In India, climate change is not an abstract debate over emissions targets but a lived crisis of water—visible in erratic monsoons, groundwater depletion, floods, droughts, and mounting pressure on agriculture, cities, and ecosystems. With nearly half the population dependent on climate-sensitive livelihoods, water becomes the primary channel through which climate risks destabilise the economy and deepen inequality.
In his latest book, Backstage Climate: The Science and Politics Behind Climate Change, Rajan Mehta advances an uncomfortable but clear proposition: the climate crisis today reflects not a failure of science, but of political economy. As this interview reveals, India’s climate decisions are shaped less by scientific uncertainty than by fiscal dependence on fossil fuels, employment structures, and institutional risk aversion—forces that consistently dilute urgency into caution.
A critical thread running through his analysis is water. Mehta situates India’s often-criticised negotiating stance within a longer history of unequal development and unfulfilled commitments on climate finance and technology from the developed world. He argues that expecting developing economies to rapidly exit fossil fuels—without credible pathways for revenue substitution, job transitions, and energy security—is neither politically feasible nor socially sustainable.
Rather than treating climate action as an externally imposed constraint, Mehta calls for reframing it as an opportunity to strengthen domestic capabilities, accelerate adaptation, and reduce long-term vulnerability. For a water-stressed country like India, he warns, the economic and social costs of delay may ultimately far exceed the costs of transition.
In an interview with India Water Portal, Rajan Mehta explains how India’s climate decisions are shaped less by scientific uncertainty than by political economy—fiscal dependence on fossil fuels, employment realities, institutional constraints, water stress, and unequal global responsibilities.
You argue that climate change is no longer primarily a scientific challenge but a political one. In the Indian context, where do political constraints most visibly outweigh scientific urgency?
Like every other nation, India’s political economy impacts many decisions.
Addressing climate change requires us to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. However, the Indian government gets around 15 percent of its revenue from fossil fuels. This comes by way of customs duty, cess, profits of public sector oil, gas and coal companies, license fee for exploration, income tax paid by refineries and other companies dealing in fossil fuels, amongst others.
Now imagine if the government was to ban fossil fuels. It would lose this revenue. How would it then meet its budgetary expenses? Where will it get the money from for public health, education and other expenses?
Moreso, addressing climate change needs us to shut thermal power plants and make fresh investments in clean power. With already constrained financial resources, the government finds it prudent to invest this money towards regular development instead, as besides meeting people’s aspirations such investments lend a better political dividend.
Then there are social issues to contend with, which could have political repercussions as well. The fossil fuels industry provides over 4 million direct jobs in India, which are largely concentrated in three states. Imagine what will happen to the families if their bread winners were to lose their jobs. What will be the political repercussions?
The Indian Railways employs close to 1.3 million people. Over 50 percent of the profits of Indian Railways come from coal freight. These profits would evaporate if India was to shut its thermal power plants. Indian Railways would go into loses. The survival of its employees would come under pressure. No politician is willing to take such a decision and risk his political career.
While scientific logic is telling us to close thermal power plants and stop coal mining, political and economic considerations are compelling us to maintain status quo.
The challenge lies in the way we are approaching climate change. Climate Change is seen as an issue that has been thrust into our laps. If we look at it as an opportunity instead to re-energize our economy, while at the same time rejuvenate our planet, the tables will turn.
Loss of government revenue from fossil fuels can be compensated by the precious foreign exchange we will save by avoiding import of fossil fuels. Clean electricity from renewable sources like solar and wind is now cheaper than thermal power. The savings can be invested elsewhere, thus giving a boost to the economy. People in the fossil fuels and related industries whose jobs are threatened can be retrained and transitioned to cleaner energy jobs. The transition to clean energy would create many additional jobs as well. This shows the task to address climate change is not insurmountable if there is a long-term political will.
India is frequently framed internationally as resisting stronger climate commitments. Is this resistance, or a rational response to unequal development and historical responsibility?
It is widely accepted that climate change has largely been caused by developed nations, which were the first to harness fossil fuels to build their economies, societies, and militaries. The emissions from this long period of fossil fuel use have accumulated in the atmosphere, leading to global warming and climate change.
Now that the link between fossil fuels and climate change is clear, developed countries are calling on all nations to cut emissions and stop adding to the atmospheric stock. While this approach is valid, it has a fundamental problem. Developed countries have already raised living standards and improved quality of life using fossil fuels, while developing countries like India are only beginning their growth journey. Improving the lives of our people requires energy, and India’s current energy mix remains largely thermal. An immediate shift to clean energy is constrained by technological, financial, social, political, and energy security considerations.
It is therefore unreasonable for the developed world to pressure developing countries to abandon fossil fuels and deny their populations a better quality of life, after having achieved their own prosperity through the same means. If developed nations expect such a transition, they must provide the necessary finance and technology. In this context, India’s position reflects unequal development and historical responsibility rather than resistance.
That said, despite being among the lowest per capita emitters, India is highly vulnerable to climate impacts due to its geography. With over 50 percent of the population dependent on agriculture, climate shocks pose serious economic risks. India must therefore continue reducing emissions while safeguarding climate stability.
Global climate negotiations are shaped by power more than principle. Where does India wield real leverage today, and where is it structurally disadvantaged?
Power and influence shape global climate negotiations more than principle. Finance, technology, and geopolitics are the main levers. Developed countries control capital and advanced technologies, allowing them to set the pace and terms of climate action. China, meanwhile, holds leverage through rare earth resources and manufacturing dominance in clean technologies. Geopolitics further shapes alliances that often operate in closed groupings.
India, unfortunately, lacks comparable financial depth, does not possess all required technologies domestically, and is not embedded in a major geopolitical alliance that can ease its climate transition.
What India does have is an enormous market—and a significant opportunity. To meet its growth ambitions, India must build nearly double its existing infrastructure in the coming decades: clean energy systems, roads, dams, buildings, factories, machinery, and consumer goods. This scale positions India as a central destination for global clean technology providers, climate-focused funds, and innovation, not only for investment but also for research and development, supported by India’s large talent pool.
At the same time, India must strengthen its own research and manufacturing capacities to serve both domestic and global markets. Climate change should be viewed as an opportunity to leapfrog into a clean and green economy.
India has created multiple climate institutions and action plans. In your view, what is the single biggest institutional reform needed to move from targets to outcomes?
Climate is a complex issue and needs multiple initiatives and institutions to address it. There is no silver bullet or one institution that can single handedly address the issue. Climate action must be laced with commerce to make it successful. We have to unleash entrepreneurial energy and make finance available so that clean projects can be pursued.
A carbon credit market could be a good tool in this effort. A robust and efficient carbon credits market would help bring in climate finance and encourage projects that address climate change. It will encourage entrepreneurs to launch clean businesses. The carbon credits should cover both voluntary and compliance markets with an empowered regulator in place, who ensures transparency, and an annually reducing national carbon emissions budget, so that the noose on carbon emissions keeps progressively tightening.
Climate finance is often presented as the missing link. For India, is the deeper challenge the availability of finance, or the political economy governing how that finance flows?
Both, availability of finance and the way it flows are a challenge, but if I was to pick one, I would say it is climate finance.
Climate projects are still in their infancy. The risks are not fully understood. Monitoring, progress reviews and verification of results are sketchy. A clear taxonomy has not yet emerged. To top it, many projects such as carbon removal do not have a clear business model with economic returns. This makes climate finance difficult and expensive, which in turn makes many projects unviable. The answer lies in clearing some of the above hurdles and syndicating a blended capital stack for climate projects, which includes patient equity, debt, grants and other non-dilutive capital.
If Indian policymakers, business leaders, and citizens take away just one uncomfortable insight from Backstage Climate, what should it be?
India is vulnerable to climate disasters because of its geography. Our economy too could get rattled by them, as close to half our population depends upon agriculture for its living and, unfortunately agriculture would be the first one to be impacted by climate change.
While we hope there is never a climate disaster anywhere, if it happens in the developed world, they have the systems, money and technology to take care of it. God forbid, if it happens in the developing world, we have nothing to help us. Our best course is to protect nature and prevent climate change. We can achieve this by reducing emissions, conserving nature and not emulating the west for their wasteful consumption habits.