For decades, climate advocates, researchers and other stakeholders have struggled with one challenge: how to make people care about a problem that seems likely to affect someone else in 2050? It turns out that the answer is now emerging – and not from an advertising idea or a new study, but from a war.

When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, European households learned something that years of green transition talks had failed to teach – that energy is not just a policy discussion. It is what you pay to stay warm in winter. For years, Europe treated its 40% reliance on Russian gas as regular business, but the war changed everything. When Russia began throttling supplies to Europe for its political stance, switching to renewables stopped being a moral choice for the planet and became a matter of national survival. Renewable investment accelerated. Policy moved at a speed that climate targets alone never could have accomplished.

Now, that same lesson, in a way, seems to be hitting India harder and faster.

The recent strikes in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz – have brought energy into the headlines – with oil prices crossing the $100 mark and thousands of ships stuck, the crisis has hit Indian kitchens. For a country that relies on imports for nearly 87% of its crude, the impacted supplies from the Strait of Hormuz are a direct reason for the sudden, massive pressure on petrol prices and LPG costs in cities across India today.

While the situation in the Gulf remains fluid, it has already delivered a sharp reality check. For those of us trying to communicate the energy transition, two hard truths have become inescapable.

The first lesson – the problem of being still stuck in the future tense. Our climate communication has been obsessed with emissions trajectories, temperature thresholds, and memos coming out of mega climate events – ideas that often feel miles away from the person struggling to get access to reliable energy in an Indian city. 

In fact, the data on how people actually behave tells a different story. Research shows a massive engagement gap when we stick to abstract goals. People don’t move for 30-year projections; they move when they feel the risk and exposure directly impacting their daily lives. Specifically, economic risk. So, when you frame climate action as a shield against global volatility, it actually cuts through the political noise. The winning argument therefore can no longer be just about the planet but about securing India’s future and protecting every citizen’s pocket from a global market that can turn volatile in an instant.

The second lesson – we continue to speak two languages that don’t necessarily translate. We have specialists talking about plant load factors and advocates talking about saving the earth. Neither is speaking to the person stuck in a fuel queue. The past few years have proved that energy security is the only climate argument that actually drives speed. For a communicator, this means a total shift in strategy. A solar farm in Rajasthan or a wind project in Tamil Nadu shouldn’t be pitched as an environmental win alone but should be positioned as a strategic insurance policy. It’s the only way to ensure that a conflict 3,000 kilometers away doesn’t have the power to paralyze an Indian industry.

The bottom line is – the crisis in the Gulf is a moment of great learning. For climate communicators, it’s evident that we need to change how we talk about the energy transition. It is not something we do for the next generation as a favor. It is something we must do now for our benefit. The lesson is now clear – the strongest argument for the energy transition doesn’t emerge from the science of climate change alone, but also from the economics of energy security.

END OF ARTICLE