💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Rio Family/UNFCCC/IPCC

  • Behind Nepal’s compensation demand for devastating flood

    Why in the News

    Nepal has written to the United Nations fund for responding to loss and damage after a catastrophic flash flood killed more than 1,000 people. The country had already decided to shift its diplomatic position, seeking ‘compensation’ for natural disasters in place of aid. Its Foreign Minister framed the claim as a matter of legal and moral liability rather than charity, and named China, the United States and India as major industrial emitters carrying a historical responsibility to compensate vulnerable nations. The contest is over what a country with negligible emissions is owed and by whom. Aid is discretionary and can be refused; compensation asserts a liability that the international climate regime has never accepted.

    What is the loss and damage fund?

    1. What it does: The fund was set up in 2022 to help countries respond to the economic hits from extreme events, in addition to financing mitigation and adaptation.
    2. What has been promised: Around USD 822 million has been pledged to it.
    3. What is actually available: Around USD 350 million is allotted for disbursement.
    4. How it is financed: Contributions are voluntary. The United Arab Emirates has provided USD 100 million, and much of the remaining contribution has come from Europe.

    What happened in Nepal?

    1. The scale: More than 1,000 people are dead and thousands remain missing nearly ten days later, with whole villages, bridges and roads swept away.
    2. Two amplifiers: The impact was heightened by heavy infrastructure development by China in Tibet, which has affected the Himalayas, and by climate change.
    3. The range as a water store: The Himalayas are referred to as the third pole, given their huge reservoirs of ice and water.
    4. A long flagged risk: Melting of Himalayan glaciers has been observed for years, with climatologists warning of severe consequences.

    Who has actually caused the accumulated emissions?

    1. The United States leads: It is the leading contributor at 25 per cent of the CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere, which is the key cause of climate change.
    2. Europe and China follow: Europe is next at around 20 per cent, with China now fast catching up at 15 per cent of the global stock.
    3. India’s share of the stock is small: India’s contribution is under 4 per cent.
    4. India’s per capita emissions are half the average: India emits around 2 tonnes of CO2 per person a year, against a global average of 4.5 tonnes.

    Why has Nepal replaced aid with compensation?

    1. The stated ground: Nepal’s greenhouse gas emissions are negligible, and its position is that it is bearing the consequences of a problem it did not create.
    2. The causal claim: The rapid melting of glaciers and the resulting mountain floods are presented as direct consequences of global climate change.
    3. The legal framing: The Foreign Minister described the claim as a matter of legal and moral liability rather than charity.
    4. The practical driver: The size of the rehabilitation requirement makes access to international funding necessary, and seeking solidarity in place of aid suits a young and globally aware government.

    Why did the demand name India?

    1. The three named emitters: The Foreign Minister named China as the world’s top emitter, the United States as second and India as third.
    2. Current output, not accumulated stock: That ranking rests on current annual emissions, which places India very differently from where its share of the accumulated stock places it.
    3. A balancing act: The inclusion of India alongside the two largest emitters is read as Nepal’s practice of balancing its two neighbours.
    4. The walk back: Nepal’s Prime Minister thanked India and China for their assistance after the floods. The Foreign Minister later said the issue was not about shifting blame to one country or another but about working together.

    Does the shift from aid to compensation gain anything?

    1. The two words carry different obligations: Aid is offered at the giver’s discretion. Compensation asserts a claim the payer is obliged to meet.
    2. The fund is built on the first: Contributions to the loss and damage fund are voluntary, so a liability framing has no forum inside the fund that could compel a payment.
    3. The diplomatic cost is immediate: The claim was softened within days, once the neighbours it named turned out to be the ones supplying relief.
    4. The gain is agenda setting: A liability framing raises the political price of underfunding the mechanism. It does not create a right to be paid.

    Challenges to the loss and damage fund

    1. The regime expressly excludes liability: Loss and damage is recognised under Article 8 of the Paris Agreement, and the decision adopting the agreement records that Article 8 does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation. Eg. Small island states pressed for a liability provision in 2015 and accepted its exclusion in order to secure the agreement.
      The Fix: Negotiate an agreed needs based replenishment cycle, so predictable funding substitutes for a legal claim that will not be conceded.
    2. The hosting arrangement is contested: The fund was operationalised at the 2023 Conference of the Parties in Dubai with the World Bank as interim host for four years, over developing country objections about the Bank’s governance and its fees. Eg. Developing country negotiators sought an independent secretariat outside the Bank’s board structure.
      The Fix: Fix a firm date for the review of the hosting arrangement and publish the fee and governance terms against which it will be judged.
    3. Access is slowest where need is highest: Climate funds require accreditation of a national entity and detailed project proposals, which the least developed countries take years to complete. Eg. National implementing entities in several least developed countries have waited years for Green Climate Fund accreditation.
      The Fix: Create a rapid disbursement window that releases a fixed sum on a declared national disaster, without a project proposal.

    Conclusion

    The claim Nepal made and then softened will outlast the flood that produced it. The climate regime has built a fund for loss and damage without the liability that would make any claim on it enforceable, and a country facing a rehabilitation bill it cannot carry will keep pressing at that gap. What is worth watching is not whether the demand is repeated but whether the next replenishment round ties contributions to assessed need rather than to donor discretion. Until it does, a small mountain state’s only real leverage is the moral argument it was persuaded to withdraw.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2022, GS2, 15.0 marks] Clean energy is the order of the day. Describe briefly India’s changing policy towards climate change in various international fora in the context of geopolitics.”

  • [5th September 2026] The Hindu OpED: Warning on warming

    [5th September 2026] The Hindu OpED: Warning on warming

    Question (2025, GS3 – 15 Marks): “Write a review on India’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement (2015) and mention how these have been further strengthened in COP26 (2021). In this direction, how has the first Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) intended by India been updated in 2022?
    Linkage: This is the most direct conceptual parallel. To analyze the gap between “climate pledges” and “actual policy trajectory” highlighted by the UNEP, candidates must evaluate India’s specific NDCs under the Paris Agreement, how they were upgraded at COP26, and their final 2022 formalization

    Mentor Comment

    The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has found that breaching the 1.5 degrees Celsius global warming limit brings irreversible losses that adaptation cannot undo. Its report, Limiting Overshoot, accepts that the limit has already been breached. Full delivery of every existing national climate pledge still puts the world on course for 1.8 degrees Celsius, and current policies point to 2.6 degrees Celsius. The report’s new emphasis falls on greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide, and on methane above all. The disagreement it reopens is between assessments that measure climate progress by mitigation and major developing economies that measure it by the finance and technology they receive. That disagreement now reaches India directly, because a smaller neighbour hit by a glacial disaster has named India among the emitters responsible.

    What is the “overshoot, peak and decline” pathway?

    1. What it describes: Average global temperatures rise above the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit, countries hold that peak as low as they collectively can, and temperatures are brought back below the limit by the end of the century.
    2. Why the peak is the variable that matters: Neutralising the heating effect of even a tenth of a degree is far harder than preventing that rise in the first place, so every fraction avoided at the peak is a fraction that never has to be reversed.
    3. What it refuses to concede: The pathway accepts the scientific reality of a 1.5 degrees Celsius world and rejects the conclusion that nothing further can be done once the threshold is crossed.

    Why has the report shifted attention to gases other than carbon dioxide?

    1. Methane carries a large share of present warming: It is responsible for about 0.5 degrees Celsius of current warming, so cutting it changes the temperature curve within years rather than decades.
    2. It is the fastest available brake: Action on methane is treated as the most effective way to slow warming in the near term, which is precisely the window in which the peak is decided.
    3. The collective instrument already exists: More than 155 countries have joined the Global Methane Pledge, committing to cut anthropogenic methane at least 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030.
    4. India stands outside it: India has not joined the Pledge, so the single fastest near term lever is not one the country has committed to pull.

    Why do major developing economies resist a mitigation first framing?

    1. They claim the transition is already under way: These economies argue that they are moving away from fossil fuels and should not be assessed as though they were not.
    2. The damage they face comes from someone else’s stock: Their vulnerability arises from historical accumulations of carbon released by richer developed countries, which is the basis of their claim to greater financial support and affordable technology.
    3. The report is silent where they are loudest: Limiting Overshoot has little to say on adaptation finance, so the question these economies bring to every negotiation goes unanswered in the assessment they are asked to act on.

    How does the Bhotekoshi disaster complicate India’s position?

    1. A vulnerable neighbour has named India: Nepal’s Foreign Affairs Minister has said that major industrial emitters such as China, the United States and India must consider the impact of rising temperatures on small countries such as Nepal.
    2. The victim framing no longer holds unchallenged: India’s per capita emissions remain below the world average, and a section of the world nonetheless now places India within the group causing the problem rather than the group suffering it.
    3. The next negotiation is dated: Countries convene in Turkiye in November for COP31, where the familiar disagreements over mitigation and finance are expected to resurface with this new complication attached.

    Challenges to the overshoot, peak and decline pathway

    1. The return leg depends on removal capacity that does not exist at scale: Bringing temperatures back below the limit assumes large volumes of carbon dioxide will be removed from the atmosphere later in the century. Eg. The direct air capture plants operating in Iceland remove tens of thousands of tonnes a year at most, against annual global emissions measured in tens of billions of tonnes.
      The Fix: Treat removal as a supplement to be verified and funded now, and set peak temperature targets that assume no removal beyond capacity already demonstrated.
    2. Some losses do not reverse when the temperature does: Ice sheets, coral reefs and glaciers respond to the peak rather than to the eventual average, so returning below 1.5 degrees Celsius does not restore what the overshoot destroyed. Eg. The August 2026 glacial collapse on the Nepal China border destroyed valleys that no later cooling will reconstitute.
      The Fix: Attach separate thresholds for irreversible systems to the pathway, so peak height is judged against them rather than against the century end average alone.
    3. The methane lever sits with countries that have not pulled it: The largest sources of anthropogenic methane are concentrated in a handful of economies outside the Pledge. Eg. India’s methane arises chiefly from livestock and paddy cultivation, which are livelihood activities rather than industrial infrastructure that can be shut down.
      The Fix: Fund livestock feed and paddy water management programmes that cut methane without cutting output, so the reduction is not paid for by farm incomes.
    4. The pathway offers nothing to those already past adaptation: A framework organised around peak management assumes adaptation absorbs the interim, and for the most exposed countries it does not. Eg. Nepal contributes a negligible share of global emissions and has lost roughly a tenth of its economy to a single event.
      The Fix: Pair every overshoot pathway with a stated adaptation finance figure, so the interim period carries a costed obligation rather than an assumption.

    Conclusion

    The threshold argument is over and the argument about who pays for its consequences is not. India has spent three decades arguing that historical responsibility sits elsewhere, and that argument is now being made about India by a country downstream of the Himalayas. Refusing the mitigation frame no longer settles the question, because the objection is arriving from the Global South rather than from the West. What to watch is whether India carries a methane position and an adaptation finance demand into COP31 as a single package, or continues to press the second while declining the first.

    Back2Basics: United Nations Environment Programme

    1. What it is: The United Nations body responsible for setting the global environmental agenda and coordinating environmental work across the UN system.
    2. When it was created: It was established in 1972, following the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held at Stockholm that year.
    3. Where it sits: Its headquarters are at Nairobi, making it the first UN agency headquartered in a developing country.
    4. What it publishes: Its recurring assessments include the Emissions Gap Report, the Adaptation Gap Report and the Global Environment Outlook.
  • UN sets pathway to tackle ‘inevitable breach’ of the 1.5°C global warming limit

    UN sets pathway to tackle ‘inevitable breach’ of the 1.5°C global warming limit

    Why in the News

    The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has for the first time set out a detailed “overshoot, peak, and decline” pathway for global warming. Its report, Limiting Overshoot, states that a breach of the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit is now unavoidable and will bring irreversible ecological losses that no adaptation initiative can undo. That limit is the central goal of the Paris Agreement, 2015, which committed parties to holding the rise in average global temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius and to pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre industrial levels. The shift is in the framing rather than in the science: the objective being planned for is no longer the prevention of a breach but the management of one, described in the report itself as by no means an acceptable or preferred pathway and simply the best remaining option.

    What is the “overshoot, peak, and decline” pathway?

    1. The sequence it describes: Average global temperature crosses the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit, rises to a peak, and is then brought back down below the limit by 2100.
    2. What it tries to control: With the crossing treated as fixed, the two variables left are the height of the peak and the length of time spent above the limit, and the pathway seeks to hold both as low as possible.
    3. What it requires that mitigation alone does not: Returning below the limit after a peak requires removing carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere, not only stopping additional emissions.

    What do the warming projections show?

    1. The breach is imminent: Global warming will cross 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next few years.
    2. Full delivery of every pledge still overshoots: A scenario in which every country delivers on its national climate plan and its net zero target puts peak warming at 1.8 degrees Celsius.
    3. Current policies point far higher: They point to a rise of about 2.6 degrees Celsius by 2100, within a range of 1.9 to 3.6 degrees Celsius.

    What are the compounding costs of time spent above 1.5 degrees Celsius?

    1. Sea level and ocean systems: Sea level rise accelerates, and coral reefs collapse.
    2. Cryosphere: Glacier loss exceeds a quarter of global glacier mass by 2100.
    3. Food systems: Global food production declines by up to 14% by 2050 without effective adaptation.
    4. Tipping points: The odds rise of irreversible transitions in the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, the ocean current system that redistributes heat across the Atlantic, and the Amazon.

    Why is reversing an overshoot harder than avoiding it?

    1. Delay adds warming at a fixed rate: Every five years of continued high emissions adds roughly 0.1 degrees Celsius to peak warming.
    2. Removing the same warming costs far more than adding it: Reversing that 0.1 degrees Celsius afterwards means pulling about 220 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, over and above whatever is still being emitted.
    3. Emission cuts alone no longer close the gap: A steep scaling up of nature based removals, such as large reforestation programmes, is required alongside them.

    Why does the report single out methane?

    1. A first for the United Nations: This is the first time a report of this kind has placed significant stress on methane rather than treating carbon dioxide as the only lever.
    2. Its share of the problem is large: Methane contributes about 0.5 degrees Celsius of current warming.
    3. It is the fastest acting lever available: Cutting methane is described as the most effective way to slow warming in the near term, which is precisely what holding down the peak requires.

    How was the diplomatic ground for conceding an overshoot laid?

    1. The concession was made first at a climate conference, not in a science report: The 30th UN Climate Change Conference (COP30), held in 2025 at Belém in Brazil, produced the consensus “Global Mutirão” decision, mutirão being a Portuguese term for collective effort.
    2. What made it significant: It was the first COP text to concede that a temporary overshoot of the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit was likely, given how fast the remaining carbon budget was being spent.
    3. The political framing accompanying the report: This summer’s heat, wildfires and floods have been described as a warning of what lies ahead, with the stated objective now to make the overshoot as small and as short as possible.

    Challenges to an overshoot, peak and decline pathway

    1. Carbon removal at the required scale does not exist: The pathway assumes gigatonne scale removal that current technology and land availability cannot deliver. Eg. Operating direct air capture plants worldwide remove a volume measured in thousands of tonnes a year against a requirement measured in billions.
      The Fix: Separate emission reduction and removal targets in every nationally determined contribution, so removal cannot be used to discount a country’s reduction obligation.
    2. Overshoot creates a moral hazard in near term policy: Once a temporary breach is accepted as planned for, the incentive to cut now weakens, because the shortfall is deferred to a future removal obligation. Eg. Net zero pledges dated to mid century already rely on unspecified future removals to close the residual gap.
      The Fix: Fix binding five year interim carbon budgets, so a country’s compliance is assessed against cumulative emissions rather than against a distant target year.
    3. Tipping points are not reversible when the temperature comes back down: Bringing temperature below the limit later does not restore a system that has already crossed its threshold. Eg. An ice sheet that has begun irreversible retreat continues losing mass even after warming stabilises.
      The Fix: Set the peak temperature, rather than the end of century value, as the headline metric against which climate policy is assessed.
    4. Nature based removal competes with food and land rights: Large reforestation programmes need land that is already used for cultivation, grazing or forest dwelling communities. Eg. Plantation drives on land recorded as degraded have displaced pastoral and forest dependent use in several countries.
      The Fix: Require free, prior and informed consent and a land tenure audit before any removal project is counted towards a national target.
    5. The cost falls on countries that did not cause the overshoot: Adaptation finance to survive the period above the limit is needed by economies with the least capacity to raise it. Eg. Small island developing states face permanent territorial loss from sea level rise they contributed almost nothing to.
      The Fix: Tie disbursement from the loss and damage fund to a published overshoot period schedule, so the finance arrives during the years the harm is being incurred.

    Conclusion

    The value of this pathway is that it makes the cost of delay arithmetic rather than rhetorical. Warming added by continuing to emit is cheap and automatic; warming removed afterwards is expensive, slow and dependent on technology that has not been built at scale. That asymmetry is what converts a distant target year into an immediate operational question about the next few years of emissions. The reform that follows is to shift the metric climate policy is judged on, from a date by which a country claims to reach balance to the height of the peak its emissions in this decade produce.

    [2025, GS3, 15 marks] Write a review on India’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement (2015) and mention how these have been further strengthened in COP26 (2021). In this direction, how has the first Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) intended by India been updated in 2022?”

  • BRICS is working for a future that puts the planet first

    Why in the News

    India hosted the 12th BRICS Environment Ministers' Meeting on 18 August 2026 in New Delhi under its chairship of the grouping. The tension it exposes is that a bloc holding roughly 40 percent of global gross domestic product continues to argue for differentiated responsibility in climate action, while the outcomes it produces are principles and knowledge platforms rather than binding obligations.

    What is BRICS and what weight does it carry?

    1. What it is: BRICS is an intergovernmental grouping of major emerging economies, founded around Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, that coordinates positions on economic governance, development and multilateral reform.
    2. Demographic weight: BRICS countries account for 49.5 percent of the world's population.
    3. Economic weight: They account for approximately 40 percent of global gross domestic product.
    4. Trade weight: They account for 26 percent of international trade, which together with the population and output figures underscores their growing influence on the global economy, the development agenda and the future direction of international cooperation.

    What is the BRICS Environment Working Group?

    1. What it is: The BRICS Environment Working Group is the technical body under which member countries negotiate environmental cooperation and prepare the outcomes adopted at the Environment Ministers' Meeting.
    2. Its function this cycle: Under India's chairship it organised its work around four interconnected priorities, which formed the substantive agenda of the 12th Environment Ministers' Meeting.

    What is Mission LiFE?

    1. What it is: Mission LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment) is an Indian initiative that seeks to shift climate action from state and market levers to individual and community behaviour, treating consumption choices as a mitigation instrument.
    2. Its role at BRICS: The BRICS priority on Promoting Sustainable Lifestyles builds directly on the principles of Mission LiFE.

    What is Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam?

    1. What it is: Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam, meaning a tree in the name of mother, is a national tree plantation campaign that ties ecological restoration to individual participation.
    2. What it demonstrates: Together with Mission LiFE it demonstrates the value of combining ecological restoration, public participation and community ownership.

    What were the four priorities of the BRICS Environment Working Group under India's chairship?

    1. Promoting Sustainable Lifestyles: Builds on the principles of Mission LiFE and encourages responsible and sustainable consumption and production, behavioural change, awareness among citizens and communities, and knowledge-sharing.
    2. Afforestation, Forest Fire Management and Disaster Resilience: Addresses growing pressures on forests, land and natural ecosystems through integrated landscape restoration, combating land degradation, wildfire preparedness and response, early-warning systems and ecosystem resilience, using scientific advances such as remote sensing and artificial intelligence.
    3. Circular Economy: Reflects the recognition that the traditional take, make and dispose model is no longer sustainable, and treats the circular economy as a key enabler of sustainable development and inclusive growth that reduces environmental pressures while creating economic opportunities and green employment through cooperation in research, innovation, technology transfer and capacity building.
    4. Adaptation: Responds to intensifying climate impacts and the disproportionate vulnerabilities of developing countries, and recognises that traditional, indigenous and local knowledge systems offer valuable insights for building resilience.

    What are the BRICS Principles for Advancing Climate Resilience through People-Centric and Community-Based Adaptation?

    1. What they are: A set of principles adopted under the BRICS adaptation priority that place communities rather than agencies at the centre of adaptation planning.
    2. The core method: They emphasise integrating traditional, indigenous and local knowledge with modern science and technology.
    3. The stated objective: The integration is intended to create context-specific, evidence-based and culturally appropriate adaptation solutions.
    4. Why the framing matters: Adaptation has become an urgent necessity particularly for developing countries facing disproportionate vulnerabilities, which is the constituency these principles are written for.

    What outcomes did India's chairship produce beyond declarations?

    1. Practical principles: The outcomes include the development of practical principles on sustainable lifestyles, integrated landscape management, forest fire preparedness and community-based adaptation.
    2. Technical products: They include technical reports, platforms, dialogues and knowledge-sharing networks rather than declaratory text alone.
    3. The process behind them: These outcomes reflect months of collaboration, negotiation and consensus-building among member countries.
    4. The claimed significance: They are presented as demonstrating the value of multilateral cooperation in addressing common environmental challenges at a time when multilateral processes are under strain.
    5. The stated guiding vision: India's chairship was guided by the stated aim of advancing the forum with a people-centric approach and the spirit of Humanity First, extending the inclusivity and Global South focus of India's G20 presidency.

    What does India's own record contribute to the BRICS position?

    1. Emissions intensity: India reduced the emissions intensity of its economy by 37.38 percent between 2005 and 2022.
    2. Non-fossil capacity: Non-fossil sources accounted for 54.18 percent of installed electricity capacity as of 30 June 2026.
    3. The forward commitment: India's new Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) for 2031 to 2035, the national climate pledge submitted under the Paris Agreement, reflects a commitment to advancing climate action while supporting inclusive development and energy security.
    4. The argument these figures serve: India's efforts to reduce emissions intensity while expanding non-fossil energy capacity reinforce the position that development and environmental responsibility can advance together.
    5. The domestic template exported: Mission LiFE and Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam illustrate how climate action, biodiversity conservation, resilience-building and livelihood enhancement can reinforce one another when pursued through integrated approaches.

    Why does a bloc of this economic weight still argue for differentiated responsibility?

    1. The principle asserted: The principles of equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC) resonated across the meeting and remain fundamental to an effective and balanced global response to climate change.
    2. The basis of the claim: The principle rests on historical contribution to the accumulated stock of emissions and on current capability, not on present output share alone.
    3. The vulnerability argument: Adaptation is an urgent necessity particularly for developing countries facing disproportionate vulnerabilities, which is a burden the bloc's economic weight does not offset.
    4. The counter-pressure implicit in the figures: A grouping holding about 40 percent of global gross domestic product and 26 percent of international trade is difficult to present as a category requiring differentiated treatment on capability grounds.
    5. The bloc's own answer: Environmental action must be people-centric, implementation-oriented and responsive to the realities of developing countries, which shifts the test from aggregate output to conditions on the ground.
    6. The concession in the argument: Success will ultimately be measured not by the adoption of principles alone but by their ability to strengthen ecosystems, support livelihoods and build a more resilient future, which acknowledges that principles alone settle nothing.

    Conclusion

    The 12th BRICS Environment Ministers' Meeting in New Delhi on 18 August 2026 organised the bloc's environmental agenda around sustainable lifestyles, afforestation and disaster resilience, the circular economy and community-based adaptation, and adopted principles on people-centric adaptation grounded in equity and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities. India brought to that table an emissions intensity reduction of 37.38 percent between 2005 and 2022, non-fossil sources at 54.18 percent of installed electricity capacity as of 30 June 2026, and a new Nationally Determined Contribution for 2031 to 2035. What remains unresolved is the conversion of adopted principles into strengthened ecosystems and supported livelihoods, which is the test the chairship has itself named.

    What is Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities?

    Source: Backgrounder, CoP UNFCCC.docx

    1. About: Common but Differentiated Responsibilities holds that all countries share the climate problem but that their obligations differ based on historical contributions to emissions and on current capability to act.
    2. Rationale: It exists to reconcile the universal character of the climate problem with the unequal responsibility for causing it and the unequal means available to address it.
    3. Where it was codified: It was embedded at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 as the legal foundation of the climate regime and appears among the 27 principles of the Rio Declaration alongside the precautionary and polluter-pays principles.
    4. Annex I: Members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development as of 1992 plus economies in transition, required to adopt national policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions and protect sinks.
    5. Annex II: A subset of Annex I comprising only the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development members, required to provide financial resources to developing countries and facilitate technology transfer.
    6. Non-Annex I: Developing countries, carrying no binding emission targets under the original architecture.
    7. Least Developed Countries: A separate category given special consideration in view of limited capacity to respond to climate change.
    8. How Paris altered it: The Paris Agreement of 2015 replaced the firewall with a universal Nationally Determined Contribution system, common in framework but flexible in commitment, so differentiation survives through national determination rather than through separate annexes.

    Key Concerns Regarding Common but Differentiated Responsibilities

    1. The firewall's eroding legitimacy: As emerging economies became major annual emitters, the moral case for zero binding obligations on the non-Annex I side became the central contested question in climate diplomacy.
    2. Unmet finance obligations: The differentiated bargain rests on developed country finance that has repeatedly fallen short, and the 100 billion dollar per year pledge made at Copenhagen in 2009 became the most discussed unmet promise in the regime.
    3. Counting private finance as public obligation: Developed countries have sought to count private flows towards the finance goal, which India has objected to on the ground that private finance does not reach the most vulnerable countries and comes at commercial rather than concessional rates.
    4. Asymmetric transparency demands: Verification pressure has historically been applied to developing country mitigation rather than to developed country finance and technology transfer, which was the core of the standoff at Bali in 2007.
    5. No substantive obligation under the Paris system: Nationally Determined Contributions carry no international legal obligation on the substance of the target, so differentiation coexists with collectively insufficient ambition.
    6. Trade measures bypassing the principle: Unilateral trade instruments applied at the border shift the burden regardless of differentiated status, and India has treated the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism as incompatible with the principle.

    The Global Climate Governance Architecture

    Source: Backgrounder, CoP UNFCCC.docx

    1. Stockholm, 1972: The United Nations Conference on the Human Environment established the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the first global intergovernmental platform for the environment, headquartered in Nairobi, and adopted the Stockholm Declaration of 26 non-binding principles.
    2. Rio Earth Summit, 1992: Produced three legally binding treaties in one conference, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), together called the Rio Trio, and codified Common but Differentiated Responsibilities as the foundational legal principle.
    3. Kyoto Protocol, 1997: The first legally binding instrument under the Framework Convention, requiring Annex I countries to cut emissions by an average of about 5 percent during 2008 to 2012, and creating three market mechanisms, the Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation and Emissions Trading.
    4. Copenhagen, 2009: Recognised the 2 degrees Celsius limit for the first time and produced the first quantified climate finance goal of 100 billion dollars per year by 2020, negotiated by the BASIC group of Brazil, South Africa, India and China with the United States outside the formal process.
    5. Paris Agreement, 2015: Established the universal Nationally Determined Contribution system with submissions every five years and a no-backsliding progression rule, alongside Article 6 carbon markets, Article 9 finance obligations, the Enhanced Transparency Framework and the five-yearly Global Stocktake.
    6. Glasgow, 2021: Locked in the Article 6.2 and 6.4 rulebook including corresponding adjustments, and was where India announced its Panchamrit targets.
    7. Baku, 2024: Agreed the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) of at least 300 billion dollars per year by 2035 from developed countries, with a broader aspirational goal of 1.3 trillion dollars per year from all sources.
    8. Belem, 2025: Adopted the Belem Political Package and the Global Mutirao declaration, agreed 59 Belem Adaptation Indicators under the United Arab Emirates Framework for Global Climate Resilience, established a Just Transition Mechanism, and was the deadline for third-generation Nationally Determined Contributions to 2035.
    9. The forward calendar: COP31 is to be held in Antalya, Turkiye in November 2026 and COP32 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 2027.

    India's Standing Climate Targets

    Source: Backgrounder, CoP UNFCCC.docx

    1. Panchamrit, announced at Glasgow in 2021: Five commitments, namely 500 GW non-fossil energy capacity by 2030, 50 percent of energy requirements from renewable energy by 2030, reduction of projected carbon emissions by 1 billion tonnes by 2030, reduction of the carbon intensity of the economy by 45 percent by 2030 over 2005 levels, and net zero emissions by 2070.
    2. The 2022 Nationally Determined Contribution update: India upgraded its emissions intensity target to 45 percent by 2030 from the 33 to 35 percent pledged at Paris, and its non-fossil installed capacity target to 50 percent by 2030 from 40 percent.
    3. Ratification record: India signed the Paris Agreement on 22 April 2016 and ratified it on 2 October 2016, among the earliest major economies to do so.
    4. Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategy: A qualitative roadmap reaffirming net zero by 2070, grounded in climate justice and Common but Differentiated Responsibilities, spanning seven transitions across electricity, transport, industry, urban planning, forests, carbon removal and finance.
    5. Greenhouse Gases Emission Intensity Target Rules, 2025: Legally binding emission intensity targets notified for over 400 industrial units, covering aluminium, cement, chlor-alkali and pulp and paper initially, with iron and steel, fertiliser, petroleum refining, petrochemicals and textiles to follow, enforced through the Carbon Credit Trading Scheme, 2023.
    6. Article 6 National Designated Authority: A 21-member committee headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, authorises projects under Article 6.4, with renewable energy, green hydrogen, green ammonia and carbon capture, utilisation and storage as eligible activities.

    Key Facts about BRICS

    1. The name: The acronym originated as BRIC for Brazil, Russia, India and China, with South Africa joining in 2010 to make BRICS.
    2. First summit: The first BRIC leaders' summit was held at Yekaterinburg in Russia in 2009.
    3. Expansion: Membership was expanded from 2024 to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates, with Indonesia joining in 2025.
    4. New Development Bank: Established under the 2014 Fortaleza Agreement and headquartered in Shanghai, it finances infrastructure and sustainable development projects in member and other developing countries.
    5. Contingent Reserve Arrangement: A currency swap framework agreed at Fortaleza in 2014 to provide members with short-term liquidity support against balance of payments pressure.
    6. Chairship: The chairship rotates annually among members, and India chairs the grouping for the current cycle.
    7. The environment track: The Environment Ministers' Meeting is the sectoral ministerial under which the BRICS Environment Working Group's outcomes are adopted, and the 12th meeting was held in New Delhi on 18 August 2026.

    Back2Basics: The New Development Bank

    1. What it is: The New Development Bank is a multilateral development bank established by the BRICS countries to mobilise resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects.
    2. Founding instrument: It was established under the Agreement on the New Development Bank signed at the Fortaleza Summit in Brazil in 2014 and began operations in 2015.
    3. Headquarters: Shanghai, China, with regional offices including one in Johannesburg, South Africa.
    4. Capital structure: It was founded with equal shareholding among the five founding members, which distinguishes it from the weighted voting of the Bretton Woods institutions.
    5. Membership expansion: It has admitted non-founding members including Bangladesh, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Algeria.
    6. Mandate: It lends for infrastructure and sustainable development, with a significant share of its portfolio in clean energy, transport, water and sanitation, and urban development.
    7. India's position: India is a founding member and among the largest recipients of New Development Bank lending.

    Challenges to BRICS Environmental Cooperation

    1. Outcomes without binding force: The chairship's outputs are principles, technical reports and knowledge networks rather than enforceable commitments, e.g. the BRICS Principles on people-centric adaptation carry no compliance mechanism.
    2. Divergent member emission profiles: The bloc contains both the world's largest annual emitter and states with very low per capita emissions, which makes a single position difficult, e.g. China's annual emissions are several times India's while both invoke the same differentiated status.
    3. Fossil fuel dependence within the bloc: Several members are major hydrocarbon producers or exporters, which limits how far the grouping can go on transition language, e.g. Russia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates are among the world's leading oil and gas exporters.
    4. Finance gap unaddressed: The bloc restates the equity claim without an internal financing instrument for adaptation, e.g. adaptation finance for vulnerable members still depends on the contested developed country pledges under the Framework Convention.
    5. Unilateral trade measures bypassing the framework: Border carbon measures shift the burden regardless of differentiated status, e.g. the European Union's Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism covers steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers, electricity and hydrogen, and India has raised it as a trade barrier at the World Trade Organization.
    6. Bilateral frictions inside the grouping: Political disputes between members limit the depth of cooperation, e.g. unresolved boundary questions between two of the founding members constrain joint implementation.
    7. Institutional thinness: The grouping has no permanent secretariat, so continuity depends on the annual chair, e.g. priorities set under one chairship are not guaranteed carry-forward under the next.
    8. Weak measurement of implementation: Success is asserted through outputs rather than measured through outcomes, e.g. sustainable lifestyle and afforestation priorities carry no agreed indicator set comparable to the Belem Adaptation Indicators.

    Way Forward

    1. Convert principles into indicator sets: Attach measurable indicators and reporting timelines to each of the four priorities, so that the sustainable lifestyles, afforestation, circular economy and adaptation tracks can be assessed rather than asserted.
    2. Create a BRICS adaptation finance window: Use the New Development Bank to establish a dedicated adaptation and resilience lending facility, so the equity argument is backed by an internal instrument and not only by claims on developed country finance.
    3. Institutionalise the Environment Working Group: Give the working group a standing technical secretariat function, so priorities survive the annual rotation of the chairship.
    4. Build a shared technology transfer platform: Operationalise cooperation in research, innovation, technology transfer and capacity building for the circular economy through a common platform rather than through bilateral arrangements.
    5. Coordinate a joint response to border carbon measures: Present a common BRICS position at the World Trade Organization on unilateral trade instruments that bypass Common but Differentiated Responsibilities.
    6. Scale the community-based adaptation model: Convert the BRICS Principles on people-centric adaptation into pilot programmes with member country funding, integrating traditional and indigenous knowledge with remote sensing and artificial intelligence tools.
    7. Sustain the domestic template: Continue Mission LiFE and Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam as demonstrable models of behaviour-led and participation-led action that other members can adapt, so the chairship leaves a replicable method behind.

    Matching Previous Year Question

    “[2021, GS3, 10 marks] Explain the purpose of the Green Grid Initiative launched at the World Leaders Summit of the COP26 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow in November 2021. When was this idea first floated in the International Solar Alliance (ISA)?”

    # Compiled Articles, 20 August 2026 (Part 6, Items 31 to 36)

  • Should the pursuit of carbon credit and clean development mechanism set up under UNFCCC be maintained even through there has been a massive slide in the value of carbon credit? Discuss with respect to India’s energy needs for economic growth.

  • Describe the major outcomes of the 26th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). What are the commitments made by India in this conference?

    The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP-26) to the UNFCCC, held in Glasgow in 2021, sought to accelerate global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C under the Paris Agreement.

    Major Outcomes of COP-26

    Recognition of Climate Emergency – Countries reaffirmed the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C.

    Accelerating Climate Action

    Countries acknowledged this as a critical decade, requiring 45% CO₂ reduction by 2030 to reach net-zero by mid-century.

    They agreed to submit stronger NDCs by 2022, and an annual NDC synthesis report.

    For the first time, parties agreed to phase down unabated coal and phase out inefficient fossil-fuel subsidies, though language was weakened from “phase-out” to “phase-down.”

    Urged immediate fulfilment of Climate Finance Commitments by Developed countries

    Countries agreed to double adaptation finance for developing nations and launched a Global Goal on Adaptation work programme.

    Completing the Paris Rulebook – Consensus achieved on Article 6 (carbon markets), Enhanced Transparency Framework, and common reporting formats.

    Strengthening of the Santiago Network for technical assistance and launch of the Glasgow Dialogue on funding arrangements for loss and damage.

    Major Side Deals & Announcements

    Forests: 137 countries committed to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030.

    103 countries joined the Global Methane Pledge to cut emissions by 30% by 2030.

    Zero-Emission Vehicles: Over 30 countries and major automakers committed to new zero-emission vehicle sales by 2035/2040.

    India’s Commitments at COP-26

    Panchamrit – Five Key Climate Targets

    500 GW of non-fossil electricity capacity by 2030

    50% of energy requirements from renewables by 2030

    Reduction of emissions intensity of GDP by 45% (from 2005 levels) by 2030

    1 billion tonnes reduction in projected carbon emissions by 2030

    Net-zero by 2070

    India, along with the UK, launched the Green Grids Initiative – One Sun, One World and One Grid mission to connect grids

    Call for Climate Justice & Equity – India emphasised Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR-RC) and demanded enhanced finance and technology transfer from developed countries.

    The mantra of LIFE- Lifestyle for Environment as a mass movement for Environment Conscious Lifestyles.

    The summit produced new “building blocks” to advance implementation of the Paris Agreement for sustainable, low-carbon pathway forward.

  • Explain the purpose of the Green Grid Initiative launched at the World Leaders Summit of the COP26 UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow in November 2021. When was this idea first floated in the International Solar Alliance (ISA)?

    Green Grid Initiative, launched by India and UK, seeks to establish an inter-connected global renewable power grid, under the principle of “one sun, one world, one grid.”

    Purpose of Green Grid Initiative

    It is based on three thematic pillars:

    Finance – Mobilise investment to double grid funding by 2030.

    Planning, Permits & Operation – Improve long-term planning and speed up approvals for faster grid development.

    Supply Chains – Strengthen manufacturing and match demand with supply of grid components.

    “The Sun Never Sets” Vision – Ensure continuous solar availability globally by connecting regions in different time zones.

    Build international collaboration for the effective use of renewable energy.

    Global Interconnected Grid to accelerate the transition to renewable energy.

    Energy Sharing Mechanism – Enable countries with low sunlight to access power from regions with surplus solar energy.

    Ensuring energy equity and access: enabling mini-grids and off-grid communities

    Accelerate the shift away from fossil fuels by enhancing deployment of clean energy

    History of Green Grid Initiative

    The concept of OSOWOG was first introduced by India’s Prime Minister at the first Assembly of ISA in October 2018.

    It was formally launched by India and UK in COP26

    By building a framework for international cooperation, it strengthens the global pathway towards decarbonisation and energy security by 2030, making it a pivotal instrument for achieving SDG-7 and supporting global climate action.

  • Discuss global warming and mention its effects on the global climate. Explain the control measures to bring down the level of greenhouse gases which cause global warming, in the light of the Kyoto Protocol, 1997.

    Global warming refers to the long-term rise in Earth’s average surface temperature due to increased concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activities.

    Effects of Global Warming on Global Climate

    Melting Glaciers & Polar Ice – Eg – Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets losing mass at record rates.

    Sea-Level Rise – IPCC projects 1.3-1.6 m SLR by 2100 under high-emission scenarios – Submergence of low-lying coasts, salinity intrusion and displacement.

    Extreme Weather Events – Eg – Increasing frequency of Category 4-5 cyclones in the Indian Ocean.

    Disruption of Monsoons – Erratic and unpredictable rainfall.

    Ocean Acidification – Elevated CO₂ lowers pH, affecting coral reefs and fisheries. Eg – Mass bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef.

    Biodiversity Decline – Species migration and extinction risks rise.

    Intensification of feedback loops – Eg- Permafrost thaw releases methane, warming oceans release less CO₂, and forest dieback reduces carbon sinks

    Expansion of arid zones – Higher temperatures increase evapotranspiration and reduce soil moisture. Eg – Prolonged droughts in Horn of Africa

    Disruption of Global Thermohaline Circulation – Eg- weakening of Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)

    Hotter, drier conditions raise wildfire risks – Eg – Australian bushfires (2019-20) and California wildfires

    Control Measures to Reduce GHGs (under Kyoto Protocol, 1997)

    The Kyoto Protocol was the first legally binding global framework mandating GHG reduction by industrialised nations.

    Binding Emission Reduction Targets – Annex-I countries committed to reducing emissions by 5% below 1990 levels during 2008-2012.

    Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – Allows developed countries to invest in emission-reduction projects in developing nations and earn carbon credits.

    Joint Implementation (JI) – Developed nations can meet their Kyoto targets via emission-reduction projects in other Annex-I countries.

    International Emissions Trading (IET) – countries with surplus emission units trade them with those exceeding their limits.

    Other Measures

    Enhancing Carbon Sinks through afforestation, reforestation and improved land management. Eg- Miyawaki method of Urban Forestry

    Low-Carbon Technologies to reduce fossil-fuel use. Eg- EVs

    Energy Efficiency – Efficiency standards, industrial retrofits, transport reforms and building codes reduce GHG intensity.

    Policy Support for Green Finance – Eg- tax breaks, green bonds, climate insurance etc

    Implementing these through enhanced national commitments, equitable climate finance and rapid decarbonization remains essential for achieving SDG 13 (Climate Action)

  • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted a global sea level rise of about one metre by AD 2100. What would be its impact in India and the other countries in the Indian Ocean region?

    Impact of 1-metre Sea-Level Rise in India

    Submergence of Low-Lying Coastal Areas – Eg- Large parts of the Kolkata, Mumbai, Kochi, Chennai

    Enhanced Coastal Erosion – Eg- as per National Centre for Coastal Research (NCCR) report around 34% of India’s coastline is eroded

    Salinity Intrusion into Aquifers & Rivers impacting drinking water and agriculture.

    Mangroves & Wetlands like Sundarbans, Mahanadi delta wetlands, Gulf of Kachchh mangroves risk drowning and biodiversity loss.

    Intensification of cyclones due to more moisture and heat from ocean warming.

    Millions from deltaic regions may face climate-induced migration. Around 3.6 million people have been displaced in South Asia over the past decade. (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre)

    Ports & Coastal Infrastructure face higher flooding risk, economic losses, and costly adaptation needs.

    Island Submergence – Eg- Sundarbans (Ghoramara, Sagar) and Lakshadweep (Chetlat, Amini, Kavaratti)

    Impact on Other Indian Ocean Region Countries

    Maldives – Existential Threat as 80% of land below 1 metre

    Bangladesh – Massive Displacement in Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna delta

    Sri Lanka – damage to fisheries and tourism economy.

    Myanmar – The Irrawaddy delta—a food-producing zone—faces salinity, crop losses and intensified cyclone impact.

    Indonesia – Severe Impacts on Islands & Cities. Eg- Jakarta already sinking

    East African Coast – Countries like Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique would face mangrove loss, storm surges, and fishery declines.

    Increased Maritime Instability – Changes in ocean temperature and circulation will affect monsoons, fisheries, and regional climate systems across the Indian Ocean basin.

    Way Forward

    Hard Engineering Measures

    Seawalls to block wave attack.

    Groynes – Trap sand and widen beaches. Eg- Puducherry groyne field.

    Breakwaters – Offshore barriers that reduce wave energy. Eg- Chennai port.

    Revetments – Sloped rock armour to absorb wave impact.

    Soft Engineering Measures

    Mangrove Restoration – Eg- MISHTI-based efforts in Sundarbans.

    Coral and Seagrass Restoration – Eg- Andaman reef rehabilitation.

    Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM)

    Ecosystem-Based Coastal Planning – Combines geomorphology, ecology and socio-economic factors.

    Regulatory Tools (CRZ Norms) – no-development zones and hazard mapping reduce vulnerability.

    Early Warning Systems – INCOIS alerts for timely action.

    Strengthening coastal resilience and climate mitigation is essential to safeguard communities and advance SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 14 (Life Below Water).

  • Write a review on India’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement (2015) and mention how these have been further strengthened in COP26 (2021). In this direction, how has the first Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) intended by India been updated in 2022?

    India’s climate commitments under the Paris Agreement (2015) reflect the principles of climate justice and CBDR-RC, balancing developmental needs with global climate responsibility.

    India’s Climate Commitments under the Paris Agreement (2015)

    Reduce emissions intensity of GDP by 33-35% from 2005 levels by 2030.

    Achieve 40% cumulative electric power capacity from non-fossil sources by 2030. Eg – Solar, wind, hydro, nuclear.

    Create an additional 2.5-3 billion tonnes of CO₂-equivalent carbon sink through afforestation and tree cover.

    Strengthen climate-resilient agriculture, disaster management and low-carbon infrastructure, while mobilising domestic and international finance.

    Strengthening Its Commitments at COP-26 (Glasgow, 2021) – India announced the Panchamrit:

    The mantra of LIFE- Lifestyle for Environment as a mass movement for Environment Conscious Lifestyles was also launched.

    Review on India’s climate commitments

    Key Achievements by 2024-25

    Emission intensity of GDP declined by 33% from 2005 levels – on track to meet the 2030 target by 2026.

    51% of total installed capacity is non-fossil (surpassed 50% NDC goal).

    Carbon Sequestration: 522 MtCO₂ sequestered through forests and land use practices (BUR-4, 2024).

    Policy Innovations:

    Green Credit Programme launched in 2023 for afforestation incentives.

    MISHTI mangrove restoration scheme covering 3,000+ hectares.

    Launch of “Ek Ped Maa Ke Naam” campaign for mass tree plantation.

    Gap Between Climate Ambition and Implementation

    Overdependence on Fossil Fuels

    Fossil fuels still account for ~73% of electricity generation (CEA, 2023).

    Fossil fuel subsidies are 8x higher than renewable subsidies

    Shortfall in Carbon Sink – Forest and tree cover 25.1% (SoFR 2023), short of the 33% goal

    India’s emissions intensity target is rated “Insufficient” by Climate Action Tracker report

    Delayed Data Reporting – India’s latest Biennial Update Report (BUR-4) covered data only up to 2020 and was submitted in late 2024.

    Delayed Implementation of Net-Zero Roadmap – sector-wise decarbonization targets are not clearly defined or enforced.

    Way Forward

    Localized Climate Risk Mapping and Micro-Zonation using GIS, satellite data, and AI.

    Nature-Based Solutions – Eg- mangrove restoration under MISHTI

    Strengthen the Green Energy Corridor for better grid integration of renewables.

    Promoting Circular Economy Eg- Enforce mandatory use of 30% recycled material in construction projects.

    Climate-Resilient Agriculture

    Scale up organic through Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY).

    Develop agroforestry to improve soil health, reduce emissions.

    Expanding Electric Mobility Ecosystem – Strengthen charging infrastructure across highways and cities (EV-charging at petrol pumps/dhabas).

    With climate risks threatening a staggering 24.7 % GDP loss by 2070, resilient development is no longer just an option-it is an economic imperative to achieve the goal of ‘Viksit Bharat’