https://theprint.

in/theprint-essential/what-is-cop26-why-it-is-important-indias-role-at-the-climate-
change-conference/757909/
Over the years, as global warming commands more urgency, the COP has become a place for
countries to dedicate resources to slowing down global warming and climate change. But it has also
become a space where tensions between the developing and developed nations play out,
particularly when it comes to who is responsible for climate change.
Paris Agreement
India, the third-largest emitter, made three promises: To reduce emissions intensity economy-wide
by 33 to 35 per cent below 2005 levels, to generate 40 per cent of electricity from renewable energy
sources, and to create a carbon sink capable of absorbing 2.5 to 3 billion metric tons of carbon
dioxide (through additional forest and tree cover).
The $100 billion also doesn’t include finance for loss and damage due to climate change, which
developing countries argue should be footed by high-income countries who are responsible for a
bulk of emissions causing climate change today.
Another point of contention is that of net zero emissions targets, whereby the same amount of
carbon dioxide that is emitted due to human activity is removed from the atmosphere. Both China
and the US have committed to net zero targets by 2060 and 2050, respectively.

India, which is the third-largest emitter of CO2 in the world today, has resisted committing to a mid-
century net zero target, arguing that since it hasn’t contributed to historical emissions, the
responsibility of making deep cuts shouldn’t lie with it.

Historical emissions refer to emissions that have accumulated for centuries, since the industrial
revolution. The US is the biggest historical emitter, accounting for 20 per cent of global emissions
today, according to Carbon Brief.

China is also not a historical emitter but began emitting heavily during the turn of the century,
leading it to be the source of 11 per cent of global emissions today. India, meanwhile, accounts
for 3.4 per cent of the global emissions.

How India has navigated international agreements

The NDCs that countries come up with are either conditional (contingent upon foreign funding, for
example) or unconditional.

India’s renewable energy target is contingent upon foreign funding. Two initiatives, in particular,
have helped India reach its pre-2030 goals.

In November 2015, PM Modi and former French president Francois Hollande launched the
International Solar Alliance (ISA), aimed at promoting solar energy across the world and deploying
solar energy at affordable costs, at COP21 in Paris. ISA hopes to get political backing for its proposed
One Sun One World One Grid, a trans-national solar power grid that could drive down the need for
solar storage and reduce the costs of the energy transition, at COP26.
The US too has taken an interest in funding India’s renewable energy transition so it can meet its
Paris Agreement goals. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry marked his second visit to
India this year by launching the US-India Climate Action and Finance Mobilization Dialogue, which is
aimed at creating stronger bilateral cooperation to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement.

“At COP-26, the Parties will work to achieve the completion of Paris Agreement implementation
guidelines; the mobilization of climate finance; actions to strengthen climate adaptation, technology
development and transfer; and keeping in reach the Paris Agreement goals of limiting the rise in
global temperatures,” the Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement last week announcing the
PM’s visit.

https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2021/11/05/cop26-as-pressure-mounted-india-made-its-
stand-and-ambitions-clear.html

The target has shifted, clearly. It is 1.5ºC now, no longer the Paris-agreed limit of keeping
temperature rise at 2ºC below the pre-industrialised normal.

This pressure from two ends, the developed west and vulnerable island nations, has
come on countries like India, which had insisted that the Paris ambition should be
met first, and not prematurely revised.
However, the recently released inter-government Panel on Climate Change report
has been a wake-up call. It said that the level of Paris commitments still would take
the world towards a 2.7ºC rise, and emphasised the need for a 1.5ºC target, noting
that adaptations would be easier within this rise.
This was why India spelt out its ambitions clearly. These ambitions, the most
important being a timeline for attaining net-zero emissions by 2070, are not quite
different from what India has already committed to.
Modi made a slew of announcements—making the economy 45 per cent less
intensive by 2030 and having a 50 per cent renewable component in the energy
mix by the same year. These goals, too, are not really new. Existing projects, like
the solar mission, are gearing towards them.
Giving a commitment towards net zero emissions, however, was important to keep
India's development partners happy. It is an important issue for Boris Johnson,
who, though not regarded as any climate champion back home, has taken to the
issue passionately in recent times.
Modi went a step ahead, calling out the Global North to up the climate financing
ambition. He said that if there was a call to raise climate ambition, then climate
finances, too, needed a raise. The issue of these unmet funds has not yet brought
embarrassment to the faces of Western leaders, but they have begun accepting that
the money will be a matter of trust in their commitment.

We also have global agreements to guide progress, such as the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. Three broad categories of action are: cutting
emissions, adapting to climate impacts and financing required adjustments.

Climate action requires significant financial investments by governments and businesses. But
climate inaction is vastly more expensive. One critical step is for industrialized countries to fulfil
their commitment to provide $100 billion a year to developing countries so they can adapt and
move towards greener economies.

This transition will require policies that steer nations towards carbon neutrality well before 2050.
That is why UN Secretary-General António Guterres has set six priority areas for climate action
during the COVID-19 recovery phase including: investing in decent jobs; no bail-outs for polluting
companies; abandoning fossil fuel subsidies; ending investment in and construction of coal-fired
power plants; taking climate risks and opportunities into account in all financial and policy
decisions; increasing international cooperation; and ensuring a just transition that leaves nobody
behind. 

This raises the question of assets that will be abandoned well before their intended date of
retirement and will not produce the expected returns. Already, coal mines are being closed as the
price of coal becomes increasingly more expensive compared with renewable energy sources.

Countries recognized the need for specific climate financing in the Paris Agreement
which calls for “making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low
greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development. ”

COP26

The Pact significantly ramps up the call for greater action and financing for adaptation. It urges
developed countries to at least double their collective climate finance for adaptation in
developing countries from 2019 levels by 2025, to ensure a balance between adaptation and
mitigation. It calls on multilateral development banks, other financial institutions and the private
sector to enhance finance mobilization to deliver the scale of resources needed to achieve
climate plans.

The adoption of the Glasgow Climate Pact did not come easily. A much-contested clause
to phase out coal and end fossil fuel subsidies was changed at the last moment, at the
insistence of India. It offered a new formulation on the “phase-down” of coal. Other
Parties accepted this, but grudgingly, at best. Switzerland called the new language
“watered down” and said, “This will not bring us closer to 1.5, but it may make it more
difficult to reach it.” The Marshall Islands and others said they would accept the change
“with the greatest reluctance”.
That was not the only issue that did not please many parties. “By no means perfect,” said
China. “Least-worst agreement,” said New Zealand. “We still have issues and deep
concerns,” said Bolivia. “Text on the table makes us uncomfortable,” said Grenada. India
felt that the agreement was unfairly calling for developing countries to take actions that
could threaten their development. But almost every country affirmed that while the
outcome was far from perfect, the alternative – walking away with no agreement –
would be worse.