INDIA
'Should there be a global climate tax, paid mainly by the biggest emitters?'
INDIA
'Should there be a global climate tax, paid mainly by
the biggest emitters?'
I. India’s Position
India supports a climate tax only if:
Tax is proportional to historical emissions.
Per-capita emissions are considered.
Revenue is redistributed to developing nations.
National sovereignty is respected.
No restrictions are imposed on essential development.
India rejects a tax if:
Applied uniformly to all countries, regardless of history.
It harms economic development.
Revenue is controlled politically by the Global North.
II. Key Arguments Against a Uniform Global Climate
Tax
1. Ethical & Justice Considerations
A uniform global tax would be ethically unfair to countries like India,
which still have development needs.
It may penalise countries currently industrialising, despite their historically
minimal role in climate change.
2. Economic Impacts
India still relies heavily on coal and fossil fuels to power its economy. A
heavy climate tax on its emissions could hamper development, increase
energy costs, and worsen poverty.
Instead of taxing India heavily, the global community could provide
financial and technological support for renewable energy projects, cleaner
transportation, and green industrialization.
Developing nations, including India, should receive a share of the
collected funds to accelerate clean energy adoption and climate
resilience measures
, INDIA
'Should there be a global climate tax, paid mainly by the biggest emitters?'
A poorly structured tax could increase costs of energy,
manufacturing, and exports in developing countries.
There is a risk of slowed economic growth if India is required to pay
significant contributions without adequate support.
Trade competitiveness concerns: developed countries may have more
capital to adapt, while India’s industries may face higher relative burdens.
If India cannot advance economically in the short term (via carbon
emissions) then we will never be able to invest in green energy initiatives
3. Environmental Effectiveness
If the tax is too low, it will be symbolic rather than impactful.
Some countries may evade or under-report emissions, reducing overall
effectiveness.
Without parallel technology cooperation, developing countries may be
unable to reduce emissions even with financial penalties.
4. Political & Geopolitical Considerations
India has committed to the Paris Agreement targets, including increasing
renewable energy capacity and reducing emissions intensity.
From India’s perspective, a global climate tax is acceptable only if it is fair,
progressive, and coupled with support mechanisms for developing
countries to transition sustainably.
Fear that developed countries may push disproportionate burdens onto
developing nations.
China–US political rivalry may make agreement difficult, leaving India
caught in between.
Sovereignty concerns: nations may resist external taxation structures.
Risk that the tax could be weaponised as a trade barrier.
'Should there be a global climate tax, paid mainly by the biggest emitters?'
INDIA
'Should there be a global climate tax, paid mainly by
the biggest emitters?'
I. India’s Position
India supports a climate tax only if:
Tax is proportional to historical emissions.
Per-capita emissions are considered.
Revenue is redistributed to developing nations.
National sovereignty is respected.
No restrictions are imposed on essential development.
India rejects a tax if:
Applied uniformly to all countries, regardless of history.
It harms economic development.
Revenue is controlled politically by the Global North.
II. Key Arguments Against a Uniform Global Climate
Tax
1. Ethical & Justice Considerations
A uniform global tax would be ethically unfair to countries like India,
which still have development needs.
It may penalise countries currently industrialising, despite their historically
minimal role in climate change.
2. Economic Impacts
India still relies heavily on coal and fossil fuels to power its economy. A
heavy climate tax on its emissions could hamper development, increase
energy costs, and worsen poverty.
Instead of taxing India heavily, the global community could provide
financial and technological support for renewable energy projects, cleaner
transportation, and green industrialization.
Developing nations, including India, should receive a share of the
collected funds to accelerate clean energy adoption and climate
resilience measures
, INDIA
'Should there be a global climate tax, paid mainly by the biggest emitters?'
A poorly structured tax could increase costs of energy,
manufacturing, and exports in developing countries.
There is a risk of slowed economic growth if India is required to pay
significant contributions without adequate support.
Trade competitiveness concerns: developed countries may have more
capital to adapt, while India’s industries may face higher relative burdens.
If India cannot advance economically in the short term (via carbon
emissions) then we will never be able to invest in green energy initiatives
3. Environmental Effectiveness
If the tax is too low, it will be symbolic rather than impactful.
Some countries may evade or under-report emissions, reducing overall
effectiveness.
Without parallel technology cooperation, developing countries may be
unable to reduce emissions even with financial penalties.
4. Political & Geopolitical Considerations
India has committed to the Paris Agreement targets, including increasing
renewable energy capacity and reducing emissions intensity.
From India’s perspective, a global climate tax is acceptable only if it is fair,
progressive, and coupled with support mechanisms for developing
countries to transition sustainably.
Fear that developed countries may push disproportionate burdens onto
developing nations.
China–US political rivalry may make agreement difficult, leaving India
caught in between.
Sovereignty concerns: nations may resist external taxation structures.
Risk that the tax could be weaponised as a trade barrier.
