Don't see any reason to scale back our domestic targets

India's current climate policies are projected to reduce CO2 emissions by almost 4 billion tonnes between 2020 and 2030. However, developed countries have adopted a much slower approach to emissions reduction, which may see a further downtrend with the US likely to cut down its target. ARUNABHA GHOSH, CEO of the Council for Energy Environment and Water, a leading global think tank based out of New Delhi, speaks to S Dinakar in a video interview on climate-related issues ahead of the annual UN climate summit COP29, which starts in Azerbaijan's capital, Baku, on November 11. Edited excerpts:

- ARUNABHA GHOSH, CEO of the Council for Energy Environment and Water speaks to S Dinakar

Does Donald Trump's victory change the outlook for climate change mitigation and financing at COP29?

Let's look at it historically. Even under the previous Trump administration, India's own renewable energy deployment and its ambitions kept rising. I don't see any reason why our domestic targets should scale back. Even the latest CEA (Central Electricity Authority) report is now looking at not just 500 gigawatt (Gw) (of renewables) by 2030, but 600 Gw by 2032, which presents an additional investment opportunity of around $100 billion. I do not see scaling back. I'm only seeing the direction of travel, and the potential to scale up the ambition overall.

And financing?

The other aspect is financing. Not a single developed country has delivered what they committed to climate financing, even that is inadequate to what is needed. India's own submissions, as well as the numbers that have come from independent expert groups, all suggest that about $1 trillion is needed annually from international sources to meet the $2.5 trillion annual target of climate finance that the developing countries need.

As COP29 starts and the debate around the new collective quantified goal for climate finance gains prominence, my worry is about what the collateral damage would be in terms of the ambitions and acceleration of what other countries do, as well as the money that is promised. Especially, if the largest historical polluter sends signals that they would neither provide the money nor speed up what's happening domestically.