India: from climate voice of the South to proof of leadership

As negotiators assemble in Belém, Brazil, for COP30, the global climate conversation stands at an inflection point. Ten years after the Paris Agreement, the pledges that once inspired optimism now face a sobering reality: Emissions continue to climb, the 1.5 °C target is slipping away and the promised climate finance remains more rhetorical than real.

For India, now the world’s third-largest emitter and still home to vast pockets of poverty, this moment demands both assertion and introspection.

India arrives at COP30 with the confidence of a nation that has redefined its role from a cautious participant to an agenda-setter. Over the past decade, it has positioned climate action as central to its development strategy, blending diplomacy with domestic reform.

The growth of renewables to more than 230 GW, the International Solar Alliance, and the National Green Hydrogen Mission all reflect this shift. Yet the transformation remains uneven. Coal still anchors India’s energy mix, and industrial demand is rising faster than the transition can match.

For a country aspiring to be a global manufacturing hub, the tension between economic expansion and emission reduction is inescapable.

India’s narrative at global forums rests on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” This remains valid. Developed nations built their prosperity on carbon, and historical responsibility cannot be brushed aside. But India’s challenge now lies in moving from moral argument to measurable outcomes.

Equity cannot indefinitely substitute for efficiency. As the country seeks greater influence in climate governance, it must also accept a share of responsibility proportionate to its growing footprint. The credibility of its moral leadership will increasingly depend on how transparently it meets its own targets at home.

The unfinished business of finance and adaptation

The most contentious debate at Belém will center on climate finance. The promise of $100 billion in climate finance was finally met in 2022 – but much of it is in the form of loans, not grants. India is right to demand a predictable, concessional and non-debt-creating flow of funds, especially as it estimates a $10 trillion requirement to reach net-zero by 2070.

Domestically, initiatives such as sovereign green bonds, state-level climate budgeting and the forthcoming carbon credit trading scheme reflect attempts to create internal sources of green capital, a crucial complement to international finance.

But the broader concern is not merely the quantity of finance; it is the architecture. Global mechanisms remain labyrinthine, with project pipelines that often privilege middle-income states over the most vulnerable. India’s call for a New Collective Quantified Goal reflects the frustration of the Global South but also its fragmentation.

India, meanwhile, must confront its own domestic financing paradox. While green bonds and public-private partnerships are multiplying, environmental spending remains below 1% of total public expenditure – a signal that green rhetoric has yet to translate into fiscal priority.

Subnational governments, responsible for most adaptation measures, often lack both fiscal space and technical capacity. The gap between federal ambition and local implementation persists.

Adaptation, long treated as the lesser twin of mitigation, deserves sharper political attention. In India, nearly four-fifths of districts are exposed to climate extremes: prolonged heatwaves in the Indo-Gangetic plains, erratic monsoons in central India and recurrent floods along the Brahmaputra and the coast. Yet national discourse remains tilted toward renewable targets rather than resilience building.

Programs such as the National Adaptation Fund for Climate Change exist, but their scale is inadequate to match the accelerating risks to agriculture, healt and urban infrastructure. COP30’s deliberations on the Global Goal on Adaptation offer India an opportunity to push for context-specific indicators, ones that measure social protection, water security and institutional preparedness rather than abstract resilience scores.

The Global South’s opportunity and India’s test

Belém, in the Amazon basin, is an apt setting for a debate that is as much about justice as about carbon. Brazil’s presidency is steering COP30 toward forest finance, loss-and-damage mechanisms and biodiversity protection, issues that align naturally with India’s developmental priorities.

But solidarity within the Global South is not automatic. Competing interests among energy exporters, small island states and emerging economies often dilute the collective voice. India’s diplomatic test will be to bridge these divides without appearing prescriptive.

At home, the contradictions are equally striking. Policy speeches highlight “green growth,” yet environmental clearances for mining and infrastructure projects have accelerated. The promise of a “just transition” coexists with a steady expansion of coal output.

The government’s Mission LiFE, which promotes sustainable lifestyles, has generated valuable public engagement, but behavioral campaigns cannot compensate for structural gaps in waste management, water conservation, or air quality governance. To sustain credibility, India’s climate policy must move beyond symbolism to system-level accountability.

None of this is to diminish India’s achievements. Its per-capita emissions remain one-third of the global average, and it has delivered substantial renewable gains without compromising economic growth. Few countries have attempted transformation on this scale under comparable developmental pressures.

Yet the next phase requires more than scaling up, it requires a qualitative shift from pilot projects to planning frameworks that integrate climate goals across ministries and state budgets. India’s climate budgeting initiatives in a few states could evolve into a national template linking fiscal allocation to measurable climate outcomes.

As COP30 unfolds, the credibility of global climate diplomacy will hinge on whether India can match principle with pragmatism. Having achieved many of its early targets ahead of schedule, India has already shown that growth and decarbonization can advance together. The next test lies in institutionalizing this progress, embedding climate action into budgets, industries, and everyday governance.

If Belém delivers a framework that rewards such coherence, India’s leadership will stand not as an exception but as an example of how developing economies can redefine responsibility.

Tarun Agarwal is an associate fellow at the Centre of Policy Research and Governance, New Delhi, where he leads the climate division. He is a PhD candidate at the Diplomacy and Disarmament Division of School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Aditya Tikoo is a founding Director of the Global Counter Terrorism Council.