This has not happened. The integration of climate action with development has played a role in the growth of renewable energy, though even here the boom may be attributable more to the improved commercial prospects because of reduced capital costs. The reality is that policymaking for climate action is separated from development policy formulation.
In practice, development needs and profit potentials drive both present and future actions. That is why the performance of the member states of the UNFCCC on climate mitigation are abysmal. An independent organisation, Climate Action Tracker, evaluates the performance of major countries towards the goal of 1.5°C set in the Paris Agreement in 2015. In its assessment, the actions of practically all the major states are insufficient.
The United States, Russia, the Gulf States and much of Southeast Asia are rated as “critically insufficient”; India, China, Egypt, Brazil, Argentina, Canada and Mexico are rated as “highly insufficient”; most of Europe, Australia and South Africa are rated as “insufficient”. If all countries followed the level of climate action associated with each category, the resulting global temperature rise would be 4°C for the “critically insufficient” category, be 3-4°C for the “highly insufficient”, and be 2-3°C for the “insufficient” category. The issue is not whether the countries will reach what they have promised for 2030. India will and may even exceed the target. The real issue is that the stated targets for 2030 are inadequate for reaching the global limit of 1.50C. The situation now has worsened with the withdrawal of the US from the Paris Agreement and from the UNFCCC, which will take effect in January 2027. Their malign impact will be seen in this year’s meeting of the UNFCCC in Antalya, Türkiye.
Quite frankly we must accept that because of their limited promises, the world will not succeed in limiting future temperature increases to the goals set in the Paris Agreement. On September 2, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published a report recognising for the first time that the 1.5°C threshold will be breached within a matter of years, not decades. Climate policy must now focus as much on building up resilience to higher temperatures and adaptation as on climate change mitigation. This is part of the agenda for the UNFCCC. But the actual design and implementation of resilience and adaptation will differ greatly depending on local conditions. This is what India should now pay greater attention to in its climate policy. Are we doing enough on adaptation and resilience? An index measuring a country’s exposure, sensitivity and capacity to adapt to the negative effects of climate change across six sectors — food, water, health, ecosystem services, human habitat, and infrastructure — places India at level 28 out of 48 in Asia-Pacific. Its neighbours, other than Sri Lanka, are below this level and even more vulnerable to climate change risks.
In India, we need to raise the importance of a climate change management strategy that connects it more directly with the main framework of development policy. Looking at the long-term trend of development requires proper integration of climate change management with traditional development actions, such as agricultural growth targets and the adaptation of agriculture to rising temperatures, which may go up to 50°C in summer, their impact on health, and the energy demand they will generate for cooling. We must recognise that cooperation between neighbouring countries on interlinked climate-related impacts, such as those affecting shared rivers, may be necessary and useful. The most important planning need is to raise the importance of climate change management by setting up a National Climate Management Body involving the Centre, states, and the municipalities of very large cities to review and evaluate the adequacy of adaptation and mitigation efforts and secure agreement on future plans for climate management. A major reason for this is that the formulation and implementation of adaptation actions and building up resilience have to be at the local level and involve sectors that are well within state control and management.
Since climate action generally aims at future challenges, we must design climate management programmes that deliver more immediate benefits. For example, forest restoration and strengthening can increase carbon sequestration while also improving water supply; renewable energy can improve the availability of local power supplies; and electric vehicles can reduce running costs. Such co-benefits will make long-term actions more acceptable.
While adaptation and resilience management can be led by state governments and local authorities, the continuing drive for climate change mitigation must remain a central responsibility. So far, much of the focus has been on the promotion of renewable energy. But there are now programmes involving compliance standards and carbon pricing. These include the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme, which imposes emission-intensity targets on several energy-intensive industries and allows trading to address surpluses and deficits, and the Environment Audit Rules, 2025, which provide for environmental audits of industries with a potentially adverse impact on climate change, along with a host of other activities. Placing these under the oversight of the National Climate Management Body suggested above can strengthen pressure for compliance. One must also recognise that carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) may be a necessity for major carbon-emitting industries such as steel and cement. At present, India’s share of global CCUS activity is negligible, and the Union government must vigorously pursue the five-year provision of ~20,000 crore made in the 2026-27 Budget.
The Centre can play a major role in helping states, not just by providing sufficient finance for their broad-based climate action, but also by using satellite imagery and artificial intelligence to improve information on climate impacts and actions, link climate action with development activities, and improve the effectiveness of climate-related policies and programmes.
I have focused on national action. But we must recognise our continuing need for more effective global cooperation on climate change mitigation and on the provision of technology and finance required for both mitigation and adaptation. Right now, the prospects for effective global cooperation appear bleak. But as the impacts of climate change become more evident — as seen recently in the high temperatures experienced in the northern states — global cooperation may become more effective. Hopefully, we will see some early signs of this at next month’s UNFCCC meeting.
 "climate, climate action")