We’re doomed. But don’t worry—at least you’ll be well-informed while the mercury climbs and the air turns into a thick, gray soup.

The Lancet just dropped its latest report, and among the usual dire warnings about the planet turning into a giant convection oven, there was a small pat on the head for the Fourth Estate. Apparently, the media is finally doing its job. The report highlights that global coverage of the intersection between climate change and human health is spiking. Leading the pack, somewhat surprisingly to those who don’t follow the sub-continental grind, is the Times of India.

It’s a strange thing to celebrate. It’s like being told the band on the Titanic is playing at a record-breaking decibel level. The music is great, sure. The violins are crisp. But the floor is still tilting at a thirty-degree angle and the lifeboats are made of cardboard.

The Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change tracks these things with the cold, clinical detachment you’d expect from a medical journal. They found that media interest in the climate-health nexus has surged by nearly 15% in the last year. This isn't just about "save the polar bears" anymore. The narrative has shifted to "your kid has asthma because the city is literally on fire." It’s visceral. It’s personal. And for outlets like the Times of India (TOI), it’s a daily reality check.

In India, climate change isn't a theoretical debate for the billionaire class or a talking point for a suburban gala. It’s a heatwave that melts the asphalt. It’s a monsoon that doesn't know when to quit. TOI and other regional giants are hammering this home because their readers are living it. They’re connecting the dots between rising temperatures and the spread of dengue, or how extreme heat makes a day's work in a Mumbai construction site a brush with death.

But here’s the friction. Good reporting costs money. Serious money.

Investigative desks, data visualizers, and field reporters don't work for exposure. While the Lancet is busy praising the uptick in coverage, the business model for the news itself is a dumpster fire. We’re asking cash-strapped newsrooms to do the heavy lifting of public health education because governments are too busy arguing over carbon credits or subsidizing the next coal plant.

There’s a specific irony in the tech that brings us this news. To read about the climate-health crisis on your high-refresh-rate smartphone, you’re relying on a global supply chain that is, itself, a major contributor to the problem. The servers cooling the data centers that host these "vital" reports consume enough electricity to power small nations. We consume the news of our demise on the very devices accelerating it.

The Lancet notes that this media surge is essential for "driving policy change." That’s the hope, anyway. The theory is that if you tell people often enough that their lungs are failing because of policy failures, they’ll eventually vote for someone who cares. It’s a nice theory. It’s also incredibly optimistic for a group of scientists.

In reality, we’re seeing a massive trade-off. We have more information than ever before. We have "explainers" and "deep dives" and interactive maps showing exactly which parts of Florida will be underwater by 2050. The Times of India is churning out content that links heat stress to kidney disease. It’s all there. But awareness is a cheap currency. You can’t pay for a lower global temperature with clicks and shares.

The report mentions that the coverage is most intense in high-income and middle-income countries. The places where people have the luxury of reading about the end of the world while sitting in an air-conditioned room. In the places where the health impacts are actually killing people—the sub-Saharan regions, the low-lying islands—the media infrastructure is often too gutted to keep up.

So, TOI gets its gold star. The media gets a "most improved" sticker for its report card. We’re finally talking about the fact that a hotter planet is a sicker planet. We’ve successfully moved the needle from "denial" to "vividly documented despair."

Is the increased coverage actually moving the needle on policy, or are we just getting better at describing the shape of the iceberg?