Category: Op-ed

Heat Action Plans across cities will fail because they are not backed by money & they don’t factor in local conditions. Heatwaves must be classified as natural disasters, with legally binding solutions.

The heatwave of 2024 had a devastating impact in most parts of the country. While we will never know the exact number of fatalities, thanks to factors like underreporting and the narrow criteria for recording heat-related deaths, anecdotal evidence suggests they must be in thousands.

For example, in just three days, between June 18 and 20, Delhi Police recovered more than 50 bodies, mostly homeless individuals, as extreme heat swept across the city.

This year’s heatwave is also predicted to be severe. IMD has forecast higher-than-usual temperatures from April to June, with increased heatwave days across large parts of the country. The question is: How prepared are we to deal with the deadly impact of extreme heat in 2025?

First, awareness of heatwaves has increased significantly in recent years. Consequently, GOI has responded on two fronts to support states and cities in developing action plans. Ministry of health and family welfare has released a National Action Plan on Heat-Related Illnesses to capacitate hospitals to manage heat-affected patients.

Additionally, the National Heat-Related Illness and Death Surveillance system has been put in place to track health impacts. However, its data is generally not made public. For instance, we still do not have official figures for heat-related deaths in 2024.

NDMA, on the other hand, is assisting states, districts and cities in developing Heat Action Plans (HAPs). Recently, NDMA has asked all states, including those in the Himalayas, to develop HAPs and implement preventive measures. Reportedly, NDMA plans to introduce 300 more HAPs at the city level. HAPs are now the primary tool for mitigating the impact of heatwaves in cities and districts. But how effectively are these action plans being implemented, and can they save lives and livelihoods?

To find the answer, my colleagues and I undertook a comprehensive assessment of HAPs in nine cities and five districts, including Delhi, Gorakhpur, Vellore, Bhubaneswar and Surat. Our assessment reveals serious shortcomings in the design and implementation of HAPs. Here are the three key findings:

• HAPs are generic action plans. They fail to consider local factors such as urban heat islands, critical infra, resource availability, and other built environment factors. Hence, most HAPs cannot accurately assess how heatwaves will affect people, infra and essential services. Without localised impact assessments, authorities cannot correctly map vulnerable populations or prepare for cascading failures in critical infra such as water supply, energy, transportation, and public health services. This is precisely what happened in 2024 in many cities when electricity and water supply failed and hospitals were overburdened.
• Addressing heatwaves requires upgraded infra — cooling shelters, water access points, emergency medical facilities and 24/7 electricity supply — as well as additional resources and personnel. No Indian city has mapped out its resource requirements. Consequently, cities have not allocated dedicated funds for HAP implementation. For example, Delhi’s HAP does not have a budget, rendering it little more than paperwork.
• The impact of heatwaves can be mitigated by reducing urban heat islands and promoting cool buildings. But NDMA guidelines lack a clear framework for integrating these strategies into HAPs. No Indian city has developed a comprehensive cooling strategy that includes building code revisions, sustainable urban design, and expanded access to cool public spaces.

From the study, it is clear that our approach to heatwave mitigation requires an urgent overhaul. We, therefore, have recommended three immediate steps for policymakers:

New classification system needed | The current definition of heatwaves is based solely on maximum day-time temperatures, ignoring crucial factors like humidity and night-time temperatures.Last year’s experience suggests that high night-time temperatures may have caused significant harm, as people could not recover from the day-time heat stress.

Similarly, the “Feels Like” temperature, which combines heat and humidity to provide a more accurate measure of heat stress, is not considered when issuing warnings. For instance, from June 20 to 26 last year, Delhi experienced seven consecutive days with a “Feels Like” temperature exceeding 50°C, which is considered hazardous. However, because the maximum day-time temperature remained below 40°C, IMD did not classify these days as official heatwave days. We need a new classification system that incorporates high day-time and night-time temperatures and the “Feels Like” temperature to trigger early warnings effectively.

Heatwaves as natural disasters | Unlike cyclones and floods, heatwaves are not officially classified as natural disasters under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. This prevents states from accessing crucial disaster relief funds. Recognising heatwaves as natural disasters will unlock resources and improve coordination across agencies.

Focused & legally binding solutions | NDMA must revise its guidelines to make HAPs actionable, city-specific and legally binding. This includes defining financial provisions, mandating infra upgrades, and integrating heat mitigation into urban planning. Cities must move beyond vague recommendations and develop real Heat and Cooling Action Plans (HCAPs) that focus on reducing temperatures, providing sustainable cooling solutions, and ensuring rescue and relief from the heat.

As the climate crisis intensifies, half-measures will no longer suffice. Heatwaves are now among the deadliest natural hazards facing the country. Without immediate and comprehensive reforms, the next heatwave will bring not just unbearable temperatures but also another avoidable tragedy.

Baku conference has shown up the glaring inadequacy of the international climate framework and the deep mistrust among nations. Bad news for the fight against climate change

Mahatma Gandhi’s famous critique of the Cripps Mission in 1942—describing its proposal as “a post-dated cheque on a crashing bank”—perfectly captures the essence of the climate finance deal adopted at COP29, the recent UN climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan. However, there is one crucial difference: while Cripp’s figurative cheque was decisively rejected, the Baku finance deal, despite criticism from several nations, including India, was adopted. This highlights the broader failures of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and global efforts to address the climate crisis.

The Baku conference began with developing countries demanding $1.3 trillion in annual funding from developed nations by 2030 to tackle the climate emergency. Their proposal called for at least $500 billion in public funding, with the remainder provided as concessional private finance.

Yet, after two weeks of contentious negotiations, developed countries committed to only $300 billion annually by 2035, with no binding pledge for public funding. Instead, the deal vaguely promises to source funds from “a wide variety of sources, public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources.”

Worse still, the agreement permits developed countries to include climate-related loans from multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank, as part of the funding pool. This means developed nations are under no obligation to increase funding beyond the current $100 billion annually until 2035. Moreover, they retain the freedom to count virtually any climate-related financial flow to developing countries as part of their contributions.

The political future of this deal is equally uncertain, as there is little chance that the incoming Trump administration will honour the commitments made by the Biden administration.

In essence, the Baku deal offers little more than a continuation of the status quo, allowing developed nations to sidestep meaningful financial obligations while leaving developing countries to shoulder the escalating costs of the climate crisis.

However, this is not surprising. In 2009, developed countries pledged $100 billion annually in climate finance by 2020. They met this target in 2022, and even then, nearly 70% of the funds were provided as loans at market rates, burdening developing nations with debt. Expecting trillions from nations that struggled to deliver billions was always unrealistic. So, how should developing countries secure meaningful climate finance?

The path forward requires fundamental  reforms in the  global financial system to empower developing countries to deal with the climate crisis and revamping the UNFCCC to enable effective international collaboration.

The current global financial system is stacked against vulnerable nations. Poor African countries, for instance, pay interest rates on loans that are four times higher than those paid by the U.S. and up to eight times higher than those paid by wealthy European countries. This disparity is being exacerbated by the climate crisis.

A report by the UN Environment Programme, Climate Change and the Cost of Capital in Developing Countries, found that climate vulnerability has already increased the average cost of debt in 25 vulnerable developing countries by 117 basis points. This translates to an additional $40 billion in interest payments over 10 years on government debt in these countries alone. This means developing nations are currently paying hundreds of billions of dollars to wealthy countries and their banks due to climate risks. The report predicts that this financial burden will double over the next decade. In effect, the current financial system is profiting from their climate vulnerability.

To address this injustice, several proposals, including those advanced during India’s G20 presidency, have been on the agenda for years. These include measures like debt crisis management, multilateral development bank reforms, risk mitigation programmes, and blended finance strategies. Implementing these reforms would enable developing countries to invest more in mitigation and adaptation using their own resources.   

Reforms within the UNFCCC are equally urgent. At Baku, India accused the COP Presidency and the UNFCCC Secretariat of manipulating the process to secure the adoption of the finance deal, reflecting a deep trust deficit in the institution. Additionally, the growing influence of the fossil fuel industry in UNFCCC proceedings threatens its credibility and relevance.

The reality is that under the Paris Agreement, all countries are now on their own to mitigate, adapt and pay for the costs of climate impacts. The UNFCCC is now simply a platform to collect, synthesize and disseminate information. It doesn’t have the tools to drive global collective action to combat climate change. So, persisting with UNFCCC in the present form is counterproductive.

There are many ideas on the table including making UNFCCC a smaller solution-driven forum where countries report their progress and are held accountable to their pledges. Other suggestions include establishing multiple sectoral and regional platforms, such as on energy, transportation, agriculture, industry etc., rather than relying on a single global framework.

The Baku conference has laid bare the glaring weaknesses of the international climate framework and the deep mistrust among nations. It is now up to Brazil, the host of COP30, to restore trust and drive meaningful progress. Without decisive reforms, the global fight against climate change risks being mired in inadequacy and inaction, with all the attendant hazards for life on earth.

Trump’s re-election is a stark wake-up call for all nations. They must increase their climate finance and mitigation targets for 2035 and beyond without relying on Washington

The 29th UN Climate Conference (COP29), held in Baku, Azerbaijan, from November 11 to 22, has opened under ominous circumstances. The re-election of Donald Trump as U.S. president looms over the event, reviving memories of his first term, when he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, halted climate funding, and significantly slowed international climate progress. During those years, the U.S. largely stood on the sidelines, often obstructing negotiations through proxies. Aside from partial progress at COP24 in Katowice in 2018—where the “rulebook” for implementing the Paris Agreement was advanced—Trump’s presidency was largely a setback for climate action.

Now, as global leaders gather in Baku, they face the possibility of similar inaction and obstruction from the U.S. The pressing question, therefore, is whether the world can afford another four years of inaction. If not, what strategies should countries pursue to advance international climate goals independently of the U.S.?

Falling Short: Recent data from international agencies reveal that, despite record-breaking investments in clean energy, the world remains off track to meet the Paris Agreement targets. In 2023, nearly $2 trillion was invested in clean energy projects—almost twice the amount invested in new oil, gas, and coal infrastructure. Yet, current policies and investments are leading the world toward a dangerous trajectory, with global temperatures likely to increase by more than 3°C.

This shortfall is largely due to the inadequate emission reduction efforts by G20 countries, which collectively account for roughly 80% of global greenhouse gas emissions. A UN Environment Programme assessment shows that several major economies—including the U.S., Canada, Japan, Australia, China, and Saudi Arabia—are not on course to meet their 2030 emission-reduction pledges, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). While countries like India are projected to meet their NDCs, their overall emissions are expected to increase as they expand energy use to support basic development needs.

Against this backdrop, COP29 in Baku must tackle three interlinked priorities: scaling up climate finance, establishing effective carbon market rules, and setting the next phase of NDCs for 2035 and beyond.

Climate Finance: Dubbed the “Finance COP,” COP29’s primary focus is on climate finance. The conference is tasked with setting a new climate finance target, known as the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), to support vulnerable and developing countries in combating climate change. This NCQG is intended to replace the previous target established in 2009, when developed nations committed to providing $100 billion annually by 2020. However, independent assessments reveal that this $100 billion goal was only reached in 2022, two years late, and much of the funding was in the form of loans, which has exacerbated debt burdens in many developing countries. The current need for climate finance is now far greater than in 2009.

A recent UN evaluation estimates that developing countries require around $500 billion annually, with some other projections suggesting that over $1 trillion is needed each year. At COP29 in Baku, developed countries must agree on the scope of the NCQG in a way that meets the needs of developing nations. Yet, with Trump’s U.S. unlikely to contribute significantly, the question remains: What will other developed countries offer? Will Baku see only a symbolic financial pledge, or will it result in substantial funding to spur global climate action?

Carbon Trading: Closely tied to climate finance is the contentious issue of carbon markets. In recent years, carbon markets have been a focal point in negotiations due to their mixed impact. On the one hand, they have potential to generate funding for climate mitigation; on the other, issues like fraudulent accounting and greenwashing have undermined their credibility. These concerns stalled agreement on carbon market rules in the past few COPs, but Baku is expected to finalize and operationalize these rules to restore trust and ensure integrity.

Setting New Targets: While many countries are not on track to meet their 2030 NDCs, new targets for 2035 are required by early 2025. COP29 is likely the last major opportunity to clarify expectations for post-2030 climate targets. These goals, however, are intertwined with outcomes on climate finance and carbon markets. An ambitious NCQG would allow developing countries to commit to higher targets, while a robust and transparent carbon market could empower developed countries to set more ambitious targets through emissions offsetting.

While COP29 in Baku is an important milestone, the odds of achieving an ambitious outcome appear slim considering the likely backtracking by the US. In addition, Azerbaijan, a significant oil and gas producer, is not known for climate leadership, so expectations must be tempered.

The key question facing the world now is how to drive global climate action without relying heavily on the US. I believe that over-reliance on U.S. leadership has been the main reason for the shortcomings of global climate progress. The US has never been a climate leader. Since 1992, when the first global climate agreement was signed, the US emissions have only reduced by 3%, meaning they have remained virtually unchanged in the last three decades. Furthermore, the U.S. has not been a major contributor to climate finance, often falling short on its commitments.

Trump’s re-election should, therefore, be a stark wake-up call, highlighting the need for a more diverse, multipolar approach to climate leadership. Just as global power structures are evolving into a multipolar landscape, climate governance must follow suit. Countries like China, India, the EU, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil are well-positioned to champion climate action within their respective regions, fostering a more resilient and collective approach.

By distributing climate leadership across multiple nations, the world has a better chance to unify and make substantial progress on this existential crisis, without being stalled by any one country’s political shifts.