India today draws nearly half of its installed electricity generation capacity from non-fossil fuel sources — a milestone that signals a serious shift in its energy trajectory. Yet, the debate at recent climate negotiations shows that translating this achievement into a full fossil fuel phase-out is far from straightforward, shaped as much by geopolitics and finance as by technology.
India’s non-fossil milestone and the unfinished transition
India’s progress in building solar, wind, hydro, and nuclear capacity is widely acknowledged. However, installed capacity does not automatically translate into reliable, round-the-clock power. Coal continues to anchor India’s energy security, particularly during peak demand and non-solar hours. The challenge, therefore, is not merely expanding clean capacity but replacing fossil fuels without disrupting growth, employment, and affordability.
What happened at COP30?
At the latest climate conference under the UN framework — COP30 — India successfully resisted the inclusion of any explicit fossil fuel phase-out language in the final communiqué. This stance was backed by China, Russia, and oil-exporting countries. Simultaneously, developing nations extracted a political commitment from developed countries to triple adaptation finance.
The absence of the United States from the negotiations mattered. Had it been present, many negotiators believe even the adaptation funding language may not have survived. Around 80 countries, largely climate-vulnerable and European, formally protested the omission of fossil fuel phase-out references.
The Paris Agreement paradox
The final COP30 document reaffirmed commitment to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. However, this is where a structural contradiction emerges. To stay on track, global carbon emissions must fall by roughly 55% by 2035. In reality, emissions are still rising.
Even under optimistic assumptions — full implementation of all Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) — emissions may fall only 10–12% by 2035. That gap can be bridged only through massive financial and technology transfers to developing countries, something the developed world remains reluctant to deliver at scale.
Sector-wise limits of decarbonisation
Globally, fossil fuels account for emissions across multiple sectors:
- About 40% from power generation
- Roughly 21% from transport
- Nearly 20% from industry and manufacturing
Clean power solutions exist — renewables and nuclear — but both come with constraints. Nuclear energy faces high capital costs and fuel limitations, especially for countries like India. Renewables require heavy investment, land, grid upgrades, and storage solutions. The COP28 call to triple renewable capacity by 2030 is therefore far more ambitious than it appears on paper.
Electric mobility: promise and constraints
Electric vehicles are central to decarbonising transport, yet adoption remains uneven. India’s electric car penetration is still below 3%. High upfront costs, battery supply-chain risks, limited charging infrastructure, safety concerns, and low resale value slow adoption.
There is also an overlooked energy reality: charging EVs during non-solar hours often relies on coal-based power. Without deep decarbonisation of the grid, EVs merely shift emissions from tailpipes to power plants.
Industry and the green hydrogen dilemma
Heavy industries such as cement, aluminium, and iron and steel are among the hardest to abate. They require continuous, high-temperature heat — something intermittent renewables struggle to provide. Green hydrogen offers a theoretical solution, but global production is less than 1% of hydrogen supply and remains prohibitively expensive.
This makes rapid fossil fuel elimination in industry unrealistic in the short to medium term, particularly for developing economies undergoing industrial expansion.
Europe’s credibility problem
The , often the loudest advocate of fossil fuel phase-out, still consumed around 10,600 terawatt-hours of fossil energy in 2024 — nearly 8% of global consumption. France and Germany alone account for about one-third of EU fossil fuel use.
Many EU countries peaked emissions decades ago and arguably should already be net-zero. This weakens their moral authority when urging faster transitions in countries that are still industrialising.
Pragmatism versus ambition in climate politics
Phasing out fossil fuels is undeniably necessary. But climate diplomacy increasingly reveals a tension between ambition and feasibility. Without concessional finance, technology sharing, and realistic timelines, developing countries see fossil fuel phase-out demands as disconnected from ground realities.
India’s position reflects this pragmatism: pushing clean energy expansion aggressively, while resisting rigid phase-out commitments that ignore economic and developmental constraints.
What to note for Prelims?
- India has ~50% non-fossil installed power capacity.
- COP30 avoided explicit fossil fuel phase-out language.
- Paris Agreement target: limit warming to 1.5°C.
- NDCs: Nationally Determined Contributions.
- Green hydrogen currently <1% of global hydrogen production.
What to note for Mains?
- Challenges of fossil fuel phase-out for developing economies.
- Gap between Paris targets and current emission trajectories.
- Sector-wise constraints in power, transport, and industry.
- Role of climate finance and adaptation funding.
- Equity and credibility issues in global climate negotiations.
