A decade after its adoption, the Paris Agreement is facing a moment of serious introspection. Unlike the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which began to unravel within a few years, the Paris framework is not under immediate threat of collapse. Yet its credibility as the principal treaty to organise an effective global response to climate change is increasingly being questioned — particularly by developing countries that feel constrained rather than enabled by it.
Why the Paris Agreement is under scrutiny
The growing unease did not begin with the US withdrawal from the in early 2025, though that episode exposed deep structural weaknesses. Over time, developing countries realised that while the Agreement imposed obligations — such as mandatory climate action plans, emissions inventories, and transparency requirements — it fell short on delivering the promised finance, technology transfer, and capacity-building support.
At the same time, countries found their policy space narrowing. Energy choices, industrial strategies, and development pathways increasingly appeared constrained by global climate expectations that did not sufficiently account for income levels, poverty reduction needs, or historical responsibility.
COP30 and the assertion of developing-country power
This shift in sentiment became visible at COP30 in Belém, Brazil. A group of large developing economies — including China, India, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil — succeeded in pushing two long-standing demands into the final outcome. They also blocked attempts by the European Union and others to introduce explicit language on fossil fuel phase-out.
The episode marked a clear change in power dynamics. In the absence of the US, large developing countries demonstrated that they could shape outcomes rather than merely react to them. China emerged as the most influential actor, positioning itself as a potential leader in global climate negotiations as it prepares to begin cutting its own emissions.
The Paris model and its fragile assumptions
The Paris Agreement is built around a mitigation-centric framework. It seeks to limit global temperature rise to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels, preferably to 1.5°C, on the premise that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will prevent catastrophic climate impacts.
While the Agreement recognises that countries have differing responsibilities and capabilities, it ultimately relies on voluntary national commitments and collective goodwill. The past decade has shown how fragile this assumption is. When responsibility is universal but enforcement is weak, accountability tends to dissipate.
From Kyoto to Paris: a deliberate redesign
This outcome was not accidental. The Paris Agreement was consciously designed as a departure from the Kyoto Protocol under the . Kyoto placed binding emission-reduction targets on a limited group of developed countries, reflecting the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR–RC).
Developed countries soon found this model politically inconvenient. The US never ratified Kyoto, and over time, developed nations worked to replace it with a framework where climate action became a voluntary obligation for all. Paris achieved this shift, converting a legally differentiated system into one of shared but non-binding responsibility.
When climate responsibility becomes diluted
The results have been sobering. The world remains far off track in meeting its 2030 emissions targets. History offers few examples of sustained global cooperation on complex challenges. Even the response to the COVID-19 pandemic was largely nationalistic. The 1988 Montreal Protocol on ozone depletion remains a rare success, but it involved far smaller economic trade-offs than climate mitigation.
This gap between ambition and outcomes has triggered calls not for abandoning Paris, but for correcting its course.
India’s argument: development as resilience
India was among the first to articulate this critique clearly. In 2024, it argued that an excessive fixation on temperature targets was a flawed approach. A 2°C rise, it maintained, would not make the planet uninhabitable, and economic development itself was a crucial form of climate insurance by improving resilience.
India stressed that adaptation must receive equal priority with mitigation, especially for developing nations. With one-sixth of humanity and low per capita income, India argued that rapid poverty reduction and rising prosperity cannot occur without an increase in emissions in the near term.
Carbon discipline beyond climate negotiations
Although developing countries are not formally required under Paris to cut emissions immediately, failure to do so carries indirect penalties. Trade instruments such as the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism impose carbon-linked costs on exports, effectively enforcing rich-country climate standards on poorer economies.
India has described this as morally unjust, arguing that uniform emission benchmarks ignore historical responsibility. Influential voices, including Bill Gates, have echoed this view, suggesting that investments in health, sanitation, early warning systems, and poverty reduction may deliver stronger climate outcomes by strengthening societal resilience.
The China pathway as an alternative
The emerging argument is not against climate action, but against a single prescribed pathway. China offers a compelling example. Classified as a developing country, it faced no binding reduction obligations even as its emissions quadrupled since the mid-1990s. At the same time, it built the world’s largest renewable energy capacity and became one of the most electrified major economies.
China has now announced that it is ready to begin reducing emissions, targeting a 7–10% cut from peak levels. Given its scale and clean-energy base, it could decarbonise faster than many developed nations and possibly reach net zero before them, despite a formal target of 2060.
What this debate means for the future of climate governance
Not every country has China’s scale or capacity, but India comes closer than most. The broader demand from developing nations is for policy autonomy — the freedom to pursue climate strategies aligned with national realities rather than conforming to a uniform global template.
The Paris Agreement may endure as a diplomatic umbrella, but its dominance as the sole organising framework for climate action is weakening. What is emerging instead is a more plural and contested climate order, where development, adaptation, and differentiated pathways are likely to play a far greater role.
What to note for Prelims?
- Paris Agreement and its objectives.
- Kyoto Protocol and CBDR–RC principle.
- Role of UNFCCC and COPs.
- Difference between mitigation and adaptation.
What to note for Mains?
- Critically assess the limitations of the Paris Agreement after a decade.
- Discuss the tension between climate mitigation and development needs.
- Analyse the impact of carbon-linked trade measures on developing countries.
- Evaluate alternative climate pathways using China and India as examples.
