Global talk of climate action needs to take on an Indian accent

Currently, it manages to store just seven minutes’ worth—an impressive feat of underachievement. Bjorn Lomborg’s analysis further adds to the bleak picture, revealing that the US must invest five times its current GDP to reach this storage goal. 

Now, picture the cost and feasibility for developing countries—if you dare. Frequent battery replacements and the environmental toll of disposing of used renewable equipment only add to this formidable challenge.

Also read: Economic Survey: India on track to create additional carbon sink through forest cover

The developed world often criticizes countries like India for not doing enough to combat climate change. The 13th chapter of this year’s Economic Survey calls out this hypocrisy of the West. The survey flags five important aspects. First, the developed world blatantly disregards historical emissions and the principle of equity. 

Industrialized nations have historically contributed the majority of greenhouse gas emissions, enjoying economic growth and development at the expense of the planet. According to the World Resources Institute, the US and EU have contributed about half of all global carbon emissions since 1850. 

Yet, these nations demand that developing countries with significantly lower per capita emissions shoulder equal responsibility for emission reductions. This hypocritical stance overlooks the foundational principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities" and burdens developing nations with an unrealistic dual mandate of advancing their economies while meeting stiff emission targets.

Second, current climate strategies myopically focus on shifting from fossil fuels to renewable energy without considering the broader environmental impacts. Solar panels and wind turbines, though promoted as clean-energy solutions, require the extraction of minerals such as lithium, cobalt and rare earth elements, causing environmental degradation. 

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, which supplies over 60% of the world’s cobalt, mining has resulted in catastrophic environmental and human rights abuses. These overlooked impacts reveal a fundamental flaw in the lifecycle assessments of renewable technologies.

Also read: Sitharaman’s budget has some hits but a few misses too

Third, today’s strategy disproportionately emphasizes technological solutions while neglecting necessary lifestyle changes, particularly in high-consumption countries. Despite evidence of the impact of overconsumption, policies rarely address the need for behavioural changes. 

For example, livestock production, responsible for 14.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions according to the FAO, remains largely unchallenged in climate policies. Plus, the growth of AI and cryptocurrency mining, which guzzle much energy, continues unabated. 

A 2020 study by the International Energy Agency found that data centres, driven by AI and cloud services, could consume up to 8% of global electricity by 2030.

The financial commitments of developed nations to support developing countries in their climate efforts are grossly inadequate. At CoP-15 in 2009, developed countries pledged to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020, but this target was only met in 2022, and the funds fell short of needs, with much of the funding in the form of loans, adding to debt burdens. 

This undermines global climate efforts and exposes the developed world’s unwillingness to take full responsibility for their historical emissions. According to the G20 Independent Expert Group on Strengthening MDBs, an additional $3 trillion annually is required to meet climate goals and sustainable development targets by 2030, with $1.8 trillion needed for climate action alone. Sadly, even the Loss and Damages fund announced at CoP-27 is yet to be operationalized.

Fifth, developed nations’ climate strategies need to address over-consumption. High-income countries use six times more resources and generate ten times larger climate impacts than low-income countries. Yet, reducing consumption is hardly on the policy agenda. 

Instead, technological fixes are sought. The survey pushes a climate action approach that merges ancient wisdom with modern sustainability practices. 

It upholds Mission LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment), which promotes 75 steps to reduce our environmental impact, like minimizing single-use plastics, conserving water, adopting sustainable food systems and enhancing energy efficiency. This approach aligns with India’s cultural practices of minimalism, reuse and respect for nature.

This would help mitigate climate change. However, one should also acknowledge that it might not be enough. The survey calls for integrating these individual efforts with broader policy reforms and systemic changes. 

Also read: Could the stock market’s next black swan be climate change?

We should keep pushing multilateral development bank reforms. Investment in renewable technology, especially nuclear energy, is crucial. Nuclear energy addresses the inherent intermittency problems of other renewable sources.

The budget rightly advocates a greater role for nuclear energy in India’s energy mix, the setting up of Bharat small reactors, R&D of Bharat small modular reactors and newer technologies. It also promotes the development of indigenous technology for advanced ultra-supercritical thermal power plants. These are welcome moves.

The author is officer on special duty, Research at EAC-PM.