“They were the home of our ancestors, they are the home of our people today and we want them to remain the home of our people into the future,” Simon Kofe, Tuvalu’s then foreign minister, said in his speech at COPS28 in Glasgow in 2021. “Frankly speaking, there is no dignity to a slow and painful death,” he said, and added, “You might as well bomb our islands instead of making us suffer.”

Kofe’s message to world leaders gathered in Glasgow was short and simple—we need help. We need funds. This is at the heart of the debate on climate change. Kofe was referring to climate justice and reparation funds from the rich industrialised countries responsible for global warming that has hit the developing world for no fault of their own. Their emissions are minimal.

The developed world has grown wealthy with irresponsible emission of CO2 (carbon dioxide responsible for green-house gas) and has to take its share of historic responsibility by helping climate vulnerable nations fight global warming and adopt resilient livelihood. 

“In my opinion, there is real merit to the idea that the richer nations should pay most or more for green technologies used by the developing world, as the richer nations are those most responsible for the historic greenhouse gas emissions that have caused most of the warming to date,’’ says McKenzie Funk, the American author of Windfall, a book on companies using climate change to make booming profits.  

“That India and China are now emitting greater overall emissions doesn't change this historic fact. It's also true that richer nations have simply outsourced many of their emissions by outsourcing their manufacturing, especially to China. Should American consumers be off the hook for emissions simply because the goods they consume are manufactured elsewhere? I think not!’’ he adds.

In the early years of the climate finance debate, developing countries like India and China took the lead in calling for equity and justice for the developing world and looking to those responsible for bringing the earth to its knees pay the price. But as the crisis has worsened, China and India, both energy guzzlers, are also taking responsibility for cleaning up their corner of the planet. The largest emitters today are the US, China and India. 

Scientists say that Tuvalu and many of the island atolls may become uninhabitable by the end of the century. Others in the danger zone are Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu in the Pacific, as well as S?o Tomé and Príncipe in the equatorial Atlantic, and Dominica in the Caribbeans. Nearer home, the Maldives is facing a similar situation. To drive home the point, former president Mohamed Nasheed held a cabinet meeting underwater (2009) to highlight the danger of rising sea levels to his Indian Ocean island nation.

The frequency and rising scale of storms lead to saltwater intrusion into the land, contamination of fresh water sources and destruction of soil. It also impacts the growth of coconut and banana trees. These are the staples of the island nations and bring in revenues through exports. All this is drying up. The shortage of clean drinking water leads to major health issues, especially among children and the elderly. Many of these countries are now fighting back and trying to adjust to climate resilient growth. The World Bank is doing its bit to help the pacific island states.

The UN is leading the charge in the global fight against climate change exhorting all nations to join in the push back. “Climate change is happening now and to all of us. No country or community is immune …. and, as is always the case, the poor and vulnerable are the first to suffer and the worst hit,” UN secretary general Antonio Guterres said recently. The UN is batting for climate justice for the global south.

Countries now realise that action is a must, but the question remains, is it too little too late? Is the glass half-full or half empty? “Direction of travel is right. But the process needs to pick up speed,” says Ulka Kelkar, Bangalore-based executive director climate, WRI India.

The Paris Conference of 2015 was a watershed moment in the world’s fight against global warming. Each nation agreed to fix their Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) to ease emissions. It was also decided in Paris that the richer countries would contribute one billion dollars annually to help poorer developing nations. But money is slow to come by. The fund took off just last year.  

Politicians have realised the danger and countries are trying to get their act together. However, finance remains a major problem. The launch of a “loss and damage fund’’ at the start of the United Nations COP 28 summit is a good start. Developing nations are calling for between $1.1-$1.3 trillion a year in climate finance. Developed countries have so far been unwilling to engage in discussing specific numbers.

The 2024 Climate Change Performance report, an annual international analysis tracking the performance of countries on climate change, released the list of top 10 countries who have done well. Denmark is at number one, Estonia in second place, followed by Philippines, India, Netherlands, Morocco, Sweden, Chile, Norway and Portugal.  

The US, under Joe Biden, has adopted several climate-friendly measures. One of his first acts on becoming president was to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement that Donald Trump had walked out of. The fear now is that many of Biden's initiatives on climate would be scrapped if Trump wins the November presidential elections. Trump believes climate change is a hoax and aims to get manufacturing out of the US to China.

On the face of it, India seems to have done little to fight climate change. Yet it is fourth on the list of this year’s top performers.

India has contributed just about 4 per cent of global historical greenhouse gas emissions. Its current per capita green-house gas emissions are about one-third of the global average. “India, especially since 2014, has been taking climate change very seriously. Prime Minister Modi has brought in an urgency to get things done. India is on course to meet the commitments we have made both in Paris and Glasgow,” says Randhir Jaiswal, India’s foreign office spokesman. 

At the Paris conference of 2015, India had made a number of pledges. One was to reduce emissions intensity of its GDP by 33-35 per cent by 2030 from its 2005 level. The other was to install about 40 per cent electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel-based energy resources by 2030. Jaiswal points out that India has already achieved 33 per cent reduction in emissions of its GDP during 2015-2019, eleven years ahead of target. This was upgraded to 45 per cent in the NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution) in August 2022. 

India now has an installed capacity of 444.75 GW, which includes over 45 per cent of non-fossil energy. Apart from this, solar stands at 84.28 GW, wind-46.42 GW, nuclear 8.18 GW, large hydel power plants 46.93 GW, while smaller plants generate just 5.02 GW. 

India’s pledge is to reach 500 GW non-fossil energy by 2030 and reduce carbon emissions by one billion tonnes by then. India’s global initiatives include the International Solar Alliance, Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI), Global Biofuel Alliance and Leadership Group on Industry Transition. Through the Solar Alliance, India is also helping other developing nations to switch to cleaner energy.

“India is in a unique position to assume a leadership role, provided it does its homework and fights for the global majority,’’ says Debi Goenka, executive director of Conservation Action Trust.

Despite the gloom and doom about global warming, companies and governments around the world are investing in green technology. Chinese investments totaled $546 billion in 2022, while the US figures for the same year is at $141 billion, according to a report in Forbes magazine published last year. Investments in climate technology are booming. Research in green energy is continuing at a furious pace. Many are convinced that the world will soon have the technology needed to overcome global warming. The question remains—will it be just and equitable?