Climate Change Communication: My Say ! To my mind, climate change communication is ill targeted. Perhaps the strategy itself could have been misplaced. It is my personal viewpoint that economically powerful nations and politically powerful people should not forget the interdependent nature of human existence. Just like the sun, moon, oceans, rivers, trees, plants, soil, rock, animals, humans etc. have a distinctive and mutually interdependent relationship of existence; nations whether developed or developing, economically rich or poor, big or small should appreciate that ideological and political constraints should not be allowed to dictate conditions for this naturally beautiful relationship. The possible solution for behaviour change in climate communication is hence not so much at the personal or individual level but lies at the structural or ideological level. We just have to peek into the outcomes of the numerous climate change consultations held in the recent times. There is no doubt that reducing the carbon foot print is a great initiative at the personal or individual level but how much can we keep harping that “person-individual-blame” is inherently biased with the biases of pro-source, pro-persuasion and one-way message flow. As such the primary target of climate change communication should be the political and social leaders.? “Advocacy” as a process of gathering, organizing and formulating information into arguments targeted to the political and social leaders to gain their active involvement should be the leading strategy. Parallel actions must also begin earnestly to study international laws governing the state of the world environment, revise and even re-enact new laws in keeping with the current state of climate change. Once the political, structural, ideological and social constraint are aligned along the climate change problem, other communication strategies as “social mobilization”, “programme communication” and “community/individual participation” can be formulated in a systematic and logical order. We must accept though that communication planning is as challenging and sensitive as it can be, as well. I personally feel that one of the predominant “drivers”(borrowing Ricardo’s term) that interplay with climate change and climate change communication is poverty. Its impact can be seen at various levels of the society as it manifests in multi-dimensional forms. A family or an individual can be considered poverty stricken due to inadequate income, unmet basic needs, or both. Moreover, it is also an accepted belief now that poverty can be attributed to the state of unhappiness among its people as perpetuated by social exclusion, discrimination and indignity. But how does this effect climate change? Poverty can drive nations, communities and people to become economically well off, driven by the desire to increase its GDP, purchasing power and state of happiness. This leads to an unbridled commercialization of economic activities, production, consumption etc.; reversing ideal behaviour for environment conservation and ultimately contributing to climate change. Poverty reduction strategies should therefore consider linking to efforts for reducing climate change as well. Another factor with far-reaching implications on climate change communication at the country level is the kind of development communication policy in place. As a result of the advent of ICT and other newer communication means, development communication interventions have started to become increasingly technology and product driven. The practice of “participatory communication” spelling out the importance of involving the “people” to evolve the desired behavior has been replaced by rather “top-down one-way communication”, enticing the audience with pre-determined pro-source biased messages through the awesome digitized new media forms. And as it is, this anomaly is further exacerbated by the rather wide literacy gap in the poorer countries. If this is the likely scenario, the suggestion to begin climate change communication by clarifying the meanings of “mitigation” and “adaptation” becomes even more pronounced, not only to the “unaware” but to the “educated”, as well. I am in full concert with the fact that we live in a dynamic environment with an ever increasing competing priorities in all spheres of life. While making the most judicious mix of the existing communication means (interpersonal, mass media, new media etc.), we must re-acknowledge the potential role that “culture” can play as a facilitator in climate change mitigation. There is perhaps a ray of hope that can light the dormant sensitivities of our audience through what I may call a cultural approach, using the secular forms. By Nim Karma Sherpa Disclaimer: The views expressed are solely of the writer and does not represent the views of any institutions, entities, bodies (govt./non govt. etc.) that may be affiliated to the writer in anyways.