By Purvi Agarwal

Abstract

Climate change is not only restricted to environmental issues but is also deeply intertwined with
the polity and economics of countries. India, as the voice of the global South has been an
assertive player in the tense dynamics of navigating the complex solutions to global warming,
remarkably showcasing in the last COP meeting in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This article
aims to explore the roots of India’s climate diplomacy in the 1972 Stockholm Conference and its
approach towards climate politics, balancing national interests with global imperatives for
equitable and sustainable solutions.

INTRODUCTION

India takes a proactive approach on the international aerena, putting the advancement and
defense of its national interests first, as seen in the context of Russia’s confrontation with
Ukraine and India’s position on Pakistan’s role in terrorism. This further reflects in the nation’s
stance with regard to climate change in multilateral forums and the latest Conference of the
Parties meeting in Dubai stands as an example for the same. New Delhi has spoken for the

developing countries, countering the western discourse on carbon emissions, technology transfer
and both overlapping as well as independent responsibilities that each country ought to under
take inorder to mitigate climate crisis during several conferences . At COP 28 in 2023, the Prime
Minister voiced the concerns of the Global South and reiterated the urgency of making the means
of implementation, particularly climate finance, available to the developing countries to achieve
their climate ambitions and implement their NDCs (Nationally Determined Contributions) and
further endorsed the UAE climate investment fund along with the operationalisation of the Loss
and Damage Fund.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

The basic idea has been that excessive industrialisation, overpopulation and accelerated
economic growth are responsible for global climate change and other environmental issues. The
Club of Rome has been one organisation that strongly advocates for these terms. The mainstream
view was that environment and economy were conflicting goals and the common awareness was
that growth in economy paves a path towards degradation of the environment and the primary
method to mitigate the same is through population control and checking on the consumption of
resources. This essentially led to a huge divide and debate on the right of developed nations to
impose restrictions on developed nations. India, represented by Indira Gandhi, at the 1972 United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment, famously known as the 1972 Stockholm
Conference, held the argument that developing nations are historically less responsible for
carbon emissions. Additionally, eradicating poverty is a crucial goal for any country following its
national interests, and since the right to development is unconditional, they shall not be penalised
for something for which they aren’t responsible, at least in one’s opinion, not disproportionately.

COMMON BUT DIFFERENTIATED RESPONSIBILITIES

Indira Gandhi asserted that development is an inevitable need of the hour for several developing
countries. However, poorly planned development strategies may exacerbate the existing poverty
in developing nations along with the environmental degradation. Moreover, with the existing
well-developed infrastructure that the global North possesses, it is vital to note that they by any
means can hold the developing countries responsible for poor maintenance of natural resources
villages and in slums about keeping the oceans, rivers and air clean. For the first time, the issue
of equity was raised, as was the doubt of whether there would be more equitable sharing of
environmental costs and greater interest in the accelerated progress of the less developed world.
This perspective dominated Indian discourse on climate degradation for years thereafter,
although the roots of the basic political narrative and legal architecture to address the
aforementioned issues were established during the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. This landmark
summit is important as we see the emergence of common but differentiated responsibilities
(CBDR), wherein, according to a policy brief and proposal published on the UN sustainable
development website, ‘In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, states have common but differentiated responsibilities.’ Developed nations
recognize their duty in the global endeavor for sustainable development, considering the
environmental strains exerted by their societies and the technological and financial capabilities at
their disposal. This would also form the understanding that any convention on climate would
essentially provide for technology transfer and funds for developing countries.

DECODING THE INDIAN STANCE AND POLITICAL ECOLOGY

India supports financial assistance and technology transfer from industrialised to developing
nations in order to boost their efforts to combat climate change. It advocates fair access to clean
technologies and innovation and works diplomatically to obtain climate money, especially
donations to the Green Climate Fund (GCF). Furthemore, it has also encouraged and promoted
renewable energy immensely; we see this to be central to its climate diplomacy with the
International Solar Alliance (ISA), through which it aims to focus on solar and wind power and
access and affordability of energy. The BASIC group, containing Brazil, Africa, India and China,
was formed during COP 15 in 2009 due to their shared interests and strategy of global action to
mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, adapt to climate impacts, and support sustainable
development pathways that address poverty eradication and economic growth. It is intrinsically
linked with India’s principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective
capabilities (CBDR-RC).
One would be compelled to confess that there is no plausible basis for objection to the difficulty
of politics in climate change. Policies and activities related to climate change can be greatly
influenced by political leadership at the national and international levels; this can impact
international relations and geopolitical dynamics. Issues such as climate-induced migration,
competition and even conflict for natural resources, and climate-related security risks may
exacerbate tensions between countries and regions, such as in the Costa Rica vs. Nicaragua case.
Different countries have diverse interests and priorities when it comes to climate change, and in
the end, national interest drives the basis for all interactions, and it would be safe to say that
developed countries would therefore hesitate to yield to technology transfer or any climate
change fund for the developing countries. The politics of global warming or the current climate
crisis revolve around several questions, such as who is going to pay? If they chose not to pay,
would they invest in technology transfer or mitigation? Additionally, who will account for the
legacy of carbon emissions? Are the estimated net zero carbon emission goals of committed
countries simply words without action?

CONCLUSION

As the world grapples with the urgency of reducing emissions and adapting to a changing
climate, India, representing the Global South, must navigate these complexities while
safeguarding its national interests and promoting equitable and sustainable solutions. The uneven
distribution of climate change’s effects exacerbates already-existing vulnerabilities and inequities, especially for vulnerable people and significant hurdles are posed by competing
development agendas, technological barriers, and economic limits.

Author’s Bio
Purvi Agarwal is currently studying B.A. (HONS) Diplomacy and Foreign Policy at the Jindal
School of International Affairs and is a columnist for the Centre for New Economic Studies,
Nickeled and Dime. Apart from being the research coordinator of Centre for European
Studies, She has worked with ABP Network, Europe India Centre for Business and Industry,
Jindal Global Centre for G20 and NDTV. Additionally, she is interested in multilateralism,
Indian foreign policy and financial literacy. Purvi is also proficient in Hindi and English
while holding certifications in German and Japanese.

Image Source: https://www.e-ir.info/2022/05/19/global-governance-human-rights-and-environmental-governance/#google_vignette