The discourse on climate change did not originate as an elitist affair, so there is little question whether, as some scholars argue (Beck 2010;Mathur 2015), it remains an elitist one. Rather, climate change discourse is more concerned with marginal people -peasants in particularwho suffer in their everyday lives due to the effects of climate change. These effects disrupt the lives of millions all over the world, with artisans and fishers particularly affected. When I first embarked upon my fieldwork in the Indian Sundarbans (SDB), I realized that the peasants and fishermen knew that climate change was not something 'out there' that they adapted to, as Taylor (2017) argues; they had consistently been trying to cope with the changing environment that was actively yet unevenly produced (Ibid: x-xvii). Elites, defined in this paper as the people who hold social and/or political power, frequently turn climate change into an explanation for many unwanted incidences to excuse their wrongdoings (Mathur 2015) 1 . However, it remains unclear if the elites successfully escape criticism through this strategy. To attempt to shed light on this gap, I explored the way in which the state and its elites are interpreting climate change by framing forest conservation policies in the Indian Sunderbans which have thereby affected various classes and social groups that are located at different spatial scales within this community.1 While it is undeniable that the local state bureaucracies in India would turn climate change into an explanation for many unwanted incidences to excuse their wrongdoings, as Mathur (2015) agues, it is evident widely that there is a linkage between recurring incidences of human-animal conflict and climate change.