Climate change framing in local contexts

Why big problems need small wins For decades, Enrique Ortiz has worked to protect some of the world’s most vital ecosystems. In a recent Mongabay commentary, he voiced a truth that many in conservation rarely say aloud: Environmental messaging is failing to inspire enough people to act. The facts are known, yet they rarely change minds. To break through, Ortiz argues, we must tell stories of tangible change—rooted in real places, people, and results—so hope becomes not just a feeling, but a reason to act. The science is not flawed, nor the dangers overstated. The problem is relying too heavily on facts to change minds in a world where facts alone rarely do. Research shows people decide through a mix of emotion, experience, and social cues—not purely data. This mismatch explains why so many accurate messages fall flat. Climate change, framed mostly in planetary terms, can feel so vast & distant that individuals see no way to influence it. Ortiz calls for a narrative “revolution”—stories of adaptation & resilience, grounded in lived experience, over abstract warnings. When he taught students about plant-animal interactions, they forgot the scientific details but remembered the stories. This is “narrative transportation”—a neurological process that helps ideas stick & decisions shift. The bigger the problem, the smaller an individual feels. “Solve climate change” can seem visible but unreachable. People retreat from news they find exhausting, while opponents of climate action exploit this futility to erode momentum. The antidote is not to downplay the crisis, but to scale part of the narrative so people can see the difference they make. Optimism is not naïve—it is an engine for agency. Local action makes results tangible. In the Philippines, communities replanting mangroves can measure shifts in tides & storm protection. In the Comoros, a no-take fishing zone means fuller nets just outside its boundaries. These are not diversions from the bigger fight; they are proof that people respond to challenges they can touch, shape, and witness. Local victories ripple outward, offering blueprints others can adapt. They turn abstractions like “protecting biodiversity” into bringing salmon back to a river or keeping sea turtles nesting on a beach. A steady diet of doom breeds political stagnation. People who believe nothing can be done rarely act. Those who have seen a wetland restored tend to keep showing up. Ortiz’s call is to reframe the vantage point. The global crisis is real, but change grows from local soil. By linking a patch of prairie to global biodiversity or a rooftop solar panel to energy transformation, we make a global problem feel solvable. Global change won’t happen in one leap, but through thousands of small, visible wins that build momentum for systemic shifts. Local victories & systems change are inseparable; each creates space for the other. The outcome is unwritten—but at the human scale, it is possible.

Whose Integration? We need to rethink the politics of knowledge in climate change discourse. Integrating local and scientific knowledge in climate discourse is prevalent, encompassing policy frameworks, donor reports, and academic workshops. It sounds inclusive, progressive, even empowering. But we must ask: Whose integration is this? Who defines it, who controls it, and who benefits from it? After working closely with pastoralist and agropastoralist communities in the Horn of Africa, I’ve seen how problematic the language of “integration” can be when left unexamined. Here’s why:  1. Integration often happens on unequal terms. Too often, “local knowledge” is invited into spaces it didn’t design, evaluated using standards it didn’t agree to, and reduced to a handful of indicators that fit institutional frameworks. Local voices are consulted, but rarely shape the agenda. Integration becomes assimilation, not collaboration.  2. Communities already blend knowledge systems in their own ways. Pastoralists in dryland Kenya are not waiting for validation from institutions. They combine ecological cues, intergenerational wisdom, and mobile phone forecasts to anticipate droughts. They do so selectively, based on trust, accessibility, and cultural relevance, not on abstract co-production models. So, the real work isn’t to teach communities how to integrate knowledge. it’s to understand how they already do, and what conditions enable or constrain that process.  3. Not all knowledge is equally valued. Even in “participatory” projects, scientific knowledge often remains dominant. It's seen as objective, scalable, and fundable, while local knowledge is framed as anecdotal or backwards. This imbalance reflects broader power dynamics rooted in colonial history, institutional authority, and funding structures.  4. Integration without shifting power is performative. It’s not enough to include local indicators in early warning systems. Real transformation means addressing who holds decision-making power, who has access to resources, and whose knowledge is seen as legitimate. Without that, integration risks becoming a form of extractivism dressed as inclusion. So what if we moved the conversation from integration to recognition and redistribution? What if institutions didn’t just extract knowledge from communities but supported community-led action, on their terms, with their priorities, and in their languages? We don’t need more frameworks that seek to integrate. We need relationships built on trust, humility, and cognitive justice. The solutions are not “out there” waiting to be scaled. They’re already here embedded in the everyday practices of communities on the frontlines of climate disruption.

Together with a large group of scientists from different disciplines and regions of the world, we wrote a perspective piece with Environmental Research Letters that just came out: https://lnkd.in/dxxE4NEq It cautions against premature or top-down characterizations of areas as uninhabitable, or portrayals of large-scale climate-induced displacement as inevitable—particularly when the perspectives and preferences of affected populations are excluded. While we recognize the importance of modelling and scenario-building to assess future risks, we argue that such efforts must be grounded in local realities and include diverse forms of knowledge. We propose five guiding recommendations: (1) avoid declaring hard limits to habitability without inclusive, context-specific assessments; (2) treat model-based projections as possible, not predetermined futures; (3) reject simplistic global North/South assumptions in assessing vulnerability and mobility; (4) uphold people’s right to remain, alongside the right to move; and (5) prioritize investment in in-situ adaptation that addresses structural inequalities. These principles aim to inform reflexive and justice-oriented approaches to climate mobility and habitability research.

Climate Communication Reimagined: Appealing Across Moral Foundations Recently, while working on energy transition scenarios for the Netherlands’ decarbonization by 2050 with TenneT, Jonathan Haidt’s insights from The Righteous Mind came sharply into focus. Full article: https://lnkd.in/gKQ4HfaQ Haidt research highlights six moral foundations — Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity, and Liberty — and argues that conservatives broadly use all six, while progressives strongly emphasize Care and Fairness. This explains why traditional climate messaging, dominated by progressive framing around harm prevention and fairness, struggles to resonate with broader audiences, especially conservatives. Effective climate advocacy requires blending messages to activate moral intuitions across this entire spectrum. For example, on clean energy jobs, progressives emphasize economic fairness, while conservatives focus on national strength and independence. A blended message: “Let’s revitalize America with clean energy, creating good jobs for all to keep our nation strong and independent.” On pollution, progressives speak to health impacts, conservatives to purity and national pride. Combining these, we get: “Cutting pollution protects our children's health and maintains America’s beautiful landscapes and clean air.” Framing climate change as a shared national challenge connects progressive concerns about global justice with conservative values around national security and heritage protection: “Protect our homeland from climate threats, safeguarding communities and the American way of life we cherish.” Even innovation and tradition can align: “Clean energy innovation continues America’s proud history of leadership, preserving the land and values we cherish for future generations.” In the Netherlands, debates around overhead transmission expansion benefit from similar messaging. Instead of purely technical arguments, framing transmission infrastructure as essential to national pride, heritage preservation, and economic vitality can resonate widely: “New transmission lines represent Dutch innovation, safeguarding our landscapes, health, and economy for generations.” I encountered this effective moral framing earlier while co-authoring Canada’s municipal guide for planned retreat amid climate risks. Communities rallied behind retreat initiatives when messaging emphasized collective good and community identity. European research, especially around Brexit, reinforces that messaging inclusive of national identity, sovereignty, and cultural integrity resonates more deeply than approaches limited to individual-focused morality. Ultimately, climate advocacy must leverage the full range of moral foundations to bridge divides and build broader consensus. Haidt’s framework is not only insightful, it’s essential for effective communication on climate and energy transitions.

𝗦𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝘆 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮? 𝗛𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀. 🔑🌏 Lasting climate impact in #Asia will only come when we put trust and resources in the hands of local leaders. Effective action must be holistic: rooted in indigenous wisdom, responsive to local realities, and attentive to the interconnected social, economic, and community dimensions of resilience. Locally-grown solutions reflect cultural context, societal priorities, and the complex interplay shaping how climate action works on the ground – details often missed by global or Western-centric approaches. That’s the key to 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲, 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝘃𝗲, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗰𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 #climatesolutions – ensuring no one is left behind in the net-zero transition. Empowering communities most at risk and giving them a seat at the table builds resilience alongside equity and opportunity. 👉 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘅𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Home to the majority of the world’s population, rapidly growing economies, and communities on the frontlines of climate risk, it’s also where some of the most innovative, context-driven climate responses are emerging. However, 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝟭𝟳% 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗿𝘆- 𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗽𝗵𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝗽𝘆 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 in recent years. With geopolitical headwinds stalling climate ambition elsewhere, the opportunity to do more is huge. Now is the moment for bold regional leadership. For governments, businesses, and philanthropic organisations to align behind Asia’s locally-led climate agenda. By supporting local innovators, strengthening community networks, and unlocking catalytic finance, we can scale impact from the ground up. We can already see powerful examples taking place, from regenerative rice farming, to enterprises driving clean energy adoption in rural areas. These stories remind us that solutions 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗹𝗱. The next phase depends on 𝗰𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. If all of us work together, we can empower Asia’s changemakers and accelerate the shift to a more sustainable future. 🌏 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻’𝘁 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘄𝗮𝗶𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗰𝘁. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝗹𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲. The challenge is ensuring they have the trust, resources, and visibility to scale. 💬 𝗪𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗱𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗴𝗲 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝘀𝗶𝗮? Comment below to collaborate with One Earth Summit OHG and join our mission to scale the region’s most promising climate solutions. 💡Follow Poman Lo for more insights. #NetZeroFundersTable #ClimateSolutions #LocalLeadership #InclusiveGrowth #SDG

I have been working closely with communities across Maharashtra and India for over a decade now, first as a journalist and now a communicator & storyteller. During these years, I have had an opportunity of speaking with people from the margins (both urban & rural). At a time when bottom-up communications is a buzzword in social impact comms, it is a bit disappointing to see some assumptions from social impact orgs & communicators. Sharing a few here. ⭐ Assuming that villagers consume only traditional media: I often hear how we need to work with 'community radio' and 'local newspapers' to create awareness about an issue or to engage grassroots audiences. We need to understand that the youth & even the middle aged folks in most villages are now using their smartphones in similar ways that an urban consumer is- think social media, youtube, whatsapp etc. But it is interesting to see how they are using it in localised, regional contexts. For instance, I have seen a lot of folks use audio messages on whatsapp instead of calling as it breaks language barriers. We need to leverage this. ⭐ Glorifying village life and simple living: When privileged folks like us engage with people on the ground, we tend to attach a sense of abundance to village life. The greenary, the natural setting and the slow life engages urban privileged folks like us. Village life in reality is not only a rosy picture. There are hardships to sustain agriculture due to climate change, scarcity of resources & unavailability of basic services that makes it tough. We need to acknowledge that reality in the narratives we build. ⭐ Equating communication with journalism: Communities have interesting ways of exchanging knowledge and information. These can be used as storytelling tools but this is NOT journalism. Starting a community media platform requires a lot of investment and capacity building because news stories demand certain tenets that may not be the requirement of community based knowledge and problem sharing. ⭐ Mental models and big ideas vs empathy : A couple years ago, a colleague of mine accompanied me to a village visit. We were there to interview a woman farmer. The woman offered us food that was cooked for a local SHG meeting. My colleague, an urban elite, sustainability champion was upset over the disposable plates used there. 'Why are they using plastic and not steel?' was her question. I told her that the woman would have to scrub 50 steel plates after the meeting if she does not use disposables. Who does such sustainability burden? We often use words such as care, domestic burden etc. but its important to understand what it actually means. 💡 Communicators have a two way function- to bring local grounded realities out in the world & take the macro discourses on social issues back on the ground. This is no easy task but a good starting point is 'knowing' the people you are working with! Art -Rajni Dutta #communications #socialimpact #strategiccomms

Is your district prone to climate risk? Explore the 'District-Level Climate Risk Assessment for India' report to find out. 𝐾𝑒𝑦 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑦𝑠: 𝖱𝗂𝗌𝗄 𝖬𝖺𝗉𝗉𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖥𝗋𝖺𝗆𝖾𝗐𝗈𝗋𝗄:    - Methodology is based on the #IPCC framework, ensuring comparability across districts by assessing risks through hazard, exposure, and vulnerability components.   - By mapping risks at the district level, it provides granular insights, enabling targeted interventions tailored to local conditions and administrative units. 𝖯𝗋𝖾𝗏𝖺𝗅𝖾𝗇𝖼𝖾 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖣𝗂𝗌𝗍𝗋𝗂𝖻𝗎𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝗈𝖿 𝖱𝗂𝗌𝗄𝗌:    - #Floods and #droughts are the most prevalent climate hazards, affecting 87% and 30% of districts, respectively, with many regions experiencing both.   - Very high flood risk is concentrated in Assam and West Bengal, while drought risk is prominent in Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, UP, and Maharashtra. 𝖳𝗁𝖾 𝖣𝗋𝗂𝗏𝖾𝗋𝗌 𝗈𝖿 𝖱𝗂𝗌𝗄:    - High risk doesn’t solely stem from hazard intensity; exposure (e.g., population density) and vulnerability (e.g., poverty) can amplify impacts.   - For Ex. in Patna, high exposure and vulnerability elevate flood risk despite a lower hazard index. 𝖣𝗎𝖺𝗅 𝖱𝗂𝗌𝗄 𝖢𝗁𝖺𝗅𝗅𝖾𝗇𝗀𝖾𝗌:    - 11 districts, including Alappuzha, and several in Assam, face dual risks of floods and droughts, driven by erratic rainfall patterns and geographic vulnerabilities.   - These districts require integrated adaptation strategies to address overlapping hazards, such as managing monsoon floods and subsequent dry spells. 𝖢𝖺𝗉𝖺𝖼𝗂𝗍𝗒 𝖡𝗎𝗂𝗅𝖽𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖺𝗇𝖽 𝖯𝗈𝗅𝗂𝖼𝗒 𝖱𝖾𝗅𝖾𝗏𝖺𝗇𝖼𝖾: - The project conducted workshops for ‘state climate change cells’ fostering the ability to replicate risk assessments and develop state-specific risk maps.   -Findings support the integration of climate risk into State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCCs) for securing #climatefinance. 𝖴𝗍𝗂𝗅𝗂𝗍𝗒 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝖣𝖾𝖼𝗂𝗌𝗂𝗈𝗇-𝖬𝖺𝗄𝗂𝗇𝗀:    - District-level risk maps enable policymakers to identify and prioritize interventions in high-risk areas, optimizing resource allocation for adaptation measures.   - Risk indices empower local communities to advocate for compensation or insurance, enhancing grassroots resilience against climate impacts. 𝖥𝗎𝗍𝗎𝗋𝖾 𝖣𝗂𝗋𝖾𝖼𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇𝗌:  - The report suggests developing risk indices for sectors like agriculture and urban water supply to address specific vulnerabilities.   - It recommends extending assessments to future climate scenarios and other hazards-e.g., landslides and heat stress.

Narratives matter. We know this. What you are about to witness now is not said in the open and certainly not visible for most of the people. But its effect is tremendous. The financial sector doesn’t openly deny climate change. Instead, it manages the narrative into financialised language: risk, opportunity, transition, disclosure. This allows the sector to look responsible, keep fossil fuel pipelines open, and delay real system change—while still making money on both “green” and “brown” sides of the economy. Framing Climate Risk as a Financial Stability Issue (not an ecological one) Banks, insurers, and asset managers adopt the language of risk—stranded assets, physical risk, transition risk. This reduces climate change to portfolio exposure, not planetary collapse. Example: Central banks (through the Network for Greening the Financial System, NGFS) frame climate as a “macro-financial risk” rather than a call for systemic degrowth. Climate becomes a reporting exercise: ESG scores, net-zero pledges, climate-risk disclosures. This shifts focus to metrics & transparency rather than actual decarbonisation. Result: Oil majors still attract trillions in financing under “transition” labels. Example: In 2022–23, the world’s 60 biggest banks pumped over $670 billion into fossil fuels while touting net-zero goals. Heavy lobbying against hard regulation (like fossil phase-out, carbon caps), while supporting lighter-touch “market-based solutions.” Example: Finance industry helped water down EU sustainable finance taxonomy, allowing gas & nuclear as “green.” US: Wall Street firms lobby both sides—supporting climate risk disclosure rules (SEC) but resisting binding divestment. Delay through “Transition Finance” Pitch narrative: “We’re not funding fossil fuels, we’re funding the transition.” Keeps capital flowing to oil/gas under the guise of “bridging energy security.” Example: JPMorgan, Citi, Barclays all promote “transition finance” frameworks while remaining top fossil funders.   Asset managers issue glossy reports: “$50 trillion climate opportunity by 2030.” This rebrands climate from existential crisis into investment theme. Climate activism framed as “risk to returns” instead of “risk to life.” Narrative tools: “Energy security first” → Argue that fossil fuel financing is necessary for stability and growth. “Transition finance” → Loans to oil/gas framed as bridging capital toward renewables. “Client-driven” excuse → “We can’t tell clients what to do — we just finance their needs.” “Market choice” rhetoric → Suggest regulation should be light because markets will allocate capital efficiently. Reality: Between 2016–2023, the 60 biggest banks poured over $5.5 trillion into fossil fuels while promoting their own “net-zero alliances.”

It is often said that local communities do not understand how climate change or environmental realities affect them. But this notion is far from true. The real issue is the disconnect – inadequate investment in local human capital, disrupted livelihoods, and the lack of proper resilience approaches to support frontline and coastal communities to thrive, especially where government support is limited or non-existent. We become so fixated on our own definitions of what the adverse impacts of climate change or environmental degradation should look like at their level, and the solutions we invent, that we forget this: 🍃 Local, rural, and indigenous communities who live these realities daily have a major role to play in how we define and create solutions to achieve Goal 14 and other Sustainable Development Goals. Communities may not describe how climate change affects them in our scientific terms, but here’s what I have discovered over the past five years, mobilising communities for climate and policy action: 💡Communities often describe how climate and environmental changes affect them better than we assume. 💡They build resilience even where education or technological aids are limited or non-existent. 💡Backing local knowledge with technology protects traditional wisdom while creating innovative solutions that merge tradition and modern technology for climate and ocean challenges. 💡 Lastly, co-designing solutions with communities is key to sustaining and scaling impact. This ensures policies are deeply rooted to serve not just minorities, but the majority, particularly those in the informal sector with no social security, who depend on natural resources for their livelihoods. Whether you are an environmentalist or not, keep this in mind: 🍃 It is not enough for our solutions, policies, or innovations to serve minorities. True impact lies in ensuring they serve the majority, enabling people to live with dignity. And one way to achieve this is through: 💡Inclusion: ensuring communities have a seat at the table; and 💡 Integration: ensuring their wisdom, practices, and priorities shape the table itself. I hope this helps #abimbolaabikoye #communityresilience #frontlinevoices #sustainability #UNSDGs