Ecological concerns don’t fetch votes. It is a drawback of our ideology and system, one that is becoming too costly to ignore.
According to the 2026 Environmental Performance Index (EPI), India ranks 176th out of 177 countries. 174th in environmental health, 171st in ecosystem vitality, and 130th in climate change mitigation.
These are alarming statistics that warrant change. Yet, far from action, promises to mitigate climate change remain a distant possibility.
Who is responsible for climate change action? The government? Or the citizens?
I believe it falls equally on both. In this article, I examine how governments and citizens will have to play a collective role: citizens in bringing ecological challenges to the forefront, and governments in taking steps to reduce the adversities caused by climate change.
Government Indifference to the Climate Crisis:
Beyond ambitious claims, are governments actually committed to fighting climate change? I analyze this across three fronts: promises made in election manifestos, the air pollution crisis in New Delhi, and the rise in data centres.
In the lead-up to the 2024 General Elections, major political parties such as the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Indian National Congress (INC) released manifestos with lofty promises. But did they focus on the mounting climate crisis? Yes and no. According to Dialogue Earth, the term “climate change” is mentioned just once in the BJP manifesto and four times in the INC manifesto. Words such as “climate smart” and “climate resilient” were used, and targets such as “net zero emissions by 2070” were set. However, they seemed to be carelessly used. A promise such as “net zero emissions” requires specificity and a clear roadmap to achieve the goal, which was lacking.
Manifestos promised change. But have governments delivered?
The rising air pollution crisis in the national capital, New Delhi, suggests otherwise. Air pollution has troubled the city since the 1990s but has worsened over the past decade. According to IQ Air, in December 2025, the city recorded an average Air Quality Index (AQI) level of 351 and crossed the hazardous threshold on multiple occasions, with an AQI between 500 and 600. This resulted in a significant health challenge. According to data shared by Minister of State for Health, Prataprao Jadhav in parliament, between 2022-2024, six of the city’s major hospitals recorded between 67,000 and 69,000 emergency respiratory cases each year. Furthermore, research by Delhi University highlights that prolonged exposure to harmful particles such as PM2.5 may affect brain health, with changes in brain structure, memory, and other cognitive functions.
Several governments have proposed solutions, but with the crisis worsening each year, they seem to have little effect. Real change requires a systematic overhaul. Not seasonal focus but a year-round monitoring system. Not fragmented governance but strong enforcement of on-ground rules.
Moreover, government plans and policies continue to prioritize economic growth over ecological sustainability. Consider the explosive rise in the development of data centres. There is no denying that the economic potential of data centres is immense. According to projections by industry analysts, India’s data center capacity is expected to grow to 8GW by 2030, generating over $30 billion in capital expenditure and creating the infrastructure that will support the country’s goal of a trillion-dollar digital economy.
However great the potential, several questions remain.
The World Bank estimates that India is one of the most water-stressed countries in the world, with 18% of the world’s population but only 4% of water resources. The development of data centers will only exacerbate this crisis. From 150 billion liters in 2025, water usage by data centres is expected to reach 358 billion litres in 2030. Furthermore, a majority of the data centers are expected to be set up in metropolitan cities such as Mumbai, Hyderabad, and Bengaluru, which already face water shortages. Current Indian policies don’t account for these risks. In an interview with the BBC, Sahana Goswami, Senior Program Manager at WRI Water, said that while India has clear policies and regulations regarding data protection and data center development, the water usage aspect remains a blind spot, placing a risk on the long-term functioning of data centres and water supply in cities.
It is time for the government to assume higher responsibility for climate change. The issue can no longer remain vague guarantees in manifestos to fetch votes. Climate change is a crisis that poses significant risk to the economic and social development of a nation. What is required is a clear roadmap, with region-specific climate criteria and development goals that integrate sustainability.
Rethinking Citizen responsibility towards the Climate Crisis:
Can we expect governments to assume responsibility for climate change if citizens don’t demand action? The answer is a definite no. We cannot blame authorities for complacency if we are indifferent to the crisis ourselves. As citizens, we will be playing an imperative role in bringing climate issues to the forefront. In this section, I analyze this across different psychological patterns: shifting baseline syndrome, optimism bias, value-action gap, and collective efficacy.
The balance holding our ecological systems together has been quietly collapsing. Mumbai, which has enjoyed a tropical climate, now frequently experiences temperatures above 35 degrees celsius. Yet, the temperature increase is regarded as simply another hot year, not a warning sign. This is an example of the shifting baseline syndrome. Each generation inherits a slightly worse baseline but mistakes it for normal and shifts their expectations, resulting in the scale of change going unnoticed. According to a study by Climate Central, titled “People Exposed to Climate Change: December 2025-February 2026”, Mumbai is amongst the top megacities in the world that witnessed unusual temperatures caused by climate change. During the period of study, the city recorded 17 days of unusual temperatures, representing a dangerous trend. An unprecedented rise in temperatures poses a serious health and economic risk. In 2024, Carbon Copy reported more than 450 deaths caused by heatwaves, while a Lancet Journal report recorded an economic loss of 247 billion potential labor hours, with 66% of it in the agricultural sector.
These losses are significant and require urgent intervention. Yet, action is often delayed. With climate change, there is a notion that the majority of the risks will be borne by future generations, not us. This is an example of optimism bias – a tendency to underestimate the severity of climate change. However, continuing to hold on to this idea is dangerous, and the monsoon in India this year showed just why. A super El Niño has disrupted monsoon patterns, causing significant damage. As of the Times of India’s August 30th, 2026 issue, the cumulative rainfall deficit in the country stands at 14%, due to huge shortfalls in Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Punjab, and Northeast India. This deficit has impacted the agricultural sector. Compared to the same period in 2025, there is a 3% decline in the sowing of crops such as paddy and maize. If this deficit continues to increase and similar monsoon patterns are observed in the coming years, it poses a risk to the country’s food security.
When we hear about such situations, we preach sustainability. Yet, our actions suggest otherwise. This is an example of the value-action gap. On one side, individuals advocate for pro-environmental actions, but their actual everyday purchasing decisions reflect the opposite. Consider the e-commerce sector in India. According to Bain and Company, the market scaled to $65-$66 billion in gross merchandise value (GMV) in 2025 with close to 290-300 million customers. Economically, this is a great sign, but environmentally represents a pressing challenge. According to the India Brand Equity Foundation (IBEF), 4-6 kilograms of CO2 are released per kilogram of packaging material. In 2023 alone, the e-commerce industry generated 1.2 million tonnes of plastic waste. While the sustainable packaging industry is growing steadily, there is a long way to go. Currently, such packaging is considered niche and premium and requires significant cost reductions and economies of scale for it to be introduced into the mainstream market. The climate crisis will not wait for this development. The question that stands before us as consumers is simple. Will we continue to prioritize convenience or finally take the steps necessary to mitigate this challenge?
Awareness and acceptance of the challenge are the first step. The next is collective efficacy, the belief that all stakeholders acting together can solve the issue. The protests against the Bhaniyawala-Rishikesh Highway expansion in Uttarakhand reaffirmed the belief in the power of the collective. The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had announced a Rs 743 crore highway expansion project. It would improve connectivity between Dehradun, Rishikesh, and Jolly Grant Airport, promote tourism, and strengthen the regional economy. However, completion required the felling of nearly 4000 trees and would pass through the Shivalik Elephant Reserve. Citizens, environmentalists, and civil society groups were in strong opposition to the project and came together. According to the Times of India, they physically blocked chainsaws and hugged trees, reminiscent of the Chipko Movement, to prevent the massive deforestation. Their efforts bore fruit. Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami halted the project and sought to consult all stakeholders before any action.
Accountability is a two-way street. If we expect governments to take action for climate change, citizens have to start bringing issues to the forefront. This is not a far-fetched idea. The protests in Thane and Visakhapatnam against data centres, or the “Walk in Lalbagh, Walk for Lalbagh” movement in Bengaluru against the Karnataka Government’s Parks (Preservation) (Amendment) Bill 2026, highlight that common citizens are at the heart of change.
Conclusion:
Ecological concerns don’t fetch votes. But they cost something much more severe – livable cities, stable harvests, and breathable air. In 2026, climate change can no longer remain a vague guarantee in a manifesto, be compromised on for economic reasons, or something spoken about only when a crisis hits. The time for mere discussion is long past.
From citizens staying accountable – be it educating themselves on climate change and raising awareness or governments assuming responsibility – setting measurable goals with clear roadmaps, real change requires contribution from both ends.
The crisis is no longer a distant possibility. It’s already at our doorstep with uneven monsoon patterns, hazardous air quality, and rising temperatures. What remains to be seen is whether we act on it, or simply spend our lives adjusting to it.
