The climate crisis has traditionally been framed in terms of rising temperatures, carbon emissions, and the shift to renewable energy. While transitioning to cleaner energy sources is critical, this narrow focus overlooks deeper systemic inefficiencies across food systems, urban design, construction, supply chains, and more. To truly tackle the climate problem, we must look beyond just swapping energy sources and address inefficiencies in generation, supply, and consumption. Without a broader view, we risk solving only 15% of the issue rather than tackling the 90% that is rooted in how we design and use resources.
Energy Alone Won’t Solve the Problem
The obsession with renewable energy as the core solution often ignores the larger, deeper design and efficiency challenges. For example, in urban environments, many buildings feature glass facades, which increase heat and require air conditioning. Yet, despite the glass, these buildings are often designed without regard for natural light, leading to increased electricity use. Relying on solar panels to “solve” these issues simply treats a design problem with an energy solution. This represents a critical gap in how we approach climate action: we need to rethink design itself, not just energy sources.
Rethinking Urban and Rural Systems
Take Bangalore as an example. The city receives twice the amount of rainfall it needs, yet it imports water from hundreds of kilometers away, at great cost and environmental impact. The energy required to pump this water from distant sources comes from coal-burning power plants, adding to regional pollution. This is a classic case of failing to optimize local resources—an example of how poor design and management of local water systems exacerbate climate and economic challenges. Instead of relying on a more sustainable energy source for pumping water, the real solution lies in smarter design that utilizes the city’s abundant rainfall more effectively.
Moving Towards Localized, Sustainable Systems
If villages and rural communities embraced local and seasonal food production, it could reduce reliance on external imports and encourage sustainable growth. For instance, in India, many rural households rely on goods—such as vegetables, brooms, and even basic household items—that are transported long distances from other regions. This creates economic inefficiencies and environmental harm due to the carbon footprint of transportation, packaging, and warehousing. Moreover, rural areas often focus on only one or two agricultural commodities, abandoning the diversity of local production systems that once sustained them. This loss of biodiversity, in turn, strains local soil and water resources.
The Dangers of Specialization
At both the industrial and community levels, we are increasingly specializing in solving singular problems—education, livelihoods, or restoration—but this approach often leads to unintended consequences that worsen broader issues like climate change, economic inequality, and food insecurity. The increasing focus on singular solutions also erodes the sense of community ownership. Traditionally, public spaces such as the chaupal or ashwatha katte were places where rural communities could come together to discuss local challenges and collaborate on solutions. Without these spaces, communities lose their ability to make informed, holistic decisions that account for the complexity of their needs.
Understanding Cluster Economics
A major gap in how we approach climate change and economic development is the lack of attention to cluster economics—the movement of goods, people, and resources within a community. Across India’s vast rural regions, villages often see themselves as mere suppliers of raw materials for distant markets. This disconnect results in financial deficits because villages have to buy imported goods at retail prices, while they only earn a fraction of the revenue from selling their own products at wholesale prices. The focus on specialization further exacerbates this issue by reducing the diversity of goods produced within a region, which drives up costs and forces reliance on external markets.
To combat this, we need to create systems that foster local production, with economic benefits flowing within the community rather than being siphoned off to distant supply chains.
Empowering Communities Through Ownership and Smart Trade-offs
Effective climate solutions require an understanding that communities, as owners of their local resources, are best positioned to make decisions about how to manage them. This requires a shift away from top-down interventions to a more decentralized approach that supports communities in making smart trade-offs across variables such as agriculture, water use, and biodiversity. When communities lose ownership—whether through misguided education policies or external interventions—poor micro-decisions accumulate, contributing to systemic problems like climate change, inequality, and economic distress.
Moving from Solutions to the Demand for Action
One of the biggest hurdles to sustainable change is the fragmentation of solutions and geography. Nonprofits, development organizations, and entrepreneurs often present solutions based on their predefined criteria, without fully understanding the specific needs of the communities they serve. A critical step is unbundling the solution from the geography and funding to allow for more responsive, localized interventions. Instead of imposing pre-defined models, organizations must be flexible and responsive to the needs of the community, enabling people to pick from a set of solutions that best fit their unique circumstances.
Take the example of a woman in Odisha who wanted guidance on turning unused sewing machines into dhurries (carpets) and bags. The typical response would be to design a broad program covering multiple villages, potentially excluding the very person who came up with the idea. By focusing on the unit of one—whether that’s an individual farmer, a self-help group, or a small community-based organization—we can tailor interventions to specific needs, driving greater impact.
Scaling Impact Through Localized Architecture
To scale change effectively, we need to move away from pilot projects and isolated models. Instead, we must create frameworks that make knowledge and solutions available at the unit of one. This means providing access to existing solutions, such as agroecology, in a way that allows communities to choose the methods that work best for them. Whether it’s through roadshows, knowledge-sharing, or hands-on support, the goal is to create a responsive ecosystem that can quickly adapt to local needs and accelerate change.
The Role of Funders and Solution Providers
Funders, nonprofits, and other solution providers must recognize the value of engaging with communities as the owners of their place, rather than simply imposing external solutions. A key part of this is unbundling the connection between solutions, geography, and funding. By doing so, we can allow communities to choose the best-fit solutions, ensuring they are empowered to manage their own development in a way that is both sustainable and scalable.
A New Ecosystem for Sustainable Change
The path to solving the climate crisis lies not just in technology or policy changes, but in a deeper, systemic redesign of how we manage resources, foster local economies, and empower communities. By focusing on smarter, localized systems that prioritize efficiency, biodiversity, and community ownership, we can move beyond energy transitions to create a more sustainable future. Climate action is not just about changing energy sources—it’s about rethinking the systems that underpin how we live, produce, and consume.
