India and the Search for a Fair Climate Path
COP30 has concluded, but the conversations it provoked continue to echo through diplomatic channels, civil society networks, and editorial pages. When the conference opened in Belém, Brazil, it was hailed—almost with hope and relief—as the “COP of Truth.” By the time it ended, the disappointment for many, inside the venue was, as one observer put it, as pervasive as the diesel fumes from the generators outside the pavilions. What many expected to be a decisive step toward a fossil-free future ended up being described by several activists and analysts as yet another “Theatre of Delay.”
Even the moral appeals of Pope Francis, urging delegates to act with urgency and compassion for the planet and its poorest inhabitants, could not shift entrenched positions.
The most visible sign of this retreat was the softening of the language on fossil fuels. An early draft had clearly called for a transition away from coal, oil, and gas. By the final version, this clarity had been diluted to a vague, almost evasive line acknowledging that “the global transition towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development is irreversible.” The omission of the words that mattered—fossil fuels—many believed, became the symbol of a summit that could not summon the courage to confront the heart of the climate crisis.
A further disappointment was palpable. Climate scientists pointed out that without concrete roadmaps or timelines, the world risks drifting further from the 1.5°C target. Colombia went so far as to refuse to join parts of the final decision, accusing negotiators of “denying the best available science” and sending a dangerously mixed message to the world. Their resistance briefly forced the plenary to pause, underscoring the fragility of a consensus-driven process.
Yet COP30 was not without accomplishments. There was progress in operationalising the Loss and Damage Fund, a longstanding demand of climate-vulnerable nations, and the establishment of a more coherent framework for a just transition mechanism. Former Irish President Mary Robinson called these steps imperfect but “evidence that multilateralism can still function in fractured times,” invoking the Brazilian ideal of mutirão—collective, voluntary, community-driven effort—as the spirit that held the process together.
But for India, as for many developing countries, the most consequential debate was not about the symbolism of failure but about the realism of transition. As negotiators sparred over language, India’s position remained steady and unapologetically grounded in the arithmetic of development. The country reiterated that any meaningful global climate agreement must recognize the developmental compulsions of the Global South. Poverty eradication, industrial expansion, and rising energy demand are not negotiable goals; they are foundational to national progress. This duality—of ambition shaped by constraints—has become a hallmark of India’s climate diplomacy.
India welcomed the outcomes with characteristic sobriety. Speaking at the final plenary, its delegation underscored that the decisions reflect a collective will to act, however cautiously, and reaffirmed India’s commitment to climate action anchored in equity, sustainable development, and technological innovation. India reiterated that global climate goals must advance in a manner that is fair, just, and cognizant of developmental realities—yet it also acknowledged that the decisions mark progress, and that the world must build on this momentum with trust and mutual responsibility.
India’s argument is not rhetorical. Its per capita emissions remain far below the global average and a fraction of those in industrialised economies, whose prosperity was built on more than a century of fossil-fuel-driven growth. For these nations to now prescribe rapid phase-outs without offering adequate financial and technological support would risk widening, rather than narrowing, global inequality. India insisted that climate ambition cannot be divorced from equity; the burden of transition cannot fall hardest on those who contributed the least to the crisis.
Yet, India did not present this dilemma as an alibi for inaction. On the contrary, its record on green energy growth stands among the most credible in the G20. Over the past decade, India has built one of the world’s largest renewable energy capacities—especially in solar power—and has significantly reduced the emissions intensity of its GDP. Its policies for green hydrogen, grid modernisation, energy efficiency, and electric mobility reflect a painstakingly constructed long-term strategy. This progress is not a display of self-congratulation; it is a demonstration that development and decarbonisation can proceed together when supported by coherent policy and accessible technology.
For India, as also for the developing world at large, the larger global picture remains troubling. Climate finance continues to lag far behind the scale required. Technology transfer, long promised, remains entangled in commercial and political constraints. This is where the ethos of mutirão resonates most strongly. India’s transition is not solely a governmental enterprise; it is a cumulative outcome of public policy, private investment, technological adoption, and community-level cooperation. The cooperative spirit that COP30 celebrated is, in many ways, embedded in India’s own energy story—quiet, steady, and rooted in both necessity and innovation.
COP30 may not have lived up to its promise as a “COP of Truth,” but it has illuminated the truths the world can no longer avoid. The time for incrementalism is over; the time for cooperative courage—true mutirão—has arrived. Where does this leave the world? Perhaps with a clearer recognition of both the possibilities and the limits of multilateralism. COP30 revealed that global cooperation is still possible, but fragile. It showed that ambition remains, but so do hesitation and distrust. Above all, it reminded the world that without integrity in language, generosity in financing, and sincerity in commitments, the climate process risks losing its moral centre.
For India, the path forward is equally demanding and hopeful: to keep expanding renewable energy, deepen adaptation strategies, strengthen technological innovation, and ensure that the benefits of transition reach the poorest first. It must continue to speak for the developing world while demonstrating through action what a balanced, equitable, low-carbon development model can look like.
In the end, COPs rest on consensus. And consensuses, by their very nature, are never perfect; they are rarely the boldest or the best. They are compromises framed in broad, sometimes vague, formulations that every nation can live with. Yet this is the grammar of multilateralism. To secure decisive and irreversible progress, the global community will need far greater maturity, imagination, and the courage to look beyond narrow national interests. Until then, each COP will inch us forward—imperfectly, unevenly, but forward nonetheless.
For the rest, we wait.
scribo ad LX 