate literacy.

Climate change – A super wicked problem

Engaging with climate change is not simply a matter of awareness: it is deeply connected with cultural and political forces that enable avoidance and distance to be maintained from the issue. Climate change has been described as a wicked problem (Watkins and Wilber, 2015), a perfect catastrophe (Marshall, 2014) and even traumatic (Bellamy, 2019), reflecting the complexity of engaging with it as an issue. Several factors reinforce this difficulty. Climate change often lacks immediacy and feels abstract (Davenport, 2017; Davidson and Kecinski, 2021; Giddens, 2011). Dominant societal narratives position climate science as uncertain and a distant threat (Klein, 2014; Marshall, 2014). In addition, responding effectively requires significant short-term sacrifices for long-term survival (Giddens, 2011; Marshall, 2014). Significant loss is required to adequately respond to the level of risk faced (Elliott, 2018; Randall, 2009). These dynamics are compounded by collective social silence, where speaking about climate risk can feel more threatening than conforming to societal norms (Marshall, 2014). In addition, the complexity and intensity of current global inequality and injustice mean individual’s surge capacity to meet the climate challenges faced can feel limited (Engstrom and Powers, 2019). Finally, the dominance of anthropocentric discourses and identity constructs can render the more-than-human world invisible, directly shaping how climate risk is understood and engaged with (Besthorn, 2014).

When discussing climate engagement, it is important to recognise the impact of eco-anxiety and ecological grief on perceived disconnection and ambivalence. While natural responses to the current threat, they can become maladaptive, reinforcing climate disengagement, and even denial, particularly when left unsupported (Pihkala, 2022). Here climate grief is understood as particularly challenging, as it includes existential, anticipatory, disenfranchised, preventable, ambiguous and unprecedented components (Bailey and Gerrish, 2024). Secondary loss sits in parallel to the primary loss, in terms of the lifestyle changes required to effectively respond to climate change. The complexity of climate grief reflects not only individual distress but also structural forces sustaining ecological harm.

Societal climate-management strategies

Eminent Australian climate scientist Dr Gergis (2024), a leading voice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), highlights that many Australians remain unaware of the level of risk communicated by climate scientists. Climate risk can feel distant and disconnected from people’s everyday experience (Davidson and Kecinski, 2021; Ford and Norgaard, 2020; Marshall, 2014). Political inaction reinforces this disconnection, alongside industrial denial campaigns which intentionally aim to reinforce narratives that assert climate change is a distant threat; or indeed a hoax or conspiracy (Jacques and Knox, 2016; Jones et al., 2017). However, intentional or industrial climate denial campaigns only remain effective as they connect with societal climate cognitive dissonance. Particularly in the Global North, there is the dual experience of heavily contributing to climate change, alongside being victims of its impacts (Norgaard, 2006; Wong-Parodi and Feygina, 2020). This can be a difficult situation to accept. Subsequently, members of a community may engage with societal narratives or strategies which allow climate change to remain distant and separate from everyday life (Hamilton, 2012; Norgaard, 2006). This can allow a cultural norm of awareness and lack of awareness to occur simultaneously, resulting in climate change feeling intangible and less present than other social justice issues.

A contemporary review of relevant literature regarding how people respond to the emotional impact of climate change identified four categories of response, including apathy, withdrawal, denial and engagement in pro-climate action (Davidson and Kecinski, 2021). Lead climate academic Clive Hamilton in his seminal 2010 book, A Requiem for a Species, recognises various forms of climate denial management strategies which sit alongside outright climate denial. In a similar fashion, Norgaard’s climate ethnographic work in Norway (2006) explored how communities co-construct a relationship with climate change that can encompass experiences of both awareness and a lack of awareness simultaneously. Each add to the understanding of what is defined here as societal management strategies; exploring ways individuals relate to climate change which are culturally and socially constructed. They support a response to the wickedness of climate change as a social and political problem, alongside collective climate silence and the lack of a cohesive political response evident in countries such as Australia.

Climate societal management strategies can include the othering of climate change, particularly in relation to complicity or responsibility. Casual denial can include statements such as ‘environmentalists always exaggerate’ (Hamilton, 2012), or ‘it can’t be that bad’ (Salamon, 2020: 16), as a form of minimisation. Engaging with small actions such as changing a lightbulb can alleviate feelings of complicity and powerlessness (Hamilton, 2012). Perspectival selectivity, projection or blame shifting attempt to maintain a sense of identity perceived as sustainable and socially just in the face of the climate crisis (Hamilton, 2012; Norgaard, 2006, 2012; Salamon, 2020). Another management strategy relates to oscillating between unrealistic optimism to fatalism (Cornforth, 2013). In addition, selective attention highlights strategies to control exposure to information on climate change. Examples include compartmentalisation and dissociation (Salamon, 2020: 16), alongside socially constructed climate silence (Norgaard, 2006; Pihkala, 2018). Norgaard (2006) and Hamilton (2010) highlight the societal phenomenon of collective avoidance as a socially organised form of climate denial.

The concept of climate denial as disavowal can be useful in relation to this discussion. If, and when, people find it too difficult to process the emotions and existential questions related to the climate emergency, one way to manage this experience can be to resort to various defence and coping mechanisms. Full-scale denial, or denial as negation, is one response (Pihkala, 2018; Weintrobe, 2012). However, different forms of disavowal are much more common. While other terms have been developed for similar concepts, the experience of knowing and now knowing simultaneously remains central (for overviews, see Azuri, 2022; Bellamy, 2019; Norgaard, 2006; Pihkala, 2018; Reser and Swim, 2011; Weintrobe, 2012). A culture of disavowal starts being viewed as normal, which can result in a vicious circle. Because of denial and disavowal, problems relating to climate change get ignored and subsequently worsen (Weintrobe, 2012). This in turn breeds more anxiety, which many try to deal with by further denying the reality of the current situation (Pihkala, 2018). For those who are actively involved with climate action, a culture where denial as disavowal dominates can be incredibly distressing and alienate their experience further (Azuri, 2022). Political inaction and industrial denial campaigns intersect with and intentionally reinforce climate societal management strategies, as many benefit economically and politically from the continued state of climate inaction (Hamilton, 2012; Klein, 2014). Indeed, there is a strong connection between climate-management strategies and the reinforcement of global transnational climate privilege (Norgaard, 2012). Strategies individuals or communities engage with to limit their exposure to climate change allow current mechanisms of transnational environmental privilege to continue, which predominantly burden communities in the Global South.

It is important to distinguish climate denial as a form of disavowal from the conscious choice to move in and out of awareness or engagement with climate change. In fact, the wickedness of climate change as an issue can exacerbate the likelihood of greater movement in and out of relationship with key climate discourses; or what had been described as an oscillation in engagement. It is a construct with precedence within climate engagement frameworks and can act as a protective factor in response to eco-grief and overwhelm (Pihkala, 2022). This is highlighted by sustainability scholar Maiteny (2000, 2002) who conceptualised a framework of climate oscillation relating to climate risk. The framework recognises movement from the familiar, to a deep process of questioning and challenging preconceived assumptions and narratives (Maiteny, 2000, 2002). This inevitably sees movement back to everyday reality, in an altered form. The process of oscillation is understood as both natural and protective (Maiteny, 2000, 2002). Similarly, Pihkala (2022) recognises the importance of oscillation or fluctuation in response to eco-anxiety and ecological grief. In relation to eco-social work, Bailey and Gerrish (2024) and Engstrom (2019) draw from Stroebe and Schutt’s Dual Process Model of Coping with Bereavement, which was initially developed for inter-personal loss. This highlights oscillation between a process of grieving (loss-orientation) to re-engaging with previous life experiences (restoration-oriented coping mechanisms), providing respite from the intensity of emotional experience. Engstrom (2019) analyses the framework in relation to the experience of eco-grief, including its utility supporting individuals to develop an eco-focused sense of identity. Bailey and Gerrish (2024) conceptualise oscillation between loss-oriented to restoration-oriented actions. Key differences between what is discussed here and climate denial as disavowal are worth noting. One relates to the ability to shift in and out of experiences of climate engagement as a protective mechanism, rather than remain statically in a state of denial or disengagement. Intentionally moving in and out of experiences of climate engagement and disengagement requires active awareness.

Climate-management strategies and social work

It is important to recognise the problematic nature of making blanket statements regarding social work practitioners’ engagement with climate change, without adequate acknowledgement of the intersectional privileges and oppressions which surround this engagement (Ford and Norgaard, 2020). While there are benefits to exploring key concepts regarding societal management strategies, it must be contextualised within a theoretical framing recognising the intersectionality of experience (Ford and Norgaard, 2020). A strong theme of exploring intersectionality (Strange et al., 2024) and decolonisation (Green, 2024) in this area needs to be followed. Climate societal management strategies can then provide an example of how cultural norms and discourses can be used to better understand social work specific barriers to climate engagement, in partnership with a critical, intersectional approach. While climate denial as disavowal has psychodynamic origins, it provides language to an often-experienced phenomenon. When integrated into eco-social work frameworks, it has potential to (re)conceptualise how people may understand experiences of climate disengagement or ambivalence. Incorporating it into critical and eco-social work reframes the challenges of engaging with climate change, shifting the focus from a personal failing to one which is contextualised within its cultural and structural context. Three opportunities to integrate this into social work practice are outlined below. They include social work practice in partnership with individuals and communities; practitioners personal and professional engagement with climate change; and the requirement for a systemic and structural response which is consistent with contemporary climate predictions.

Implications for practice – Working alongside individuals and communities

It is important social work practitioners explore the complexity of climate engagement with the people and communities they work alongside. Climate apathy and denial are significant barriers to climate action. Integrating these concepts into eco-social work can support practitioners understand the underlying reasons for inaction. This understanding enables practitioners to develop strategies that resonate more deeply with clients and communities. Climate-management strategies may not shift when directly challenged, as this can exacerbate the experience (Hamilton, 2012; Norgaard, 2006). However, by bringing language to what the experience is and reasons why it might be engaged with, there is greater capacity for alternative engagement strategies to be invited in. Azuri (2022) describes this as shifting from a vicious cycle of denial as disavowal, to one that can consciously negotiate and explore climate awareness for the people we work alongside. When this is framed through a critical lens, it allows for conversations and discussions to occur which centralise consciousness raising (Hosken and Goldingay, 2016).

Integrating consciousness raising into our work with clients and communities must occur alongside acknowledging the complexity of climate grief many people experience. Exploring how people move in and out of climate engagement can further reveal unrecognised dimensions of that grief and create space to work with them. Bailey and Gerrish (2024) identify key elements of ecological grief, including loss relating to power and privilege, dominant ways of meaning-making and identity, certainty and predictability, cultural narratives, and way of life. In parallel with recognising the complexity of this experience, they identify the importance of oscillation as a protective and empowering response to ecological grief and climate change. Any practice response that recognises climate-management strategies and can actively work with the complexity of climate grief will become increasingly important as the impact of climate change continues to unfold.

Practitioners engagement with climate change

Social workers themselves can also be impacted from living in a culture where societal management strategies dominate. A scoping review by McCaffery and Boetto (2025) explored ‘eco-emotions’ within social work, including anxiety, hope, grief and empathy. They suggested that social workers’ emotional engagement with climate change tends to be fluid, complex and develop over time, with further work required. Eco-social work frameworks which speak to the complexity of climate engagement are an important step in (re)positioning eco-social work to a core tenet of theory and practice going forward. Davidson and Kecinski (2021) assert a key alternative to climate denial or perceived apathy is engagement in pro-climate actions. Language needs to be placed around the complexity of practitioners’ ability to engage with climate change in a professional capacity, so individuals can reflect on what actions feel most aligned with their value base. This could take the form of activist practice (Morley, 2016), as well as supervision, with an eco-social work focus. Integrating these concepts into eco-social work frameworks encourages critical reflective practice, helping social workers identify and challenge engagement with discourse and narratives which are inconsistent with their theoretical framework and value base (Fook, 2023).

The benefits of critical reflection are important to emphasise here. Critical reflection has been commonly viewed as a key component of eco-social work (Boetto, 2017; Engstrom, 2019; Gray and Coates, 2015). It can play an important role supporting practitioners to critically explore their engagement with various discourses and narratives, deconstructing the politics of this experience to provide opportunities to recognise and engage with alternative narratives consistent with espoused theory (Donkers and Robinson, 2025; Fook, 2023). Through phases of deconstruction, resistance and challenge, the assumed truth of discourses can then be interrogated, particularly in relation to who gains from their construction. This process can open space for alternative or previously marginalised narratives to surface (Fook, 2023). It can then consider how engagement with alternative discourses might transform earlier understandings of climate engagement (Donkers and Robinson, 2025).

Building on the development of critical reflection skills, decolonisation in this context requires practitioners to interrogate the colonial structures and power dynamics shaping social work’s response to climate change, including enactment of denial as disavowal. This work calls for a deliberate shift from western-centric principles towards approaches that privilege relationality and interconnectedness. As Tynan (2021) argues, foregrounding relationality involves cultivating a deep, embodied connection to Country and recognising the ethical responsibilities this entails. Bennett and colleagues (2025) provide practice guidance on ‘how’ to do decoloniality, emphasising the need to de-centre dominant paradigms and embed relational practices within everyday social work engagement. At its core, this requires acknowledging the ontological priority of connecting with the natural world, a perspective grounded in the interconnectedness of all living beings within the more-than-human world (Rowe et al., 2015).

The imperative for structural action

Finally, it is important to note the need for a structural response consistent with the level of climate risk anticipated. Establishment constructs of social work could not be argued to be in a state of climate denial. However, the concept of climate denial as disavowal could be argued to have merit. For one, it is reinforced by the placement of climate-related work as a separate field of practice. This placement also shapes how risk is understood. If we were looking at the shift to a new epoch and the breaching of a core planetary boundary, treating climate change as a separate sub-section would no longer be an option. The current positioning does not provide individual practitioners with a coherent narrative to understand climate risk within their everyday practice or to identify opportunities to respond to organisational and systemic barriers. Without the centralisation of climate response within the profession, a relationship with climate change is maintained that mirrors problematic dominant societal discourses. Only by ensuring consistency between risk and response can climate denial as disavowal be challenged within the normative frameworks of the profession. A comprehensive climate response requires centralisation in all work moving forward through professional bodies (for example the Australian Association of Social Work and the International Federation of Social Work), alongside social work education. This will then impact how individual practitioners feel they can overcome identified organisational and systemic barriers faced. Key to this is the need for climate adaptation to be structurally integrated into key social work entities and systems, with full participation and representation from First Nations social workers.

Conclusion

Centralising a climate narrative and response is crucial for social work, as the shift of epoch to the Anthropocene progresses. Exploring the complexity of engaging with a super wicked problem such as climate change is imperative to support all practitioners engage in the important transition at play. The previous discussion has provided two examples of key narratives, climate-management strategies and the concept of denial of disavowal, which can support practitioners explore their relationship with climate engagement, recontextualising experiences of ambivalence or disengagement as socially constructed. By contextualising them within the broader social and cultural context, alternative opportunities to progress climate engagement can be supported. Future work must equip practitioners with a deeper understanding of the cultural and structural factors that shape how people conceptualise and relate to climate change. Research can then critically examine whether societal management strategies and climate denial as disavowal serve as effective frameworks for fostering alternative pathways to climate engagement. In addition, social work practitioners require targeted support to confront and navigate the realities of climate risk, ensuring they are prepared to engage meaningfully with its challenges in practice. This article seeks to equip social work academics and practitioners with tools to better understand these dynamics, offering insights into the intersections of climate change, social structures and professional practice. By doing so, we contribute to ongoing debates on climate disengagement, which necessitate the role of critical social work in advancing climate action across the profession.