Aligning growth with climate action
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Dear Rahul Gandhi and Donald Trump, India's economy isn't dead
'Those who speak without knowledge are like the blind describing the sun.' — Mahabharata, Shanti Parva In their misplaced zeal for attention, Donald Trump and Rahul Gandhi have found common cause — declaring the Indian economy 'dead'. If only the facts were as loyal to them as their soundbites are to their need for self-aggrandisation. Trump's utterance, given the way he has behaved post his election victory, was expected. But Rahul Gandhi's reflexive concurrence, parroting anti-India narratives for short-term political gains, raises deeper questions. Is he now India's most committed amplifier of foreign mockery? There are two clear ways to answer this 'dead economy' trope: One with data, and another with diplomacy's hard logic. First, let's follow the numbers. Between 2015 and 2025, India has emerged as the fastest-growing major economy, clocking average real GDP growth of 6.5 per cent compared to 4.1 per cent for emerging economies and 1.8 per cent for OECD countries. In contrast to India's 2004-14 boom, powered by global tailwinds and credit splurge (and even then, India grew slower than the world, slower than emerging economies and much slower than China), this decade's growth under the Modi government came despite disruptive reforms like demonetisation and GST and a pandemic. India is set to become the fourth-largest economy in the world, surpassing the UK and Japan. It accounted for a disproportionately large share of global growth, outpacing all G7 economies in both nominal and real terms. Its 105 per cent nominal GDP expansion between 2015 and 2025 dwarfed the US (66 per cent), Germany (44 per cent), and the UK (28 per cent). While Japan and parts of the Eurozone have almost stagnated, India's growth has been three times faster. It has also significantly narrowed the income gap in per capita terms with OECD nations. Notably, India is projected to overtake Germany soon to become the world's third-largest economy. India led global IPO charts in 2024 with 327 offerings, and the National Stock Exchange now ranks among the top 5 globally. Foreign portfolio flows have surged. Indian equity markets have delivered 16 per cent average annual returns, outshining nearly every peer. During the UPA decade, India's growth lagged behind China, Brazil, and Russia. India outgrew all BRICS economies in 2015-25, outpacing even China in percentage growth over the last five years. Even in per capita income growth, India's rise has been steeper, moving from 30 per cent of average of emerging market economies in 2014 to 42 per cent in 2024. Under the Modi government, exports surged from $468 billion to $825 billion. Defence exports rose twelvefold. Digital India created world-beating platforms like UPI, now processing 49 per cent of all real-time digital payments globally. Inflation, which averaged 8.2 per cent in the UPA era, has been brought down to around 4.5 per cent. Forex reserves have more than doubled. Poverty has fallen at a historic pace, with 25 crore people being lifted out of multidimensional poverty, according to the NITI Aayog. The World Bank has reported that extreme poverty dropped from 16.2 per cent to 2.3 per cent. The contrast between the UPA era and the Modi era is stark. From policy paralysis to policy propulsion. From scams to startups. From a lagging BRICS economy to its leader. India under Modi has not only grown faster but in a cleaner and more inclusive way, and is globally more respected. Over 55 crore Jan Dhan accounts, Rs 34 lakh crore Mudra loans and the world's largest vaccination drive are signals of a state that knows how to implement projects. India today doesn't just aim to be included, it wants to lead the table — that alone marks the death of the 'dead economy' narrative. If India's economy were dead, why is the UK calling its FTA with India the most ambitious in its history? Why are EFTA countries committing $100 billion in investments? Why indeed is the USA chasing trade deals? Why is it that now most iPhones sold in the USA are manufactured in India? Why is it that Canada, a country hostile to India for over a decade, could still not do without India in the G7 it hosted? One could even ask President Trump if the Indian economy is indeed dead, then why is he talking about India in every second press conference he does? India's economy is dynamic, data-backed, and destined for leadership. That this needs to be said in 2025 is unfortunate. That Rahul Gandhi finds himself echoing Trump's casual derision is tragicomic. Perhaps Gandhi thinks aligning with every outsider who insults India will somehow reanimate his politics. But India has moved on from dependency to self-belief, from slogans to substance. The only thing lifeless here isn't the Indian economy. It's the political instinct that cheers when India is jeered. The writer is CEO, Bluekraft Digital Foundation and was earlier director (content), MyGov
Scroll.in
a day ago
- Scroll.in
ICJ ruling on climate crisis is a powerful boost for justice – but may not be enough
On July 23, the International Court of Justice delivered a landmark ruling on the climate crisis. As the highest judicial institution in the world, its word should carry weight, and climate justice movements have welcomed it. But will it be sufficient to transform the current situation in which the worst offenders – rich, industrialised states and the rich in poorer countries – continue to evade their responsibility? The ruling is based on a request made by the United Nations General Assembly, to provide an opinion on the obligations of states to address climate change under international law and the legal consequences for failing to deliver on those obligations. This was based on a resolution that 132 states co-sponsored in 2023. As many as 99 states made submissions to the International Court of Justice. The ruling, unanimously issued by its 15 judges as an advisory apinion to all countries, is long and complex. In a nutshell, it has: · Accepted the dire scenarios of the climate crisis as portrayed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, noting that it is 'an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet'; Asserted that all states have an obligation to act to reduce the causes of climate change, including 'taking mitigation and adaptation measures, with due account given to the protection of human rights, the adoption of standards and legislation…' Stated that such obligations are not only under international treaties related directly to climate (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement), but also under other environment and human rights treaties, customary international law (such as the duty to prevent significant harm to the environment) and accepted principles (such as the responsibility to protect the rights of future generations). Some submissions made to the court, such as that of US, argued that state obligations under climate treaties are flexible and subject to its domestic priorities. While there is an accepted principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities' in the climate treaties, the intent of this is to put less of a burden on poorer countries, not to enable rich ones, who have been historically responsible for the bulk of climate change emissions, to escape their responsibilities. The International Court of Justice is clear on this: 'Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions – including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies – may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.' And further, that: 'Customary obligations are the same for all States and exist independently regardless of whether a State is a party to the climate change treaties.' Regulating 'private actors' The ruling also places on states the responsibility to regulate the activities of 'private actors' that are under its jurisdiction or control. This is important, given the impunity with which multinational corporations act across the world, getting away with horrendous crimes of ecocide and of killing or injuring people defending their territories. Also significant is the clear connection the court has drawn between a environment and human rights (previously stated in a resolution adopted by the General Assembly on July 28, 2022). The International Court of Justice says: 'the adverse effects of climate change … impact on the health and livelihoods of individuals through events such as sea level rise, drought, desertification and natural disasters, may significantly impair the enjoyment of … the right to life, the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, which encompasses access to food, water and housing, the right to privacy, family and home, and the rights of women, children and indigenous peoples … The Court concludes that, under international law, the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is essential for the enjoyment of other human rights.' The court also points to state culpability if it fails to take action: 'A State that does not exercise due diligence in the performance of its primary obligation to prevent significant harm to the environment, including to the climate system, commits an internationally wrongful act entailing its responsibility.' It is then subject to various legal consequences, notably the obligation to cease harmful actions, provide 'full reparation' that includes restitution measures (such as helping to restore damaged ecosystems) or compensation (where such restitution is not possible) and others. There are aspects on which the ruling could have been stronger or clear. The principle of equity, for instance, could have been deepened with reference to how, for instance, major polluters need to take urgent action vis-à-vis small island states (whose youth were the first to initiate action that led to the ICJ taking up climate change), or other badly affected communities. This has been noted in a separate opinion of a couple of the judges, appended to the main ruling. The principle of the rights of nature and species other than humans, could have been invoked – there are only a couple of passing references to the threats to 'all life' and some species. It could also have more clearly stated that climate action itself should not endanger human and environmental rights or the principle of equity, as one sees in the global push for minerals and materials for the so-called 'energy transition'. Jurisdictional challenges The greatest concern, however, is in aspects not necessarily under the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Both nation-states and private corporations, especially the most powerful amongst them, are today already flouting global treaties and norms with impunity. The hard-fought gains of the latter part of the twentieth century, both in national and international policy-making, spurred by massive people's mobilisation, are being openly thrown out or ignored by presidents, prime ministers and heads of corporations. In such a situation, what potential does this ruling have to turn things around? Very little, unless, like any legal or policy tool, it is used by people. Not only to push governments and corporations in their own countries, but as moral backing for groun- level actions of boycott, resistance, blockages, consumer action and more. Climate justice mobilisation by or with farmers, fishers, Indigenous peoples, workers, youth, women, and others who have been thus far marginalised in decision-making, is gaining ground across the world. This includes both resistance and protest, as also constructive alternatives to meet human needs and aspirations while protecting nature and reducing inequities. The ruling could provide important an important boost to them to confront the capitalist and statist minority that is responsible for planetary ruin, not only between but also within countries. As the International Court of Justice itself notes, beyond the formal legal avenues of action, 'a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom – at the individual, social and political levels – to change our habits, comforts and current way of life in order to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.'
Deccan Herald
a day ago
- Deccan Herald
Aligning growth with climate action
As the dust settles on the Bonn climate talks, discussions on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) have gained momentum, but key questions remain unresolved. With the global 2025 climate milestone (setting updated climate targets and a new finance goal) and COP30 in Brazil on the horizon, the spotlight is on enhancing Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and advancing the GGA. Beyond fulfilling climate obligations, these frameworks will help India carve the path to a resilient, economically thriving the fastest-growing major economy, India faces the dual challenge of development and climate change. From erratic monsoons and heatwaves to rainfall events and sea level rise, climate risks are intensifying, threatening lives and livelihoods, as the country works to meet the needs of a growing population and rapidly urbanising regions. The path ahead, therefore, requires climate action and development to be pursued together as a cohesive national strategy..A recent OECD-UNDP report, Investing in Climate for Growth and Development, suggests that bold climate action is a powerful driver of economic transformation. It estimates the global GDP to be 0.2% higher by 2040 and up to 13% higher by 2100 under a high-ambition scenario, incorporating enhanced climate action and accelerated investments aligned with the Paris Agreement's 'well-below 2°C' India, green growth is both an environmental imperative and smart economics. It enhances energy security, supports rural livelihoods, and builds resilience of vulnerable communities. Aligning economic strategy with sustainability is key to accelerating development while navigating resource constraints and climate in renewables, clean mobility, and energy efficiency reduce emissions and boost innovation, jobs, and long-term India is drafting National Adaptation Plans for key sectors, its adaptation response remains nationally underfunded and fragmented, with international support proving slow, inconsistent, and insufficient. The promise of the GGA lies in its ability to support implementation through funding, capacity-building, and technology must continue advocating for a GGA architecture rooted in urgency and equity, moving beyond top-down metrics. The real test lies in who benefits and to what extent: Are vulnerable communities protected? Are climate-resilient practices reaching tribal populations and women farmers? Are urban systems flood-proofed?.India should also push for frameworks such as the New Collective Quantified Goal (a global target to mobilise climate finance for developing countries) and the Baku to Belem Roadmap (guiding global action on the Paris Agreement's Adaptation Goal) to serve not as checklists but as frameworks guiding countries to translate global ambition into local India prepares its 2025 NDC update, it has a strategic opportunity to set bold decarbonisation targets aligned with its low-carbon development goals and net-zero vision. Ambitious, implementable, and investable enhanced NDCs can become powerful instruments to drive inclusive requires integrating climate goals into sectoral and sub-national policies. Since key levers of adaptation and mitigation, including transport, agriculture, water, and land management, are a state's prerogative, states can become co-architects of national climate the is central to India's net-zero journey, with over $10 trillion needed by 2070. While global adaptation finance remains limited, India must champion predictable, accessible, and need-based funding; scale up domestic instruments like Sovereign Green Bonds and Infrastructure Investment Trusts; enhance state-level climate budgeting; and de-risk private India shifts to a low-carbon economy, labour transitions will be key. Sectors like coal, construction, and transport, often employing informal workers, will need targeted support. With the right planning, green transitions can create quality jobs. India's renewable sector, for example, employed over 1.02 million people in 2023. Ensuring a just transition means investing in reskilling, social protection, and community-led development. Equally important is investing in Nature-based Solutions (NbS), which can support both climate resilience and green jobs. Global estimates indicate a requirement of over $484 billion/year by 2030 for NbS, yet current finance flows fall short, highlighting a critical investment blend of scale, credibility, and developmental urgency positions it to lead efforts for an inclusive global climate framework. An inclusive, investment-ready NDC in 2025 can help India set global standards in emission reduction and climate the GGA negotiations, India must continue to frame adaptation as a survival imperative, not a donor-driven priority. COP30 marks a pivotal opportunity for India to position climate action as both a shield against risks and a catalyst for ensuring long-term economic vitality..(The writer heads the Climate, Environment and Sustainability sector at the Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy – CSTEP).Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.
