The environmental justice framework predicts that racially marginalised communities bear
disproportionate climate stress exposure, which in turn drives racially patterned mental
health inequalities. We tested this prediction using the Stress Process Model in a large,
quota-stratified survey of British adults (N = 2,160) across six ethnic groups (White British,
Black African, Black Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi), with deliberate minority
oversampling. Pre-registered analyses examined whether cumulative climate stress (CCS)
was racially patterned and whether it contributed to racial inequalities in depression (PHQ-
9), generalised anxiety (GAD-7), wellbeing (SWEMWBS), and climate anxiety (CCAS).
CCS was not racially patterned (F = 0.57, p = .722), and the null held after controlling for
income, education, and area deprivation. By contrast, cumulative socioeconomic stress
(CSES) was strongly patterned by ethnicity (F = 15.26, p < .001) and dominated the
prediction of all mental health outcomes. We also observed a dissociation between climate
exposure and climate anxiety where, despite equal CCS, every minority group reported
significantly higher climate anxiety (F = 16.34, p < .001), and this gap was not attenuated by
socioeconomic controls. Race × CCS interactions were non-significant for depression,
anxiety, and climate anxiety. A borderline interaction for wellbeing (p = .049) ran opposite
to prediction — Black African and Black Caribbean respondents showed more positive
CCS-wellbeing slopes, with mediated moderation analyses indicating protective pathways
through self-esteem and mastery respectively.
These results suggest that the environmental justice mechanism does not hold for climate
stress in the current British context. Racial mental health inequalities are driven by
socioeconomic pathways, not climatic ones. However, minority communities are more
anxious about climate change despite equal exposure, pointing to appraisal-level rather
than exposure-level inequity.