Why Climate Justice Must Be Framed Around Communities, Not Conspiracies

By Dr. Yvonne Githiora

 

Recent statements at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) characterized climate change as the ‘greatest con job’ in the world, claiming that the carbon footprint is a hoax created by scientists and governments with nefarious intentions.

Far from being a conspiracy, climate science represents decades of rigorous research conducted by scientists across the world, from different countries, institutions, and backgrounds. Major scientific organizations globally, including the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in the U.S., and national academies of science from dozens of countries, all affirm the reality of human-caused climate change.

Yet through the rapid spread of misinformation, amplified by social media’s fragmented content formats and short attention spans, these conspiracy theories are gaining traction and being used to justify slowing climate action. For instance, the current U.S. Administration has withdrawn from the Paris Agreement and reduced funding for renewable energy initiatives and climate research.

Will this embrace of climate denial give other countries, especially high-income economies, a reason to delay or perhaps weaken their own commitments to climate justice, or undermine climate pacts and momentum for collective actions?

On the other hand, will the low and middle-income countries (LMICs), out of frustration, opt to slow down, halt, or reverse biodiversity loss, deforestation, and desertification, and advance their green revolution?

Whichever the case, the most critical question is who will suffer the most if efforts to combat climate change are dampened.

Framing theory in the climate change agenda

In communication, the theory of framing is a powerful tool that shapes how issues are understood by audiences, in turn, influencing their perceptions.

The theory advanced in the 1970s by Canadian American sociologist Erving Goffman argued that everyday life is organized through these frames, and people understand causes and consequences.

Goffman pointed out that natural frameworks explain events in terms of physical or biological forces, such as weather or illness. In contrast, social frameworks explain events based on human actions, rules, and intentions. To put it into context, scientifically, it has been proven that human beings are the main drivers of climate change and have encouraged collective and personal action. Framing it otherwise, as an act of God, for example, may reduce the urgency to combat climate change.

In contrast, there is global consensus, based on credible scientific findings, that the earth is warming beyond 1.5°C, posing a dangerous threshold for people and nature. It has been proven that a delay in the fight against climate change means droughts, floods, and millions more lives at risk.

Negotiators representing African nations, in collaboration with other coalitions from middle- and low-income economies, have consistently articulated the devastating impact of climate disasters as a direct consequence of greenhouse gas emissions produced by wealthier nations.

Additionally, they emphasize their shared moral and ethical duty to younger and future generations.

This advocacy, for example, has aimed at the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund, which is intended to provide support to those disproportionately affected by climate change.

Communities are at the centre of conservation.

Communities in LMICs are not merely passive victims of climate change. They serve as custodians of vital ecosystems, including forests, swamps, and mangroves. Over 100 million people in Sub-Saharan Africa are already highly vulnerable to climate risks such as droughts, floods, and extreme heat.

By protecting and sustainably managing these ecosystems, communities are already making significant contributions to the global fight against climate change and biodiversity loss, and paradoxically, they suffer the worst effects of a crisis they did little to cause.

Most deforestation in Africa, Asia and Latin America isn’t driven by greed but by economic survival. Small-scale farmers, Indigenous communities, and rural populations clear forests to grow food, gather fuelwood, or generate income in places where alternatives don’t exist.

It’s only fair that they are rewarded and empowered while they safeguard ecosystems that benefit the entire planet.

While framing climate change narratives, in regional or international forums, their voices must be heard, or else the climate talks risk being unjust and disconnected from the realities on the ground. For example, carbon finance should not only offset emissions for polluters, but it must transform the lives of the people who make carbon storage possible.

They deserve these much-needed revenues to secure a sustainable future and ensure the proceeds finance education, health, water and sanitation, livelihoods, and food security.

The Road to Bélem, Brazil.

According to the latest World Meteorological Organization report, Africa bears an increasingly heavy burden from climate change and disproportionately high costs for essential climate adaptation.

By 2030, it is estimated that up to 118 million extremely poor people will be exposed to drought, floods, and extreme heat in Africa if adequate response measures are not put in place.

With such grim scientific statistics and ahead of the COP30 in Brazil in November, the LMICs have an opportunity to reinforce the urgency for action, especially considering uncertainties and stress that climate change is a shared responsibility.

Climate negotiators must frame these discussions around the realities of vulnerable communities and ensure their voices are not lost in the noise of political correctness or overshadowed by power struggles.

Overall, developed countries must lead in mitigation and finance either grants or concessional finance, whereas developing countries must commit to ensuring funds benefit the communicates who are the front lines of conservation.

Dismissing climate change as a ‘con’ without sound scientific backing threatens to leave millions of vulnerable communities suffering the consequences.

 

—————————————–

Dr. Githiora is a Research Scientist at Wildlife Works. Wildlife Works is a community-centered conservation company that implements market-based solutions to protect Earth’s threatened wilderness and wildlife. Recognized as a leader in REDD+, the organization’s projects drive direct financing to forest communities to fund their economic development while preventing millions of tons of emissions from entering the atmosphere annually.