Explained: Tracking India's climate goals
Government data released last week showed that installed electricity capacity had reached 484.82 GW at the end of June, of which 242.78 GW was being contributed by sources such as large hydropower, nuclear, and renewable energies like wind and solar.
Attainment of 50 per cent share of non-fossil sources in the installed electricity capacity was one of the three climate targets India had set for itself for 2030. The other two promises were: reducing its emissions intensity, or emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP), by at least 45 per cent from 2005 levels; and creating an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent from forest and tree cover.
The target of creating an additional carbon sink is likely to be achieved this year, if not already achieved, though official data on that are yet to be released. There is good progress on the third target as well.
Dependence on renewables
The 50 per cent share of non-fossil sources in installed electricity capacity has been achieved through rapid growth in renewable energy in the last couple of years, particularly in solar energy. For instance, in 2024, almost 30 GW of renewable energy was installed, the maximum for any year. Of this, solar energy stood at nearly 24 GW.
While this is impressive, China has been adding 10 times more renewable capacity for the last two years.
India aims to install 500 GW of non-fossil fuel-based electricity capacity by 2030. This is also a stated climate objective for India, though not an official target it has committed itself to. However, for it to materialise, significant contributions need to come from nuclear power as well. Many of the 10 nuclear reactors that India is currently building are expected to become operational during this timeframe, doubling the current capacity to about 17 GW by 2030. The Bharat Small Modular Reactors that India is developing are unlikely to fructify during this time.
As a result, renewables would continue to form the bulk of new capacity additions from non-fossil fuel sources in the coming years.
Capacity vs generation
The 50 per cent share of non-fossil fuels in installed capacity does not mean half of India's electricity is clean. Electricity generation from renewable sources is intermittent and dependent on timing, seasonality, and climate. As such, the share of non-fossil fuels in electricity generation is lower than its share in installed capacity.
Data from the Central Electricity Authority show that in May, non-fossil fuel sources, including large hydro and nuclear, accounted for 28 per cent of electricity generation in India.
Electricity itself forms a small part of the energy basket. Less than 22 per cent of India's total energy consumption is done in the form of electricity. The rest happens through direct burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas.
Therefore, electricity forms about 22 per cent of India's total energy consumption, and non-fossil fuel sources account for about 28 per cent of electricity generation. This means clean energy from non-fossil fuel sources accounts for just about 6 per cent of India's total energy consumption. That might seem measly, but it is actually on par with the global average.
Progress on forestry target
Fresh data are yet to come in, but it is likely that India has already fulfilled its promise of adding 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of carbon sink to the 2005 stock. According to official data, also submitted to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), about 2.29 billion tonnes of additional sink had already been created by 2021.
The India State of the Forest Report (ISFR) — the most authoritative official record of the state of forests and trees in the country — showed that India's carbon stock had grown by about 150 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent every year on average between 2017 and 2021. The next edition of ISFR, due later this year, will have data till 2023.
If the trend continues, and another about 300 million tonnes CO2 equivalent of sink is added between 2021 and 2023, India's carbon stock would have surpassed the lower end of the 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes target. This would mean that the forestry target would have also been achieved well ahead of the 2030 deadline.
Emissions intensity
There is less information on the progress being made on the emissions intensity target. India has said that it will ensure its emissions per unit of GDP would decline at least 45 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030.
The latest data on emissions intensity are from 2020. By that time, India had already reduced it by 36 per cent from 2005 levels. There are no good estimates of emission intensity reductions after that, but considering India's progress so far, the 45 per cent reduction goal by 2030 is likely to be achieved comfortably.
That India will achieve all its three climate targets was never in doubt. In fact, it is in the process of achieving them two times over. The original targets, set in 2015, were achieved by 2022 itself, allowing India to set revised targets. Those also are being achieved now.
The international climate architecture, governed by the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement, allows countries to set their own climate targets. Not surprisingly, most countries have set modest targets for themselves. But even then, many developed countries have struggled to deliver on their promises, not just on emission reductions but also on climate finance.
India has said that it can do much more if it gets international finance and technology that it is entitled to under the provisions of the Paris Agreement.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
10-year low for new coal mines masks climate risk of planned projects
BATHINDA: Newly-opened coal mine capacity in 2024 hit the lowest level in a decade, but the downturn could be short-lived due to a robust slate of planned projects that would jeopardise global targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions, finds a new report by energy think tank Global Energy Monitor (GEM) 'Still digging 2025: Tracking global coal mine proposals'. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The report estimates that new coal mine proposals could emit as much as 15.7 million tonnes of methane emissions or about 1.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e). Although the new analysis notes a 46% decline in new coal mine additions for 2024 compared to 2023, new coal mine proposals on the table for close to 2,270 million tonnes per annum of coal production capacity could risk global net zero targets. China, India, Australia and Russia comprise nearly 90%, 1,942 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of all proposed mine developments globally, with a majority (1,350 Mtpa) of this capacity located in China. India ranks a distant second globally in proposed coal mining capacity, with 329 Mtpa currently under development. Of this, 163 Mtpa remains in the early planning stage. Approximately 90 Mtpa has been permitted, and 75 Mtpa is already under construction. Although the rollout has slowed, the decline falls short of what is necessary to align with the Paris Agreement. When fully developed, these mines would emit an estimated 15.7 million tonnes of methane annually. Without an adequate mitigation plan, these proposed coal mine projects would keep methane emissions well above net-zero targets. Data in the Global Coal Mine Tracker show production capacity at newly operating mines totalled 105 million tonnes (Mt) in 2024, marking the lowest level since 2014 and a 46% decline from 193 Mt in 2023. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The decline is largely attributed to India and China, where the slowdown was marked by delays in expansion approvals, the inherently lengthy nature of coal mine development phases, and a potential easing of supply pressures following a surge in capacity additions over the previous two years. However, coal developers are once again ramping up production plans, pursuing over 850 new mines, expansions, and recommission projects across 30 countries. Thirty-five mine extension projects are also under consideration. Nearly 90% of this proposed capacity is located within just a few countries. China leads by a wide margin, accounting for 1,350 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of proposed capacity. India follows with 329 Mtpa. Australia ranks third with 165 Mtpa, while Russia and South Africa also host significant developments, at approximately 98 Mtpa and 73 Mtpa, respectively. In total, 2,270 Mtpa of coal mine capacity is under development worldwide, posing a significant risk of increased methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas with over 80 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. Without abatement measures, methane emissions from proposed coal mines would add to the already substantial emissions from existing operations—currently estimated by GEM at 58.9 Mt annually. This rise in proposed coal mine capacity also contradicts scenarios from international bodies to cut mine output in order to align with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change. The International Energy Agency and United Nations have both proposed cuts to production at coal mines ranging from 39% to 75% by 2030, compared to 2020 production levels of roughly 7,607 Mt. The current pipeline of coal mines in development would only widen this gap. Dorothy Mei, Project Manager of the Global Coal Mine Tracker at Global Energy Monitor, said, 'The canary is literally and figuratively in the coal mine. Without drastically scaling back plans for new mine capacity, the world could see a massive rise in potent methane emissions that would make it all but impossible to reach the goals of the Paris Agreement.'
Indian Express
20 hours ago
- Indian Express
What the ICJ ruling means for the Kyoto Protocol
While defining the obligations of countries in the global fight against climate change, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made a crucial clarification regarding the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and its validity in a landmark ruling last week. The ICJ has said the Kyoto Protocol not only continues to remain in force, but is also legally relevant, and that countries remain under a legal obligation to comply with its provisions. The ICJ ruling is the first time that an authoritative assertion has been made on the legal status of the Kyoto Protocol in the post-Paris Agreement period. The common understanding so far has been that the Kyoto Protocol was replaced and superseded by the 2015 Paris Agreement. In other words, the Kyoto Protocol had ceased to exist, or at least became non-operational or defunct, once the Paris Agreement came into effect in 2016, or at the most when the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period ended in 2020. But the Kyoto Protocol was never terminated or abrogated by any process. The ICJ has now clarified that it continues to remain in force and has the status of international law. The Kyoto Protocol, which was finalised in 1997 and came into effect in 2005, was the first legal instrument under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The agreement sought to operationalise the provisions of the UNFCCC through specific climate actions from countries. It assigned specific targets to rich and developed countries to reduce their emissions in particular time frames, called commitment periods. Developing countries did not have any such targets, and were encouraged to take 'nationally appropriate' actions to help the fight against climate change. This was in keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), one of the foundational tenets of international climate law. This principle, in effect, says while the whole world has a responsibility to take actions against climate change, the bulk of the responsibility lies with rich and developed countries. That is because these countries accounted for the overwhelming majority of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the last 150 years, which have caused climate change. The Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period ran from 2008 to 2012, and the second from 2012 to 2020. Developed countries, a group of about 40 mentioned by name in Annex-I of the UNFCCC, had to reduce their GHG emissions by assigned amounts during these periods from baseline values in 1990. These countries also had to provide finance and technology to developing countries to help them tackle climate change, in accordance with the provisions of the UNFCCC. The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. As a result, the world's largest emitter, both in current terms at that time and historically, did not have any obligation to reduce its emissions. Several other countries, such as Canada and Japan, either walked out of the Kyoto Protocol at a later stage, or refused to accept binding targets for the second commitment period. Developed countries argued that climate objectives could not be achieved if large emitters, such as China, did not contribute to the effort. China, classified as a developing country in the UNFCCC, overtook the US as the world's largest emitter of GHGs by the mid-2000s. However, it did not have any obligation to reduce its emissions. This argument led to efforts to create another legal climate agreement that would ensure the participation of every country. It took the form of the Paris Agreement. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, this agreement did not assign emission reduction targets to any country. Rather, countries themselves had to decide what climate actions they would take. This was called nationally-determined contributions (NDCs). So, while the Kyoto Protocol was top-down, the Paris Agreement took a bottom-up approach. The Paris Agreement did not supersede or terminate the Kyoto Protocol. But a third commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol, beyond 2020, was never defined. After the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period ended, the understanding was that it would exist alongside the Paris Agreement for a few years. However, its legal status after 2020 was not very clear. Since it was not terminated, it continued to exist but was not understood to have any relevance. The ICJ has ruled that the Kyoto Protocol remains in force, and countries party to it still have to fulfil their legal obligations under its provisions. 'The Court considers that the lack of agreement on a further commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol after the adoption of the Paris Agreement does not mean that the Kyoto Protocol has been terminated. The Kyoto Protocol, therefore, remains part of the applicable law,' the ICJ said. The international court has also ruled that non-compliance with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol would constitute an internationally wrongful act. '[T]he absence of a new commitment period does not deprive the Kyoto Protocol of its legal effect. The Kyoto Protocol remains in force… non-compliance with emission reduction commitments by a State may constitute an internationally wrongful act,' the ICJ said. The ruling has clarified that compliance with the targets of the first commitment period is still open for assessment. Note that not all countries have fulfilled their relatively modest emissions reduction targets in the first commitment period. 'While there is no active commitment period at present, the treaty remains in force and relevant, including as a means for assessing the compliance of parties with their commitments during the first commitment period,' the ICJ said. The ICJ ruling came after it was asked by the UN General Assembly to give its advisory opinion on the obligations of countries to protect the climate system, and the legal consequences of not fulfilling them. To give its ruling, the court examined the provisions of the three climate treaties — the 1994 UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement — and several other environment-related international laws that have a bearing on the climate system. Although the ICJ has held that countries are under a legal obligation to take steps to reduce GHG emissions and can be held liable to pay compensation if they fail to do so, the ruling is not binding on countries. That is because it is an advisory opinion. However, the ruling opens up the possibility of increased climate litigation, seeking greater accountability from countries to take more effective climate actions.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Is ICJ's ruling on climate change merely symbolic?
In a landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on July 23, 2025, announced countries and territories are obligated to combat climate change through efforts to the best of their capabilities. Climate change poses an 'urgent and existential threat,' the court said. It held that climate action is not based on any one law but is rather a mix of international law provisions like the UN charter, and international treaties like the Kyoto Protocol, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Paris Agreement, among others, and that they should influence the actions that member states take to protect the environment. The Court also ruled that countries bear the responsibility of protecting the earth's climate systems, reduce emissions and limit global warming. Several countries have hailed the Court's decision, saying that it adds heft to humanity's fight against climate change. The ruling hits all the right notes -- it places human rights at the forefront of the fight against global warming. But, is it merely symbolic, given it is an advisory opinion and not enforceable? Guest: Dr. Vaibhav Chaturvedi, The Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) Host: Nivedita V Edited by Sharmada venkatasubramanian Listen to more In Focus podcasts:
