DH Interview| 'Climate risks are rising but India's policy response remains fragmented': Jai Asundi

'Climate risks are rising but India's policy response remains fragmented'

The latest Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change Report 2024 reveals the “record-breaking” health impacts of climate change, including 1.7 million pollution-linked deaths in India as of 2022 and drought affecting 61% of the global land area in 2024. But action remains slow despite broad consensus on the impacts of climate change. Ahead of the 30th Conference of Parties (COP 30) beginning today, Jai Asundi, Executive Director of the Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy, discusses key issues with DH's Chiranjeevi Kulkarni. 

How can we bridge the gap between scientific evidence on climate–health linkages and on-ground policy responses? What role can think tanks play?

Bridging the gap between scientific evidence on climate and health linkages and on-ground policy requires translating research into locally relevant, actionable insights. Despite strong evidence from initiatives such as the Lancet Countdown, policy responses in India remain fragmented because of weak data integration and limited cross-sector coordination.

Think tanks like CSTEP can play a pivotal role by localising global evidence, developing decision-support tools, co-creating pilot projects with state agencies, and building capacity across departments. For instance, we work with policy stakeholders to co-develop models and scenarios, which help them visualise the impacts of different decisions through simulations. We also play the role of bringing together disparate pieces of evidence for a holistic and systems-level strategy-making.

India’s national action plan on climate change was launched in 2008. The government this August said states and UTs have prepared action plans. How prepared are state governments to interpret and act on climate–health data?

Research at the sub-national level is still uneven, with fragmented data systems and weak linkages between health, environment, and disaster management sectors. Few states have built analytical frameworks or surveillance mechanisms to track climate-health indicators. As a result, state plans often remain broad and under-implemented. They also lag behind, as evolving risks and scientific insights at sub-national levels are not generated periodically to inform decision-making.

However, with the help of think tanks, things are moving in the right direction. A wonderful example is Bengaluru, which has formulated a city action plan. The plan is now being downscaled further to the ward level. Recommendations from a national level can be successfully translated into state-, city-, and ward-level actions. It is important to examine models across scales so that action on the ground is aligned with the larger goals of the state and country. 

India and China are recognised for their adoption of green energy solutions. Is India’s research ecosystem keeping pace with the emerging science on end-of-life management for renewable energy components such as solar panels and batteries? How can scientific and industrial research collaborate to anticipate and mitigate the environmental risks of green energy infrastructure?

While there may be data gaps and a lack of evidence from India (considering all these are still new and haven’t reached end-of-life yet), there is a lot of research, on both scientific and industrial fronts, to understand how we must manage this problem when it arises. Not only as a waste management issue but also to recover critical materials that could help reduce import dependency for them. It is an upcoming area of research across institutions and industry.

Why do climate discussions focus mainly on emission cuts, while biodiversity (and climate-based solutions) gets less attention?

Climate change discussions have tended to focus on emission reductions because they are measurable, politically visible, and align with global narratives. But this narrow framing overlooks the critical role of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity in both mitigation and adaptation. Healthy ecosystems—be it forests, wetlands, mangroves, or soils—store carbon, buffer communities against climate impacts, and sustain livelihoods. Despite CBD’s efforts, nature-based and ecosystem-based solutions often fall through the cracks of sectoral and institutional silos that separate climate and biodiversity agendas. We need integrated policies and financing that treat biodiversity not as an add-on but as a foundational element of climate action.

The COP30 is happening 10 years after the Paris Agreement. The US has withdrawn from the agreement. Is there a need for course correction?

Course correction on whose part? Firstly, the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement does not mean climate action has stopped in the country—several states have their own low-carbon policies and are following through quite well. Businesses that have invested in electric mobility and RE are also not going to suddenly withdraw their investments. In terms of other countries doing their bit, that continues to happen, too, based on their capabilities. If the question is about reduced climate finance, the US, even while being a signatory to the Paris Agreement, did not commit much towards that goal.

Why does climate change scepticism persist despite rising climate-linked disasters?

Despite strong scientific evidence linking extreme events to climate change, uncertainty in local attribution and the complex nature of climate science make it easy for doubt to persist. Most citizens are unaware that there is uncertainty in the predictions. It is part of the scientific process. In some cases, economic and political lobbies leverage that uncertainty to protect short-term interests. Additionally, the uneven communication of climate science, especially when not connected to people’s lived experiences, fuels confusion and resistance to acknowledging the scale of the problem.

The Independent High-Level Expert Group established by the G20 sustainable finance working group estimated that developing economies will require $2.4 trillion per year by 2030. That shows a wide gap between real needs and the "ambitious" finance goals ($1 trillion pa) set by the UNFCCC in Baku. How can that gap be bridged?

Bridging this finance gap requires moving beyond traditional public funding towards innovative and blended finance models that leverage private capital. Multilateral development banks must take on greater risk-sharing roles, while reforms in the global financial architecture can make climate finance more accessible and equitable. Aligning domestic policies with climate priorities, improving project pipelines, and ensuring transparency and accountability in fund use can attract investment. 

We have seen the dismal response by the developed world when it comes to climate funding. A $300 billion-a-year goal by 2035 was promised against the expected $1 trillion. India had then expressed its frustration. Can we expect to reach at least the $300-billion goal?

Reaching even the $300-billion goal is a challenge without a major shift in the global political will. Developed countries have consistently fallen short of commitments, and current pledges remain fragmented. Achieving this target demands stronger accountability, clearer timelines, and mechanisms to mobilise private and concessional finance at scale, especially for adaptation needs. We need to keep up the pressure.

How does volatility in global politics (the Ukraine War, the genocide in Gaza and the civil war in Sudan) affect climate action beyond the borders of the unrest?

It comes in the way of global cooperation at a time when countries are already looking more inwards. It disrupts supply chains, especially with other countries taking sides, forcing some short-term fossil fuel rebounds (like in the EU, for example, for energy security). So, in many ways, conflicts are always a problem and have repercussions far beyond where they occur.