This study applies Arran Stibbe's (2021) ecolinguistic framework in order to analyze competing media narratives of the 2022 Pakistan floods in ‘DAWN’; a Pakistani newspaper and in ‘The New York Times’; an American newspaper. Using qualitative comparative analysis of ‘99’ thematic units across eight categories such as ideologies, framings, metaphors, evaluations, identities, convictions, erasure, and salience, the research is able to reveal fundamentally different "stories we live by." On the one hand, DAWN constructs political accountability narratives through theatrical framings e.g. ("photo ops," "circus") and performance metaphors, empowering citizens while erasing climate science. On the other hand, The Times presents scientific attribution stories through detection metaphors ("fingerprints") and technical framings, privileging Western expertise while erasing and not paying attention to colonial history and local voices. This analysis demonstrates systematic linguistic patterns: DAWN's high-conviction citizen voices challenge the performance of the elite; The Times reserves epistemic authority for scientists while reducing Pakistanis to being just passive victims. These competing narratives violate different ecological principles. Dawn advances social justice but ignores environmental limits. In contrast, The Times promotes climate awareness but perpetuates epistemic injustice. Neither story is seen to serve comprehensive ecological wellbeing. This study is considered to contribute theoretically by demonstrating interconnections between Stibbe's eight categories, extending ecolinguistics to disaster discourse, and introducing temporal dynamics of frame establishment. The findings reveal the way how September 2022's initial press coverage created persistent templates that shaped subsequent discourse. The research indicates urgent need for integrated narratives that connect local accountability with global responsibility which will empowering diverse knowledge systems while maintaining scientific rigor.