India made its most forceful intervention at the COP29 climate talks on Monday, urging a discussion on the “carbon debt” owed by developed nations and criticizing trade measures that disadvantage developing countries. India also emphasized that the just transition process must begin with wealthy nations, rather than developing economies.
Traffic near the venue of the COP29 climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, on Thursday. (Bloomberg)
During the high-level ministerial roundtable on ‘just transition,’ India’s deputy delegation leader, Leena Nandan, challenged the limited view of climate justice, highlighting that countries like India consume only a third of the global average per capita energy. She argued that this significant disparity in energy access should be central to any conversation about climate transitions.
“Global climate justice is at the core of our work here under the Convention and its Paris Agreement,” Nandan said, emphasizing that development continues, “the over-riding priority for countries of the global South.” She stressed that the principles of equity and Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) are fundamental to climate action, rather than being optional factors.
India urged the recognition and monetization of the "carbon debt" owed by developed nations for their historical emissions and excessive use of the global carbon budget. “Monetisation of this carbon debt would be in trillions,” Nandan stated.
The intervention highlighted key obstacles to a fair global transition. India expressed significant concerns about unilateral trade measures that limit development prospects for developing countries, likely alluding to initiatives like the EU's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) without directly naming it.
The statement also emphasized how intellectual property rights on green technologies remain a barrier to their widespread and affordable access in developing nations, urging an open dialogue on these issues. Additionally, India raised questions about whether current climate science fully accounts for global equity and environmental justice considerations.
Nandan highlighted the double standards in the way the choices of citizens from developed and developing countries are treated, emphasizing the sharp contrast between them “the choices of citizens in developed countries being sacrosanct vs the costs imposed on the citizens of developing countries due to transition.”
India also advocated for a stronger focus on sustainable lifestyles, highlighting agreements made at the United Nations Environment Assembly in Nairobi earlier this year. This reflects India's ongoing efforts to incorporate consumption patterns into climate discussions.
“The denial of international equity narrows our domestic options and poses further challenges to our objectives of achieving immediate, rapid, and sustained access to development opportunities and affects the most vulnerable communities in our countries the most,” Nandan stressed the real-world consequences of unequal climate action.
India specifically criticized efforts to present climate transitions as investment opportunities, arguing that this "undermines the 'just' aspect of just transitions by requiring the victim to pay for solutions instead of providing them with the necessary remedy." This critique seems aimed at developed countries' focus on private finance and market-driven approaches in climate funding debates.
The intervention strongly rejected premature discussions of transition pathways in nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and national adaptation plans (NAPs), asserting that a "just transition" must start with developed countries. This stance challenges the growing push by wealthy nations to universally enhance climate commitments.
In what may be its most ambitious demand, India called for developed nations to achieve net-zero emissions by the end of this decade— a timeline much more aggressive than the current pledges of most wealthy countries. This faster transition by developed nations would, according to Nandan, serve two key purposes: creating the necessary "carbon space" for developing nations and reducing the transition costs currently burdening their citizens.
The statement highlighted that Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC), equity, and climate justice should be central to the discussions, cautioning against "prescriptive top-down approaches" that overlook nationally determined transition pathways. India emphasized that transitions in developing countries should not be viewed solely as investment opportunities.
“A frank discussion of these issues and their inclusion in our decisions taken at COP29 will be the cornerstone of building trust that would unlock a truly equitable and just global transition,” Nandan concluded, ending with the pointed observation: “Just transitions must be just.”
Comments