It had taken less than 10 years for efforts to begin to dismantle the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The Paris Agreement, successor to the Kyoto Protocol, does not face any immediate threat of being dismantled, but its role as the global treaty to organise an effective response to climate change has come under scrutiny, as it completed 10 years in November. Questions have been raised about its ability to deliver results, its approach and architecture, and even its relevance.
As a result, 2025 marked the beginning of a perceptible shift in the narrative around climate change, with developing countries making a more forceful assertion of their rights and requirements. This was evident at the annual COP30 climate conference in Belém, Brazil.
Developing countries, led by influential large economies such as China, India, Saudi Arabia and Brazil itself, got two of their long-standing demands included in the final outcome. They also blocked any reference to a language on fossil fuel phase-out that the European Union and some other countries had pushed for.
This demonstrated a shift in power dynamics at COP30. Simply put, large developing countries could force their way through in the absence of the US. China emerged as the most crucial actor, playing a more decisive role in climate conversations. Given that it plans to start cutting its emissions, China — the world’s largest GHG emitter — could fill the leadership void created by the US.
Reality check
More significantly, countries have begun to question many of the basic principles of the global climate architecture represented by the Paris Agreement, and their underlying assumptions. Countries have argued that while the treaty was correct in identifying climate change as a central and urgent crisis, the pathway it presents as a solution may not be the most efficient and not reflective of the ground realities.
The Paris Agreement has a mitigation-centric approach. It says the rise in global temperatures must not go above 2 degrees Celsius compared to pre-industrial times (average of 1850-1900 period), preferably limiting it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Since rising temperatures are known to be a direct consequence of GHG emissions, the treaty says efforts must be made to reduce emissions. But the Paris Agreement also acknowledges that countries have different responsibilities, capabilities and circumstances, and therefore can choose the pace and trajectory of emission reductions.
Although not stated in the treaty in so many words, it is implied that breaching the 2-degree Celsius target would make the world unlivable for humans and other species, and beyond their adaptive capacities. In the Paris Agreement, achievement of the 1.5 or 2 degree Celsius targets is predicated on global cooperation, with every country doing the best it can to tackle climate change. The experience of the last 10 years, however, shows that this premise had extremely shaky foundations. It had a disconnect from the way countries actually behave in the international arena.
No one’s problem
This design of the Paris Agreement was not a result of naivete. It was built on purpose by developed countries as a way to escape from the Kyoto Protocol.
The 1994 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol had identified the countries that were primarily responsible for causing global warming through their historical emissions. These countries, a group of about 40-odd developed nations, were made responsible for the clean-up by making targeted emission cuts. That is because, besides being the main polluters, they were also rich and capable. Other countries were asked to contribute, but no targets were assigned to them.
At the root was the famous principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC) that is the bedrock of international climate law. Though they all signed on to the Kyoto Protocol, developed countries quickly realised their folly, and began to undermine the agreement. The US, the world’s leading emitter at that time, did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. After a decade-long effort, developed nations managed to replace the Kyoto Protocol with the Paris Agreement. A job that was specifically assigned to a few countries in the Kyoto Protocol became a voluntary contributory task for everyone.
The experience of the Paris Agreement so far shows that when it is everyone’s responsibility, it is actually no one’s responsibility. The world is nowhere close to meeting the 2030 milestones on emissions reductions.
There are few instances in history in which the world has come together to accomplish a common goal. Even during the Covid-19 pandemic, the response of countries was mostly on nationalistic lines — there were only a handful of collaborative works on vaccines. Probably the only instance of a successful fight against a global threat was the 1988 Montreal Protocol on repairing the Ozone layer. But the scale of the problem and the economic impact of the solutions deployed were much smaller in comparison to climate change.
The challenge
It is not that the Paris Agreement has not delivered anything. It has unleashed thousands of climate actions, from governments, corporations, cities, non-governmental actors, and even individuals, that have resulted in some meaningful outcomes. However, the impact of these actions is not enough to meet the Paris Agreement targets.
That is why there are calls for course correction. India was the first to give voice to this demand. In 2024, it argued that focusing on all energies on meeting the temperature targets was a flawed way of dealing with climate change. India said 2-degree Celsius warming would not be the end of the world, and that economic prosperity and development were the best insurance against climate change, as they make populations much more resilient. It emphasised that adaptation needed to be accorded equal priority as mitigation, particularly in developing nations.
India spoke out first, as it is one of the countries that feels most constrained by the compulsion to control its emissions. It is home to one-sixth of humanity, with a very low per capita income. The endeavour to rapidly raise the income and prosperity of its people cannot happen without an increase in emissions.
Although, as a developing nation, India is not expected under the Paris Agreement to immediately start reducing its emissions, not doing so can have other punitive and restrictive implications. The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) introduced by the EU to disincentivise imports of carbon-intensive products is a case in point. India said it was morally wrong to impose the same emission standards on both developing and developed countries.
A few months ago, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, who is an influential funder of climate-friendly technologies, echoed India’s position. He also argued that improving health and sanitation, access to heating and cooling, investments in efficient early warning systems, and reducing poverty and hunger would probably deliver better results on climate change by making people better prepared to face climate impacts.
This line of thinking is gaining increasing acceptance in developing countries and could shape the discourse on climate in the following years.
The China model
The core of the argument is that countries should be free to pursue alternative pathways as per their need and capabilities to tackle climate change.
India, for one, would like to emulate the Chinese trajectory. China is still categorised as a developing nation in the global climate architecture, and that is why it was not expected to make any direct reductions in emissions. During the 30 years that the international climate framework has been in existence, China has been the world’s largest emitter for two decades now. Its annual emissions increased four times from the mid-1990s level. China also amassed massive capacities of clean and renewable energy, more than the rest of the world put together. Amongst large countries, it is currently one of the most electrified economies.
The country has now announced that it was ready to begin reducing its emissions, and set a target of between 7% and 10% from still unspecified peak levels. Considering the massive renewable capacities that it has built up, China is probably now in a position to decarbonise at a faster rate than any of the developed countries has been able to do so far. It will not be a surprise if China achieves a net-zero emission status ahead of developed nations despite setting a target year in 2060. If that happens, China would have achieved its development objectives and climate obligations using a pathway different from that prescribed by the Paris Agreement.
Not every country has the scale, resources and capability of China, but if anyone comes close, it is India. But China is just a good example. Every country would have to find their own suitable pathways. This is the kind of freedom that countries like India have been arguing for.
The Paris Agreement has unleashed thousands of climate actions that have resulted in some meaningful outcomes. (Illustration: Surajit Patro) 
Share
