“Severe, pervasive and irreversible.” These are some of words used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its latest report chronicling climate change.

This particular report, “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability,” has officially changed the tone of the discussion on global warming. We have apparently moved past the warnings of what could happen to complete urgency. As Saleemul Huq, a lead author of one of the chapters in the report, stated, “Before this, we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real.”

According to the report, there is “high confidence” among the panel of experts that human-induced climate change will cause more large-scale and potentially permanent changes to the world, particularly the oceans and the ice caps. This means that sea levels will rise, extreme weather occurrences will increase and many marine species and coral reefs will vanish.

And all of these outcomes have the potential to be devastating for coastal communities and cities, especially those that are severely underdeveloped or ridden with poverty.

Yet the point of the report is, again, not to give us warnings. Rather, the objective is to inform governments that we are indeed living in a rapidly changing world. And what do species do in response to a changing environment? To survive, they adapt. And that is exactly what the report advises we do.

Still, adaptation is not a final solution. Adapting to climate change does not have to be as radical as displacing entire human populations as a result of floods and droughts. We can slow down the rate of change, but as much as it has been said before, this will require comprehensive change.

This means we need a shift in the way we think about climate change. The apocalyptic tone of the report certainly helps to change this paradigm; scare tactics are usually an effective way to motivate people toward action. The U.S. media, for instance, is no stranger to this technique. Aside from that, if passion requires a little bit of frightened energy, then by all means incorporate it.

Many modern cities around the world are already getting the hint. For instance, New York City has presented a multi-billion-dollar plan to protect the city from the next Hurricane Sandy. Some plans involve the construction of tidal barriers and ocean walls to prevent rising sea levels and subsequent flooding. Still, not every area of the world has the resources necessary to adequately adapt.

Many poverty-stricken areas, especially those located on coastlines, simply do not have the funds to protect themselves from truly devastating weather events. Furthermore, many people living on the coast rely on a healthy ocean for their livelihoods. Adaptation simply isn’t a feasible option for them. Contrary to popular belief, this isn’t natural selection at work. We caused this, and it’s up to us to alleviate it.

In order to curb emissions as quickly as possible, we need go after those who control environmental policy. What needs to be done is analogous to what has been done in other political movements. Initially, it may seem dubious. Take the tea party, for instance. Strictly in terms of their rise to prominence, the tea party grew out of grass-roots movements involving people who were genuinely fearful of a “big government.”

They started at local levels, mobilizing voters and resources to their cause via extensive outreach campaigns, and it was incredibly effective. They appealed to people’s anxieties and generated enough strength in numbers to hold politicians accountable for not conforming to their agenda, as was demonstrated in the 2010 midterm elections.

Although their agenda is controversial — something I am not touching on in this column — a similar strategy can be pursued with climate change. Environmental policy needs to start at the local level. It needs to appeal to the average voter’s concerns via grass-roots movements and then mobilize citizens to call for the enactment of policy focused on curbing emissions. Grass-roots movements can serve as the link between global organizations — The IPCC, for instance — and common citizens. This means that these organizations can monitor global policy issues and then transmit the information to the electorate. It is essential that any environmental movement keep the same apocalyptic tone as the IPCC report and even the tea party.

An extreme tone is needed for such a pervasive issue, and on top of that, any environmental movement will be going against the wealthiest lobbyists in the world: those in the oil and gas industry. So strength in numbers is crucial.

Let’s use a possible political scenario to see why a domestic strategy is needed: Germany has decided to take a top-down approach to environmental policy change, rather than a grass-roots, bottom-up approach. The German government has subsidized and incentivized the use of solar panels by taxing those who use other non-renewable utilities more than those who go solar. The government then uses the proceeds to finance the solar industry. Of course, this already gives voters the wrong idea on environmental policy as a big-government-sponsored business. And consequently, this political strategy does not encourage collective action among the masses — rather, it alienates them.

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett recently proposed to open up state parks and forests to hydraulic fracking. As a result, he can expect some hefty campaign donations from the oil and gas industries that will certainly help him get re-elected. But what if there was a way to inform every Pennsylvanian about the proposal?  If people were aware of the implications for the environment, the political consequences would be sure and swift. Either Corbett would change his policy to appeal to his constituents or they would boot him out.

To generate a paradigm shift, the policy must resonate with the voters.

This is exactly how the tea party replaced incumbent candidates — who had consistent and wealthy campaign contributors — with fresh-faced politicians who were relatively new to the game but at the same time were representatives to whom these voters could relate. The tea party informed the electorate of their agenda and got them to their side by appealing to their interests and anxieties.

Therefore, climate change can no longer be viewed as an issue larger than the voters, themselves. It must constantly be on our minds and we need to hold our politicians accountable, but that can only be done with action.

As Connie Hedegaard, the EU commissioner for climate action, said, “When the alarm goes off, many just hit the snooze button. This does not work anymore when it comes to the climate. It’s time to wake up and bring action to the scale needed.”

Write to Nick at [email protected].