The climate chaos being caused by pollution is probably one of the most serious threats facing the world. According to the new  president of the United States, Barack Obama, it is already causing devastation around the globe.

“Not only is it real, it’s here, and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster,” he said.

India, like many other countries, is in the front line. Recent predictions by scientists suggest that the monsoon season could be disrupted, with potentially disastrous results for farmers.

If global average temperatures rise by four degrees centigrade, which is more than possible over the next 100 years, the consequences for the subcontinent could be even worse. The UK magazine, New Scientist, last month attempted to summarise the likely scenario.

“Most of the Himalayan glaciers have melted, with repercussions for many of the major rivers in the region,” it said. “Bangladesh is largely abandoned, as is south India, Pakistan and Afganistan. Isolated communities remain in pockets.”

In the face of such a threat, we all have responsibilities. Governments have to set targets to cut carbon dixoxide pollution, businesses have to clean up their operations and individuals have to try and waste less.

Journalists, as professional communicators, have a key role to play. That is why I was more than happy to accept the British Council’s invitation to come to India and talk to my fellow hacks about how to communicate climate change.

In the UK, and in Scotland where I live, climate change is big news. It frequently makes the front pages, is high on the political agenda and is often talked about by political leaders.

This wasn’t always the case. Ten or twenty years ago, environmental issues were often confined to the margins, and there were fewer specialist environment correspondents. Stories about pollution tended to be on the inside pages.

From my discussions so far, it looks like the topic is now similarly marginalised in India. Even in Assam, perhaps one of the more environmentally conscious regions, there are relatively few articles on pollution, waste and wildlife in the local newspapers.

That’s clearly not due to a shortage of informed and enthusiastic journalists. But it may be due to editors and newspaper owners who haven’t yet got the message.

What can be done to make things better? There is no, simple, magic solution, and I certainly don’t have all the answers. But a few of the techniques I’ve used in Scotland may provide some starting points.

Journalists have to keep on reinventing catastrophe, finding ways to say just how bad it could get if the world doesn’t curb pollution. We need to  highlight emerging new evidence of the floods, droughts and storms that climate change will bring.

We need to examine the impacts on particular places, on local communites, on wildlife and the whole natural environment. We need to tap into the campaign groups, the researchers and the academic experts who are finding out about the risks.

Journalists thrive on conflict, so we should seek to write about the manifold conflicts thrown up by environmental issues. Communities who oppose new coal plants, the many divisions over hydroelectric dams, wind farms and nuclear power stations are all fertile sources for stories.

We can make stories personal by relating them directly to the everyday experience of readers, like how they use energy at home or at work. How they travel, what they eat and how they grow food.

Journalists should also investigate possible scams. Critics suggest, for example, that some of the schemes funded in developing countries by the United Nations ‘clean development mechanism’ may not actually lead to reductions in polluting emissions.

Similarly, schemes to trade pollution permits or to offset carbon dioxide emissions haven’t always been what they claim to be. I exposed a scheme to compensate for pollution by planting trees on the isle of Skye in Scotland as a farce.

Journalists can use freedom of information legislation to reveal the worst polluters. Information from government watchdog agencies can be used to name and shame companies into cutting their pollution.

The media has a vital role in highlighting any hypocrisy amongst politicians and civil servants over climate change. If, as in Scotland, they were shown to fly and drive lots while urging others not to do so, then revealing that fact can prompt a change for the better.

Newspapers can win readers by running environmental campaigns, such as saving forests and wildlife. Papers I have worked for have run a series of campaigns on air pollution, traffic, waste and climate change targets.

Those are just some ideas. There will be many others. Changing the perceptions and priorities of editors and decision-makers takes time, but the more journalists write about the issues, the more importance they will assume. And, gradually, change will come.