- India’s updated climate goals have been characterised as moderate by many observers.
- India’s climate targets reflect a record of delivery, achieved despite inadequate global finance and technology support.
- Climate ambition without equity is inconsistent with the Paris Agreement’s founding principles.
- The views in this commentary are those of the authors.
The concept of ‘ratcheting ambition’ now shapes global climate action. However, ambition is often measured using a single, uniform metric: comparing all countries against a common temperature goal. This approach overlooks countries’ unique circumstances, development needs, shortage of climate finance, and historical responsibility.
India released its third nationally determined contribution (NDC 3.0) in March. It is the climate pledge each country under the Paris Agreement files and is expected to ratchet up with every cycle. The latest NDC is for 2031-2035 and has been subject to a convoluted reading. A set of forward-looking commitments, with deliverable outcomes, and aligned with the long-term vision of Viksit Bharat 2047, has been characterised as moderate by many observers.
Applying one standard to measure ambition contradicts the Paris Agreement’s principle of equity. Article 2.2 emphasises common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, meaning all nations must act, but those with the most historical emissions and greatest means should do more. Criticism of India’s new plan as ‘moderate’ overlooks this principle and ignores India’s record of delivering on commitments.
As the second Global Stocktake (GST2) is set to commence later this year, it is important to assess ambition in its broader context — taking into account equity, historical responsibility, the delivery of past commitments, and the overarching, holistic long-term vision to combat climate change.
Viewed through this lens, India’s NDC 3.0 signals stronger ambition than many assessments suggest.
Taking into account legacy emissions
Cumulative CO₂ emissions data from the Global Carbon Project reveals a stark imbalance in historical responsibility. The United States alone has emitted nearly 6.5 times as much as India since 1750, while the European Union, including the United Kingdom, has emitted around 5.8 times as much.
At the same time, India accounts for over 17% of the world’s population, and its per capita GHG emissions were about 2.9 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) in 2023, significantly lower than the world average of 6.7 tCO2e. In comparison, the per capita emissions of the EU stood at 6.9 tCO2e, Japan at 8.3 tCO2e, the United States at 17.2 tCO2e and Canada at 20.4 tCO2e for the same year. These are not mere rhetoric, but the data on which the operational pillars of CBDR-RC rest.
The comparative trajectory since Paris is equally illustrative of India’s feats in emissions reduction. Across three NDC submissions, this trajectory has been voluntarily tightened each time: from a 33-35% emissions-intensity reduction target in 2015 to 45% in the next NDC to 47% in NDC 3.0 recently. Non-fossil fuel-based electric power installed capacity targets have moved from 40 to 60%; carbon sink ambition has been raised from 2.5-3 to 3.5-4 billion tonnes.
India’s Economic Survey as early as 2024 reported that India’s GDP between 2005 and 2019 grew at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of about 7%, whereas emissions grew at a CAGR of about 4%. This demonstrates that India has been decoupling economic growth from emissions. India’s latest first biennial transparency report (BTR) further affirms this trend in the projections till 2030.
That India’s absolute emissions grew during the same period reflects its developmental stage, and it is precisely this domestic structural reality that the intensity-based NDC target architecture is designed to address.
India’s promising track record
What makes India a performer is that it continues to scale up its climate ambition despite negligible international support. The UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance estimates of developing-country financing needs imply a mobilisation requirement of $455-584 billion annually through 2030. However, the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) — the climate-finance target agreed at COP29 in Baku, $300 billion a year by 2035 — fell critically short of the scale of needs presented and required by the developed countries.
Likewise, support for technology has been abysmal. In its first BTR submitted in 2025, India categorically stated, “Technology transfer through the mechanism established under Article 10 of the Paris Agreement is yet to be operationalised for India.”
In the recent past, the geopolitical environment has also shifted considerably, with the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, divisions emerging within the EU over its NDC 3.0, and the conflict in West Asia reinforcing energy security concerns.
Given this context, India’s track record in delivering on climate commitments warrants recognition. The emissions intensity of GDP has already been reduced by 36% from 2005 to 2020. Non-fossil installed power capacity crossed 52.57% by February 2026, surpassing the 50% target set for 2030 nearly five years ahead of schedule. Likewise, a carbon sink of 2.29 billion tonnes of CO₂e had already been built by 2021.
Building on this trajectory, India’s NDC 3.0 is proportional to its responsibilities, reflects equitable ambition and crucially, demonstrates strong intent — reminding us that actual delivery is the real test of ambition.
Signalling intent through action
While India’s NDC targets are calibrated to be achievable, they are likely to be exceeded on current trajectories. A modelling study by the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) and the Alliance for an Energy Efficient Economy (AEEE), published in Energy and Climate Change journal, while noting that net zero may require additional policy interventions, reports that India is on track to exceed its 2030 NDC target on emissions reduction, with projections showing the emissions intensity of India’s energy sector declining by 48-57% by 2030 compared to 2005 levels. Another analysis observes that India is likely to achieve its newly announced 2035 target of increasing non-fossil capacity to 60% by, or even before, 2030.
The current trajectory is not merely a play of market forces, but the result of sustained government investment and prioritisation. In fact, CEEW analysis of select policies across India’s power, residential, and transport sectors found that current trajectories are projected to reduce CO₂ emissions by approximately 4 billion tonnes cumulatively between 2020 and 2030 — equivalent to nearly 1.6 times the European Union’s CO₂ emissions in 2023. While the analysis didn’t cover some policies, such as the National Green Hydrogen Mission, Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS), PM Suryaghar Yojna and PM-eBus Sewa Scheme, due to their recency, these are also expected to significantly impact India’s future emission pathways.
Importantly, NDC 3.0 also sends important signals: a priority on fostering a green transition aligned with the vision for Viksit Bharat by 2047, and opportunities for India’s emerging carbon market architecture to generate surplus mitigation outcomes eligible for international trading under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. Over and above, there is another key principle driving India’s climate action that deserves attention — the Mission LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment), which fosters sustainable living, lower consumption, circular resource use, and community-rooted energy practices. The CEEW-AEEE analysis found that such behavioural and lifestyle changes could deliver up to 10% emissions reductions by 2050 relative to a business-as-usual scenario.
The ambition trap
Recent years have seen attempts to promote a more top-down approach to climate action, often couched in voluntary initiatives such as the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty and, more recently, the Santa Marta Declaration, which calls for a complete phase-out of fossil fuels.
The absence of a common understanding of these issues was also visible in the recently concluded climate negotiations in Bonn (SB64). Across discussions on mitigation, just transition and even the UAE Dialogue on implementing Global Stocktake outcomes, developing countries, including the largest negotiating block G77+China, underscored the importance of country-driven processes as reflected in NDCs, taking cognisance of the resources, challenges and constraints faced by each country. The Arab Group similarly emphasised the need to ensure that processes outside the UNFCCC do not influence negotiations on mandates within it.
While India is not alien to cooperative coalitions, and is home to initiatives such as the International Solar Alliance (ISA), the current coalition-of-the-willing approach remains exclusionary in its framing. Such processes outside the UNFCCC risk undermining the principles of equity and differentiated responsibility enshrined in the Paris Agreement and reinforced through subsequent COP processes.
Ultimately, the question for those who assess India’s NDC 3.0 as insufficiently ambitious is this: if a country responsible for around 4% of cumulative historical emissions, home to 17% of the world’s people, consistently delivering ahead of its stated climate targets, building renewable energy capacity largely on its own resources, leading voluntary trans-governmental climate action is held to the same standard as those who polluted the atmospheric commons, what exactly does the principle of differentiated responsibility and equity mean? The answer matters not only for how India is judged but also for whether the Paris Agreement’s foundational compact retains the credibility on which it was founded.
Ravi Shankar Prasad is a Distinguished Fellow at the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) and served as India’s Chief Climate Change Negotiator. Mohana Bharathi Manimaran is a Programme Associate at CEEW.
Banner image: Workers install a solar panel on the rooftop of a residence in Gurugram, Haryana. (AP Photo/Manish Swarup)
Read more: Ward-level plans bring climate action closer to communities
Credits
