New deal: Nations must deliver on past promises before committing to lofty climate goals

Why in news?

COP31 has begun in Antalya, Türkiye, amid weak attendance, finance shortfalls and disputes over new targets versus past promises.

UPSC Relevance

Prelims: UNFCCC, COP, Paris Agreement, NCQG, Global Stocktake, Loss and Damage Fund, IPCC, India’s NDC.

Mains: GS3 – Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, Climate change. 

The Climate Negotiation Framework

• UNFCCC: Adopted at the Rio Earth Summit, 1992; in force from 1994. 198 Parties. Based on ‘Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities’ (CBDR-RC).
• COP: Conference of the Parties – the supreme decision-making body of the UNFCCC, meets every year. Decisions are taken by consensus.
• Paris Agreement (2015): Aims to keep warming well below 2°C and pursue 1.5°C. Countries set their own targets through Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), updated every 5 years.
• COP31 arrangement: Hosted by Türkiye (Antalya) with negotiations presided over by Australia – an unusual shared arrangement. Pre-COP meetings were held in the Pacific (Fiji and Tuvalu) to highlight small island vulnerability.

Recent COPs at a glance

Why Past Promises Remain Undelivered

• History of missed targets: The $100 billion a year promise made in Copenhagen (2009) for 2020 was met only in 2022, two years late, and much of it came as loans.
• Loans over grants: A large share of climate finance comes as loans, adding to the debt burden of poor countries.
• Geopolitical stress: The West Asia war, the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and economic strain in Europe have shrunk budgets for climate aid.
• Vague targets: The NCQG counts finance ‘from a wide variety of sources’, including private money, making accountability difficult.
• Adaptation neglected: Most finance goes to mitigation projects with returns, while adaptation (seawalls, drought-resistant farming) gets less.
• Consensus decision-making: Any country can block ambitious language, leading to diluted outcomes.

The Debate: New Targets vs Delivering Old Promises

India’s Position

• Equity and CBDR: Developed countries caused most historical emissions and must lead in cutting emissions and providing finance (Article 9.1 of Paris Agreement).
• Predictable finance and technology transfer: Finance must be public, grant-based and predictable, not mainly private loans.
• Against top-down targets: India declined the electrification pledge, just as it earlier stayed away from the global methane pledge and the COP28 renewable tripling pledge, preferring nationally determined pathways.
• Against unilateral trade measures: Opposes measures like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) as disguised trade barriers.
• Its own commitments: Updated NDC (2022) – reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 45% by 2030 from 2005 levels; 50% installed power capacity from non-fossil sources by 2030 (crossed in 2025); net zero by 2070; Mission LiFE.
• Leadership: International Solar Alliance, CDRI, Global Biofuels Alliance; India has offered to host COP33 in 2028.

Implications for India

• India’s energy transition needs huge investment; weak global finance raises the cost of capital for renewables.
• Rising heatwaves, floods and glacial melt make adaptation finance vital for India’s farmers and coastal communities.
• Pressure to accept sectoral targets may limit policy space for development and energy security, as coal still meets most power demand.
• Global South leadership: India can bridge the gap between small islands, LDCs and large emerging economies.

Way Forward

• Clear finance roadmap: Define how much of the $300 billion will be public grants, with a yearly tracking mechanism.
• Adaptation first: Ring-fence adaptation finance and simplify access for vulnerable countries.
• Reform of MDBs: Multilateral development banks should give more concessional and long-tenure finance.
• Strengthen Loss and Damage Fund: Through innovative sources like levies on aviation, shipping or fossil fuel windfall profits.
• Science-backed stocktake: IPCC timelines should align with the Global Stocktake so decisions are based on latest evidence.
• Trust building: Delivery on old promises will make countries more willing to raise ambition in their NDCs.

Practice MCQ

Q1. With reference to international climate negotiations, consider the following pairs:

How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?

(a) Only one     (b) Only two     (c) All three     (d) None

Answer: (b). Pair 3 is incorrect – India announced net zero by 2070 at COP26, Glasgow (2021). COP29 adopted the NCQG.

Q2. Consider the following statements:

Statement-I: The Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement is held every five years to assess collective progress towards its long-term goals.

Statement-II: Under the Paris Agreement, emission reduction targets of each country are fixed by the Conference of the Parties.

Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

(a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I

(b) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I

(c) Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect

(d) Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is correct

Answer: (c). Targets under the Paris Agreement are nationally determined (NDCs), not fixed by the COP.

Mains Practice Question

“The credibility of global climate governance depends less on announcing new targets and more on delivering past promises.” Examine this statement in the context of recent COP negotiations and India’s position on climate finance. (15 Marks, 250 words)

PDF