The intersection of climate change with housing and land is both urgent and complex. Housing not only contributes significantly to climate change through emissions and land use, but also plays a critical role in enabling communities to adapt to its impacts. Climate change is already reshaping patterns of housing development, affordability, and liveability—especially in areas exposed to environmental risk.

These effects are most severe for the marginalized and vulnerable populations, particularly those living in disaster-prone areas. Without formal recognition or protection, they face heightened vulnerability to displacement, loss of livelihoods, and deteriorating living conditions—raising the growing threat of climate-induced displacement and migration.

Over the past decade, climate change has emerged as the gravest challenge facing nations across the globe, though its impacts are far from equal. While disasters linked to climate change have become frequent, countries of the Global South are also experiencing prolonged extreme weather—effectively a changed climate. 

These shifts are visible not only in longer and harsher heatwaves but also in the everyday struggles of the most marginalized communities. Migration is intensified, livelihoods are reshaped, and education is disrupted, while communities most affected receive little attention and are often sidelined in climate responses.

Although recognition of these challenges is growing, responses remain slow and unsystematic. Equally urgent, yet less acknowledged, is the need to examine the consequences of climate action itself—both mitigation and adaptation—on vulnerable communities. Global commitments such as the 2015 Paris Agreement have spurred countries to adopt largely technocratic measures to reduce emissions and adapt to climate impacts. India, through its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), has pledged to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 45 per cent from 2005 levels, achieve 50 per cent cumulative electric power capacity from non-fossil fuel sources, create a carbon sink, and invest in programmes across health, disaster management, and fragile ecological regions like the Himalayas and coasts.

While these interventions are presented as environmentally and socially beneficial, they are also generating new patterns of housing and land rights violations, particularly for marginalized groups. India’s NDC targets have spurred rapid investment in renewable energy (RE), supported by subsidies, tax rebates, and relaxed norms. On July 14 2025, the Government of India announced that India has already achieved its target of reaching 50 per cent of its installed energy from non fossil fuel sources, five years ahead of its time, while delivering other benefits such as enhanced energy access, employment generation, and better rural incomes among other things.3 However, a closer look at these projects show a different picture, one marked by rising conflicts and violations of the rights of communities.

A report on conflicts related to RE projects by Land Conflict Watch,4 analyzed 31 such projects to find that 48.4 per cent of these conflicts involved wholly common lands whereas 32.3 per cent involved both common and private lands– where few policies governing land acquisition. Of these, 17 projects were located on land used for agricultural purposes, 11 located on land used for grazing purposes, and 4 located on land used for residential purposes. Such projects have impacted 43,946 people who are largely tribal communities, marginalized farmers, especially women, and pastoral and nomadic communities.

Similarly, India’s pledge to create a carbon sink by 2030 has primarily impacted tribal communities across the country, violating their rights to forest lands and housing. These projects entail enhancing forests and tree cover in 24 million hectares of land for carbon dioxide removal, of which 21 million hectares of land requires land use change.5 Much of this is being pursued through the Compensatory Afforestation Fund, which mandates developers to finance new plantations when forest land is diverted for non-forest purposes. However, these initiatives often come at the expense of indigenous communities. During the Covid-19 lockdown, tribal families were evicted for such projects.6 For instance, the Telangana Forest department ran an afforestation programme, “Haritha Haram”, which resulted in several incidents of clashes between indigenous communities and forest officials, and grabbing of land on which indigenous communities were residing. Similar incidents of land dispossession, loss of livelihoods, and serious human rights violation of various vulnerable tribal communities have been reported in various other states.

Environmental conservation and disaster management have also become justifications for evictions of marginalized communities across India. Data compiled by Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN) between 2017 to 2023 shows that at least 333,688 people were evicted due to environmental reasons/ projects and forest and wildlife protection, and disaster management, while 50,217 people were evicted for disaster management.8In 2021, around 10,000-15,000 families, accounting to over one lakh people, were forcefully removed from Khori Gaon, Haryana by the Municipal Corporation of Faridabad. The eviction was carried out following directives from the Supreme Court of India [S.L.P. (C) 7220- 7221/2017] to remove ‘encroachments’ in the Aravalli Forest areas, ostensibly to prevent forest degradation.

In the context of rising instances of urban flooding, preservation and restoration of natural water bodies has become a key adaptation strategy. Consequently, “encroachments” along water bodies, primarily established by low income communities over several years, are targeted in the name of evacuating local residents to prevent loss of lives and properties, and to prevent further urban flooding. Since Chennai flooded in 2015, 95 informal settlements, comprising 22,234 families or 89,000 people have been resettled. 85 per cent of these settlements were evicted for restoration of river/lake/canal, and only 1,594 families were relocated in proximate locations. Moreover, low-income settlements along water bodies and drains are often blamed for excessive flooding, as in the case of Madrasi Camp , in Delhi’s Jangpura area, where the Delhi High Court [W.P(C) 8035/2024] stated that the settlement was obstructing the nearby drain and thus causing waterlogging.11

These examples illustrate a troubling paradox: while the urgency of climate action is undeniable, mitigation and adaptation measures are often pursued at the cost of the most vulnerable. Renewable energy projects, afforestation programmes, and disaster-prevention strategies, instead of fostering resilience, are displacing marginalized communities, eroding livelihoods, and undermining the right to adequate housing.

Hegemonic ideas of climate-based development are deepening the housing crisis to address the ongoing climate crisis, creating a false dichotomy between the two. This panel seeks to unpack this dichotomy and build perspectives on the ongoing contention between climate action and the housing rights of marginalized communities. Drawing examples from various geographical contexts, the panellists will highlight the responsibilities that governments, businesses, and civil society, must shoulder collectively, to ensure a justice-oriented approach to climate action that centres local communities and advances both environmental goals and human rights.