Mumbai Climate Week is happening this week. Delhi Climate Innovation Week takes place in the following week. Thousands of people will gather to talk about climate action in India’s two largest cities. Most of the conversations would be about the climate crisis-the catastrophe that we are heading towards, innovations and approaches that we should adapt and  underscore that climate change needs urgent attention and action. 

But after watching the evolution of climate communication over the years, I believe that apocalypse narratives, however accurate, have hit a ceiling. People do hear the alarm and acknowledge the crisis, but beyond that, they get stuck. Crisis conversations without pathways to meaningful response is inaction. People feel anxious but do nothing about it.

How do we fix it? Some have figured out this climate communications problem. Kenya spent years telling communities that deforestation was destroying ecosystems and biodiversity. It is true, but abstract. Subsequently health workers started talking about what fewer trees actually meant – kids getting respiratory problems form dust, women walking hours to collect firewood, unreliable rainfall ruining crops. Same facts, but a different story. University of Nairobi and Yale researchers tracked it in 2020. Tree planting participation jumped 60 percent. Not because people suddenly cared more about the environment, but because the story connected to their daily lives.

There is evidence from India too, though we may not always recognize it as climate communication. Ahmedabad’s heat action plan – when officials launched it in 2013, they talked about protecting construction workers, preventing hospitals from being overwhelmed, and keeping elderly people safe during summer. Health and safety, not climate change. That framing brought in labor unions, schools, municipal health departments – groups that might not have resonated with climate messaging in general. The International Institute for Environment and Development studied the program. Heat deaths declined, documented in 2018 research in Natural Hazards. The climate connection was real, but the propagators of this program just didn’t lead with it alone but with framing that people could relate to in their daily lives.

The bottom line – People are driven by what they gain, rather than what they need to fear or sacrifice.

London was also able to determine this with their emission zone policy. The basis was initially climate -reducing carbon, reducing air  pollution, etc. However, this ran into a level of resistance. Then the messaging turned to children’s lungs, walkable neighborhoods, less traffic, etc. King’s College monitoring in 2020 showed nitrogen dioxide dropped 44 percent, but possibly more interesting, though, was the level of resistance reduced, even changed, once a change of dialogue to neighbourhoods moved from environmental necessity to liveability.

A researcher could say, “India has to reduce emissions to prevent climatic disasters” or “what if increased public transport means clean air for our kids and jobs creating the transport systems?” The same conversation, but the potential for message acceptance and subsequent action may be very different depending on how the message is framed. When we are discussing conversations during these upcoming climate-focused convenings, one important note to remember is to ensure that we use research that shows people, climate change in relation to things they already care about, as opposed to making them care about climate change in the first place.

These different entry points for storytelling change the game. It is no longer just something to be feared. It’s something to be moved headed towards. When we talk about health benefits, job creation, and clean neighborhoods, people really grasp the story of what we are doing, versus the story of what we are managing to prevent.

India’s climate conversation is changing. So, in these climate weeks in Mumbai and Delhi this month, what gets said there, matters. Not just the data presented, or policies proposed, but also how they are framed, which aspects do researchers emphasize, what questions get asked, and whose experiences get centered. The opportunity is clear – let’s not just talk about all the doom and gloom, but also benefits, local-level action, and inspiring stories that people can identify with. Stories that make the changing climate about you and me, about lives around us – because that can potentially accelerate the conversation from crisis to action.

END OF ARTICLE