Why phasing out fossil fuels remains India’s toughest climate dilemma

India has crossed a significant milestone: nearly half of its installed electricity generation capacity now comes from non-fossil fuel sources. Yet, the harder question looms large — how quickly, and how realistically, can the country phase out fossil fuels altogether? The debate came into sharp focus at COP30, where India successfully resisted language on fossil fuel phase-out while extracting a tentative commitment from developed countries to scale up adaptation finance. The outcome reflects not denial of climate risks, but a growing insistence on realism in the global energy transition.

What India achieved — and blocked — at COP30

At COP30, India managed two key outcomes. First, the final communique avoided any explicit reference to a fossil fuel phase-out plan. Second, developing countries secured a political signal — albeit vague — on tripling adaptation funding. On the fossil fuel question, India found support from China, Russia and oil-rich states, while the US, despite its absence, aligned broadly with this position.

This resistance drew criticism. Around 80 countries protested the omission, arguing that climate credibility demands a clear fossil fuel exit plan. But the disagreement exposed a deeper fault line: calling for a phase-out without specifying how, when, and with what resources risks becoming symbolic rather than actionable.

The disconnect between temperature goals and emissions reality

The final COP30 text reaffirmed commitment to the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Yet the arithmetic does not add up. To stay on track, global carbon emissions would need to fall by about 55% by 2035. In reality, emissions are still rising.

Even under the most optimistic scenario — where all countries fully implement their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) — global emissions may fall by only 10–12% by 2035. Achieving deeper cuts would require massive financial and technology transfers to developing countries, which have not materialised at scale.

Why fossil fuels still dominate the global economy

Despite rapid growth in renewables, fossil fuels remain deeply embedded in modern economies. Globally, they account for about 40% of power-sector emissions, 21% from transport, and roughly 20% from manufacturing and industry.

Renewables and nuclear energy can address emissions from electricity generation, but both come with constraints. Nuclear power involves high capital costs and fuel limitations — particularly for countries like India. Renewable energy demands heavy upfront investment, and many countries with high renewable potential struggle to attract sufficient finance. Even the widely endorsed COP28 call to triple renewable capacity by 2030 is far more challenging than it appears on paper.

Transport and industry: the hard-to-abate sectors

In transport, electric vehicles (EVs) are central to decarbonisation strategies. But adoption remains uneven. China is a notable success story; India is not. Electric cars account for less than 3% of India’s vehicle fleet. High upfront costs, battery supply-chain risks, charging infrastructure gaps, safety concerns and weak resale value continue to slow adoption. Moreover, EV charging during non-solar hours often relies on fossil-fuel-based electricity, diluting emissions gains.

Industry presents an even tougher challenge. Sectors such as cement, aluminium, and iron and steel require continuous high-temperature processes and stable power supply — conditions that renewables alone cannot yet meet. Green hydrogen could help, but it remains prohibitively expensive and accounts for less than 1% of global hydrogen production.

The Europe paradox in the fossil fuel debate

Ironically, some of the strongest calls for fossil fuel phase-out come from regions that still consume large volumes of them. The European Union used around 10,600 terawatt-hours of fossil fuels in 2024 — nearly 8% of global consumption. France and Germany alone account for roughly a third of the EU’s fossil fuel use.

Many European countries peaked their emissions decades ago. By that logic, they should already be close to net zero. Yet they are not. This gap between rhetoric and reality strengthens the argument of developing countries that timelines must reflect feasibility, not just ambition.

India’s core argument: realism, not retreat

India’s position is not that fossil fuels should remain indefinitely. Rather, it argues that phasing them out is easier to declare than to implement — especially over the next two to three decades. Development needs, energy security, affordability and industrial growth cannot be subordinated to targets that ignore ground realities.

Crucially, the developed world remains reluctant to provide concessional finance at the scale needed for a rapid transition. Without this support, demanding uniform timelines risks deepening global inequality rather than solving climate change.

What this means for the global climate transition

COP30 underscored a shift in climate politics. Developing countries are no longer willing to accept prescriptive pathways that constrain growth without guaranteed support. The fossil fuel phase-out debate is no longer about climate denial versus climate action, but about who bears the cost, who decides the pace, and what is practically achievable.

As the world grapples with the next phase of climate action, the challenge will be to reconcile urgency with realism — and ambition with equity — rather than assume that declarations alone can deliver a fossil-free future.