India’s announcement of its revised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the Paris Agreement — the term applied to the mitigation and other climate action targets that countries voluntarily commit to under the agreement — represents a considered step forward when India’s energy and development policies are encountering serious headwinds. It is clear that the government has opted for continuity and incremental advance with respect to India’s earlier NDCs. It is also clearly confident that its commitments will nevertheless be more than adequate in relation to its equitable share of global climate action, in keeping with climate justice and within its expected commitments as a developing nation.

Three climate goals

As the press communique after the Cabinet approval of the updated NDCs noted, there are three specific enhancements that have been committed. The first is an increase in the reduction of emissions intensity of its GDP, from 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 to 47% below 2005 levels by 2035. The second is ensuring that 60% of installed capacity for power generation is from non-fossil fuel sources, while the third is the enhancement of forest and tree cover carbon sinks to 3.5 – 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent above 2005 levels.

India’s climate policies are best understood in the context of its structural constraints as a lower middle income developing country, that determine its available choices for climate action. Over the last three decades, these constraints have not substantially changed, which is also why India continues to insist on the relevance of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). But apart from these, given the structure of the Paris Agreement that requires renewed and enhanced commitments to climate mitigation every five years, short-term considerations have also begun to have a considerable weight in the formulation of the NDCs. The rapid deterioration of the global environment for climate action over the last year has undoubtedly brought this issue to the fore.

Enthusiasm for climate action

Structural constraints have not, however, dampened enthusiasm for climate action in India, both at the level of the Centre and the State governments. There is a considerable range of activities designed to set India on the path to low-carbon development, drawing significant public and private sector efforts and resources, including electric vehicles, enhancement of energy efficiency, promotion and deployment of non-fossil fuel sources of electricity generation, new technologies such as green hydrogen and more recently, the active promotion of carbon capture and storage efforts.

But given India’s developmental levels today, it is clearly premature for India to convert all such efforts into the significantly more onerous and accountable commitments that are the NDCs, the progress towards which is to be reported every two years in the Biennial Transparency Report (BTR) to the UNFCCC.

A section of global and domestic public opinion has raised the issue of the adequacy of India’s NDCs relative to a global temperature goal of 1.5 degree warming above pre-industrial levels (the more ambitious part of the Paris Agreement’s goals). Some have downplayed the new targets, one commentator going so far as to call it “a walk in the park”. Others call for increased generation from renewables as the metric and not installed capacity. Even some sections of opinion that have welcomed the NDCs, appear nevertheless to be uncertain on whether these new commitments are genuinely the best that India can make at this time.

The cost of going green

All the above variants of the “India can (must) do more argument” ignore some critical realities that contextualise India’s climate actions. Given that India’s natural energy source is overwhelmingly coal, it is inaccurate to view improvements in emissions efficiency of GDP and the corresponding bending of its emissions trajectory as a “natural” corollary of India’s growth story. Priority to electricity from renewable sources comes with significant costs, including backing down readily available and often cheaper or comparably priced coal-based thermal power, further tilting a playing field that privileges renewable energy to sustain our climate commitments.

Renewable energy (RE) projects including utility scale battery storage have begun to make their appearance in India’s power sector. But the corresponding scaling up of India’s battery storage capacity, required for ensuring the stability of generation even from the proposed 2030 RE targets will run into a few trillion rupees at least. Part of such expansion would have to be funded by the government, deploying resources that would have been utilised in other sectors. At the very least, the deployment of such large-scale battery systems is not immediately feasible. The most globally widespread option of energy storage in reverse pumped hydropower systems, has very limited scope in India at present. Additionally, environmental concerns, and water needs for competing uses such as irrigation, as well as the regulatory challenges faced by all large hydro projects are likely to preclude any rapid expansion.

Optimistic RE projections, not only in India but even globally, have run into the lack of transmission capacity and the challenges of grid balancing, with the associated costs often omitted when referring to the cost-effectiveness of RE power.

Since, for India, coal is the mainstay of power generation when solar and wind cease, unlike the large-scale gas and hydro available elsewhere, the full utilisation of the available RE capacity will inevitably have to be “curtailed”, while adding to the operation and maintenance costs for thermal power operated in this cyclical fashion. These add further to the true cost that India bears for the pursuit of its climate commitments.

Improving energy efficiency in other sectors is also being pursued vigorously, including the introduction of mandatory emissions intensity targets in key industries. The early ramp up of electric vehicles, while the jump from BSIV to BSVI vehicle emissions standards was just coming into place, was another leap-frog moment, whose cost to the economy must not be underestimated. Since the 26th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework on Climate Change at Glasgow, every Central government budget has seen a range of initiatives and resource commitment across various aspects of climate mitigation. Indeed, a major knowledge gap today is that while future costs of increased mitigation action are routinely calculated, the cost burden attached to India’s mitigation initiatives undertaken so far, in the absence of any significant climate finance, have yet to be estimated in a reliable manner.

Accounting for India’s developmental future

At a more over-arching level, India’s mitigation challenge cannot be based on a simple extrapolation of the current structural features and trends of its economy.

India’s developmental future needs room for further large-scale growth in manufacturing and industry, expansion in the provision of goods and services to its population at adequate levels beyond the minimum, and an urban transition that has only just begun. In this context, the “India can do more” arguments that rely on such extrapolation of economic trends and the persistence of current structural features, miss the urgent need to hedge India’s developmental future.

India cannot commit its NDCs to preserving the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, when the goal is rapidly slipping out of reach. This a trend that India cannot reverse, given that its per capita emissions are a third of the global average. Even otherwise, under the voluntary emissions reduction NDCs of the Paris Agreement, the benefits of India’s reduction in emissions below any business-as-usual baseline, are distributed primarily to the big emitters globally, due to their inadequate efforts, and proportionately less to India, especially when the largest historical emitter has walked out of all climate treaties and seeks to dismantle climate action both at home and abroad

India’s climate commitments have to be strategic and circumspect, while its NDCs are formulated in informed self-awareness of its, to use the language of the Paris Agreement, “national circumstances.”

(T. Jayaraman is with the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru. Views expressed are personal.)

Published – April 07, 2026 11:01 pm IST

Aerial view of the Outeiro port at the Para river in Belem, Para State, Brazil on August 25, 2025. Brazil will host the UN climate conference COP30 in November in the Amazonian city of Belem.
| Photo Credit: AFP

READ MORE

Aerial view of the Outeiro port at the Para river in Belem, Para State, Brazil on August 25, 2025. Brazil will host the UN climate conference COP30 in November in the Amazonian city of Belem.
| Photo Credit: AFP

READ MORE

Washington:

President Donald Trump’s administration on Monday announced the United States’ intention to withdraw from the Paris climate accord for a second time, a defiant rejection of global efforts to combat planetary warming as catastrophic weather events intensify worldwide.

The Republican leader also said his administration would declare a “national energy emergency” to significantly expand drilling in the world’s top oil and gas producer and scrap upcoming stringent pollution standards for cars and trucks, which he has derided as an “electric vehicle mandate.”

“President Trump will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord,” the White House said in a statement shortly after the Republican was sworn into office, without providing a specific timeline.

It would take a year to leave the agreement after submitting a formal notice to the United Nations framework that underpins global climate negotiations.

Even before the formal exit, the move delivers a serious blow to international cooperation aimed at reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Critics warn it could embolden other major polluters like China and India to scale back their own commitments.

It comes as global average temperatures over the past two years surpassed the critical 1.5 degrees Celsius warming threshold for the first time, underscoring the urgency of climate action. 

“The US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is unfortunate, but multilateral climate action has proven resilient and is stronger than any single country’s politics and policies,” said Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation and a key architect of the Paris Agreement.

More drilling, fewer EVs

Trump used his inauguration speech to preview a raft of sweeping energy-related federal orders aimed at undoing Biden’s climate legacy.

“The inflation crisis was caused by massive overspending and escalating energy prices, and that is why today I will also declare a national energy emergency. We will ‘Drill, baby, drill!'” Trump said.

“We will be a rich nation again, and it is that liquid gold under our feet that will help to do it,” he added. 

“With my actions today, we will end the Green New Deal, and we will revoke the electric vehicle mandate, saving our auto industry.”

Trump’s mention of the “Green New Deal” may be a reference to the Inflation Reduction Act — Biden’s signature climate law that channels billions into clean energy tax credits –rather than a 2019 resolution of the same name, which never passed Congress.

Praise and scorn

Trump’s domestic actions were welcomed by energy industry leaders, who view the administration’s policies as a return to the era of “American energy dominance.” 

“The US oil and natural gas industry stands ready to work with the new administration to deliver the commonsense energy solutions Americans voted for,” said Mike Sommers, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute. 

But they sparked immediate outrage from environmental advocates, who argue that doubling down on fossil fuel production ignores the pressing challenges of climate change. 

“This declaration is more proof that Trump doesn’t seem to recognize the real world,” said Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club’s land protection program, in comments to AFP. “The US is producing more energy, more oil and gas than any country has ever produced.”

Trump’s actions come despite overwhelming scientific consensus that the burning of fossil fuels has driven global temperatures to unprecedented levels, contributing to increasingly severe climate-driven disasters. 

Last year brought a barrage of destructive hurricanes, including Hurricane Helene — the second-deadliest storm to strike the mainland in over half a century — while this month, wildfires supercharged by climate change have devastated Los Angeles.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump .
| Photo Credit: Reuters

With the Republicans firmly in control of the U.S. government, a seismic shift in American climate policy is imminent, threatening to unravel years of slow but hard-earned progress in addressing the climate crisis.

With president-elect Donald Trump referring to climate change as a “hoax”, the most devastating effect will be a diplomatic retreat in global negotiations, along with a possible withdrawal from the Paris Agreement (PA). U.S. climate negotiators will likely explain inaction with references to “domestic political constraints”, which American environmental advocates, frustrated by limited options, may also use as a shield while exhorting other major economies in the global South to take up the slack.

Also Read | How much can US president-elect Donald Trump derail global climate action?

An alarming project proposal

Project 2025, developed by The Heritage Foundation, brings together the vision of many conservative interests and is expected to be unleashed from the start of Mr. Trump’s presidency, even though he distanced himself from it during his campaign. It envisions a reduction in federal climate science programmes across several departments. The installation of politically appointed “science advisers” at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signals a concerning shift away from independent scientific oversight. This accompanies the potential dismantling of the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, which forms the legal backbone of climate regulation by identifying greenhouse gases (GHGs) as public health threats. This implies that GHG emissions may no longer be included in future environmental legislation. The plan also calls for ending green subsidies and opposing “climate reparations” to developing nations, effectively abandoning any pretence of climate justice.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of the Biden administration, the most ambitious U.S. climate legislation to date, is especially targeted by Project 2025, but it may oddly survive due to its widespread economic benefits, particularly in Republican districts that have seen substantial clean energy investments and job creation. Fossil fuel companies anticipate expanded operational freedom — a stance not unique to one party, as evidenced by previous bipartisan equivocation on fracking. Scientific institutions that work on climate change could face severe cuts in federal funding. In particular, research into renewable energy and battery storage faces significant reduction, handicapping the ability to compete in the growing global clean energy economy.

These changes come when climate-driven disasters demand a coordinated, robust response. Indeed, it is mystifying how climate disinformation and misinformation can thrive in an era of intensifying climate-induced disasters, as witnessed in South America with hurricanes Helene and Ida. As this false messaging deepens under Mr. Trump, the public will be more disconnected from the scientific realities of climate change. The proposed dismantling of climate science infrastructure is more than just a policy reversal; it is a retreat from reality itself, one that future generations will judge harshly.

EDITORIAL | ​Testing time: On climate action and President Trump

Unfortunately, climate change will not pause for political convenience. While policy may shift with elections, the physics of GHG emissions is consistent. Based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report on Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), we are significantly off track from meeting both NDC commitments and PA temperature goals. Current NDCs would lead to global emissions of 51.5 Gt of CO2 equivalent by 2030, a level only 2.6% lower than in 2019. This falls far short of the about 43% reduction needed for the 1.5°C target and 27% for the 2°C target.

Even with full implementation of all NDCs, we are heading towards temperature increases of up to 2.8°C of warming. The current trajectory would consume 86% of the remaining carbon budget by 2030 for the desirable target of 1.5°C. The report emphasises an urgent need for increased NDC ambition, substantial over-achievement of current NDCs, or both. Without enhanced action, the required post-2030 emission reductions would need to be dramatically steeper to compensate for this slow start.

The 29th global meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP29) is going on in Azerbaijan. The lame-duck Biden administration will be reluctant to make major commitments on finance. As was the case under previous Republican administrations, one can expect American delegates at COP29 to blame their political leaders for their inaction, while aware that the U.S. is responsible for about a quarter of GHGs generated by humanity.

Also Read | Climate experts worry about Donald Trump’s re-election impact

Rays of hope

Still, there may be reasons for cautious hope. Globally, the clean energy transition has gained considerable momentum, driven by market forces. Even Republican-led States in the U.S. have embraced renewable energy investments, recognising the economic opportunities they bring to their communities. The likely survival of the IRA demonstrates how clean energy’s economic benefits can create durable political constituencies. U.S. negotiators at the climate conference will tell us that States, cities, and businesses increasingly view climate action as essential to their long-term prosperity. While there is room for domestic action within the U.S., we must be clear-eyed. The U.S. will not support global climate finance or take responsibility for being the largest cumulative emitter of GHGs. Climate justice will seriously get stalled at a moment when the world can least afford delay. The challenge lies in preserving and building upon existing progress, while finding new paths in an increasingly hostile international political environment.

Sujatha Byravan is a scientist based in Chennai; Sudhir Chella Rajan is a professor at IIT Madras. Views are personal

A woman demonstrates a sign on veganism at the COP29 U.N. Climate Summit, Tuesday, Nov. 12, 2024, in Baku, Azerbaijan.
| Photo Credit: AP

In a landmark decision on the first day of the global climate talks here, COP29 has officially adopted the new operational standards for a mechanism of the Paris Agreement under Article 6, setting the stage for a global carbon market.

Also Read: COP29 Summit LIVE Day 2

This adoption of Article 6.4, achieved during the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA), sets the stage for operationalising Article 6, which has faced years of deadlock.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement facilitates international collaboration to lower carbon emissions.

It offers two pathways for countries and companies to trade carbon offsets, supporting the achievement of emission reduction targets set in their climate action plans, or nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

The first option, known as Article 6.2, allows two countries to establish a bilateral carbon trading agreement under their own terms.

The second, Article 6.4, seeks to develop a centralised, UN-managed system to enable both countries and companies to offset and trade carbon emissions.

The Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, tasked with creating a United Nations-governed carbon market, finalised essential standards covering carbon removal projects and methodology guidance.

These include guidelines on the development and assessment of methodologies and requirements for carbon removal activities. While previously delayed by conflicting views over transparency and quality, the early adoption of these standards is intended to streamline carbon market operations.

Despite the historic agreement, concerns arose over the process. Some delegates questioned whether the Presidency’s swift push to adopt these standards at the start of COP29 undermined traditional governance procedures.

Negotiations had previously faltered due to divergent views on how permanent and reliable carbon credits should be.

At COP28, disputes over forest credits and deforestation risks hindered progress, leading some stakeholders to worry that the expedited adoption at COP29 could set a precedent for sidestepping scrutiny.

Environmental organisations expressed cautious optimism.

John Verdieck, Global Climate Policy Lead at The Nature Conservancy, noted, “The Art 6.4 decision is a helpful start to COP29. We need every financial mechanism we can get to solve the climate crisis.” Florence Laloe, Senior Director of Climate Policy at Conservation International, added that the adoption of standards under Article 6.4 moves the market closer to full operationalisation, helping overcome a procedural hurdle and enabling countries to address other critical issues at COP.

Experts also emphasised the need for continuous improvement. Dhruba Purkayastha from the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) praised the methodological standards, especially the provisions for “downward adjustment” to ensure credible baselines.

However, he flagged remaining issues, such as the lack of clear standards for post-crediting monitoring periods and reversal risk assessments, which he noted are essential for long-term market reliability.

The Article 6.4 mechanism is seen as an important tool in bridging the climate finance gap.

As Laloe noted, “Science shows that it is mathematically impossible to meet global climate goals without nature.” The mechanism aims to enhance climate finance flows to countries with carbon-rich ecosystems, supporting both environmental integrity and equitable access to funding.

Despite this achievement, significant elements under Article 6 remain unresolved, especially Article 6.2, which governs bilateral trades between countries.

The EU and the U.S. remain divided over transparency requirements, and these talks will continue throughout COP29.

For Article 6.4, additional standards on insurance policies, stress testing of the Reversal Risk Buffer Pool, and monitoring frameworks are still needed to ensure rigor and investor confidence.

As negotiations advance, stakeholders urge continued commitment to a transparent, equitable, and functional global carbon market, stressing that the urgency of the climate crisis demands both ambitious action and robust oversight.

Image for representational purposes only.
| Photo Credit: Getty Images

Echoing the Centre’s concerns on “protectionism”, the Economic Survey has noted that the forthcoming Carbon Border Adjustment Tax (CBAT) mooted by the European Union “went against the spirit of the Paris Agreement.”

The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), as it is called, are tariffs that will apply on energy-intensive goods imported into the European Union. This is to ensure that local manufacturers of iron, steel and aluminium, which consume enormous fossil fuel, aren’t at a competitive disadvantage from similar goods produced in developing countries whose industries have more permissive fossil fuel emission norms.

“India not only has to deal with climate change and undertake energy transition but also deal with the protectionism of the developed countries. Europe is on course to implement its Carbon Border Adjustment Tax and both the United Kingdom and the United States are in different stages of imposing their versions of it in due course. These taxes are in contravention to the spirit of the Paris Agreement that recognised ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities’,” according to the Survey document.

The CBAM system is expected to come into force on January 1, 2026. India is among the top eight countries that will be adversely affected by CBAM, as per the Global Trade Research Initiative report. In 2022, 27% of India’s exports of iron, steel and aluminum products worth $8.2 billion went to the EU. It is estimated that a few of its core sectors, such as steel, will be “greatly affected” by CBAM.

Raising financial resources for climate change adaptation, the Survey document notes, is an “unprecedented challenge” as India’s climate action has been largely financed through domestic resources and the flow of international finance has been very limited. To achieve net zero by 2070, India needs $28 billion annually until that year. Domestic sources accounted for the majority of green finance in India, at 87% and 83% in fiscal years 2019 and 2020, respectively, the document added.

Solar panels in the Pavagada Solar Park, Karnataka.
| Photo Credit: Getty Images

Modern economic growth and rising demand for goods at relatively lower prices have led to inevitable exploitation of nature, and consequent climate change. There is no denying that unfettered capitalism has contributed to over extraction of natural resources and increasing emission of greenhouse gases. Should uncontrolled capitalism persist till 2050, the aim of restricting average global temperature within 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels may remain a pipe dream. Emitting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide will see continued climate extremes leading to the loss of lives and livelihoods. No wonder, climate emergencies have become frequent.

Many environmentalists believe that the long-term solution to tackling climate crises is to uproot capitalism because “we cannot solve the problem by what caused it”. But with time short for averting catastrophic climate change, the possibility of putting a new economic system in place may seem improbable.

Transform, progress

In Climate Capitalism, Akshat Rathi explores how to transform the world’s dominant economic system while ensuring that the wheels of progress don’t come to a halt. From renewable power to green cement, electric cars to carbon capture, emission-reducing technologies have tossed new opportunities for private capital and government regulations to work in tandem. The process to harness the forces of capitalism to achieve zero emissions has already begun. Although these are still early days for capitalism to wear a natural look for addressing impending climatic concerns, a faint ray of optimism seems to have been generated.

It has been over two decades that industrial capitalism has been critiqued for neither pricing nor accounting its negative externalities. It liquidates natural capital and calls it profit, undervaluing both natural resources and living systems. Rathi chronicles the political manoeuvrings that made possible China’s lead in building fleets of electric cars, India’s success in promoting solar power, America’s success with reversing climate damages in the oil industry, and the Danish quest for pushing wind turbines. All such initiatives combined, it has been estimated that 2% of global GDP is enough to make the carbon dioxide problem go away. Far from being linear, however, there are disruptive elements that play upon power politics to sully the path to zero emissions. Politics, technology and finance must align in the right direction to bring about change, says Rathi.

To work as a unit

With climate emergencies threatening life, public perception on the global climatic accords and green initiatives remains grossly sceptical. Holding an optimist position, Rathi argues that we cannot insulate ourselves from the transformation coming our way. From bureaucrats to billionaires, doers to enforcers, there are multiple actors on the capitalist platform who would need to bridge differences to reform the economic system and help shape a climate-conducive capitalism.

Passionate capitalists fear that policy reforms may kill the market. But policy shifts in favour of climate-oriented technologies and investments have created new business opportunities. Whether such efforts add up to make an impact at global scale is yet to be fully ascertained. Some trends are noticeable, the U.K. economy grew by 60% between 1990 and 2017 while its carbon emissions declined by 40%. The task lies in replicating and escalating such transformative processes and practices. Although climate financing may have been slow, the Paris Agreement has triggered a process of change.

Climate Capitalism conveys an optimistic narrative which contends that it’s cheaper to save the world than destroy it. What kindles a ray of hope is that capitalists themselves have woken up to both the cost of inaction and the opportunity of action.

Climate Capitalism

Akshat Rathi

John Murray/ Hachette

₹699

The reviewer is an independent writer, researcher and academic.

Solar panels in the Pavagada Solar Park, Karnataka.
| Photo Credit: Getty Images

Modern economic growth and rising demand for goods at relatively lower prices have led to inevitable exploitation of nature, and consequent climate change. There is no denying that unfettered capitalism has contributed to over extraction of natural resources and increasing emission of greenhouse gases. Should uncontrolled capitalism persist till 2050, the aim of restricting average global temperature within 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels may remain a pipe dream. Emitting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide will see continued climate extremes leading to the loss of lives and livelihoods. No wonder, climate emergencies have become frequent.

Many environmentalists believe that the long-term solution to tackling climate crises is to uproot capitalism because “we cannot solve the problem by what caused it”. But with time short for averting catastrophic climate change, the possibility of putting a new economic system in place may seem improbable.

Transform, progress

In Climate Capitalism, Akshat Rathi explores how to transform the world’s dominant economic system while ensuring that the wheels of progress don’t come to a halt. From renewable power to green cement, electric cars to carbon capture, emission-reducing technologies have tossed new opportunities for private capital and government regulations to work in tandem. The process to harness the forces of capitalism to achieve zero emissions has already begun. Although these are still early days for capitalism to wear a natural look for addressing impending climatic concerns, a faint ray of optimism seems to have been generated.

It has been over two decades that industrial capitalism has been critiqued for neither pricing nor accounting its negative externalities. It liquidates natural capital and calls it profit, undervaluing both natural resources and living systems. Rathi chronicles the political manoeuvrings that made possible China’s lead in building fleets of electric cars, India’s success in promoting solar power, America’s success with reversing climate damages in the oil industry, and the Danish quest for pushing wind turbines. All such initiatives combined, it has been estimated that 2% of global GDP is enough to make the carbon dioxide problem go away. Far from being linear, however, there are disruptive elements that play upon power politics to sully the path to zero emissions. Politics, technology and finance must align in the right direction to bring about change, says Rathi.

To work as a unit

With climate emergencies threatening life, public perception on the global climatic accords and green initiatives remains grossly sceptical. Holding an optimist position, Rathi argues that we cannot insulate ourselves from the transformation coming our way. From bureaucrats to billionaires, doers to enforcers, there are multiple actors on the capitalist platform who would need to bridge differences to reform the economic system and help shape a climate-conducive capitalism.

Passionate capitalists fear that policy reforms may kill the market. But policy shifts in favour of climate-oriented technologies and investments have created new business opportunities. Whether such efforts add up to make an impact at global scale is yet to be fully ascertained. Some trends are noticeable, the U.K. economy grew by 60% between 1990 and 2017 while its carbon emissions declined by 40%. The task lies in replicating and escalating such transformative processes and practices. Although climate financing may have been slow, the Paris Agreement has triggered a process of change.

Climate Capitalism conveys an optimistic narrative which contends that it’s cheaper to save the world than destroy it. What kindles a ray of hope is that capitalists themselves have woken up to both the cost of inaction and the opportunity of action.

Climate Capitalism

Akshat Rathi

John Murray/ Hachette

₹699

The reviewer is an independent writer, researcher and academic.

Saudi Aramco, Coal India and Gazprom did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
| Photo Credit: AP

“The vast majority of planet-warming carbondioxide emissions since 2016 can be traced to a group of just 57 fossil fuels and cement producers,” researchers said on April 4.

“From 2016 to 2022, the 57 entities including nation-states, state-owned firms and investor-owned companies produced 80% of the world’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuels and cement production,” said the Carbon Majors report by non-profit think tank InfluenceMap.

“The world’s top three CO2-emitting companies in the period were state-owned oil firm Saudi Aramco, Russia’s state-owned energy giant Gazprom and state-owned producer Coal India,” the report said.

Saudi Aramco, Coal India and Gazprom did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The report found most companies had expanded their fossil fuel production since 2015, the year when nearly all countries signed the U.N. Paris Agreement, committing to take action to curb climate change.

Since then, while many governments and companies have set tougher emissions targets and rapidly expanded renewable energy, they have also produced and burned more fossil fuels, causing emissions to rise.

“Global energy-related CO2 emissions hit a record high last year,” the International Energy Agency has said.

InfluenceMap said its findings showed that a relatively small group of emitters were responsible for the bulk of ongoing CO2 emissions, and it aimed to increase transparency around which governments and companies were causing climate change.

“It can be used in a variety of cases, ranging from legal processes seeking to hold these producers to account for climate damages, or it can be used by academics in quantifying their contributions, or by campaign groups, or even by investors,” InfluenceMap Programme Manager Daan Van Acker said of the report.

A previous edition of the Carbon Majors database was cited last month in a legal case brought by a Belgian farmer against French oil and gas company TotalEnergies. The farmer argued that as one of the world’s top 20 CO2-emitting companies, TotalEnergies was partly responsible for damage to his operations from extreme weather.

The database was first launched in 2013 by the non-profit research organisation Climate Accountability Institute. It combines companies’ self-reported data on coal, oil and gas production with sources like the U.S. Energy Information Administration, national mining associations and other industry data.

Carroll Muffett, CEO of the non-profit Center for International Environmental Law said the database would improve investors’ and litigators’ ability to track companies’ actions over time.