Western Countries Are Defaulting On Their Carbon Debt — CEA Anantha Nageswaran Writes

In a column published in Business Standard, V Anantha Nageswaran, Chief Economic Advisor to the Government of India, offered a critical perspective on the global energy transition in his reflections on Jean-Baptiste Fressoz’s book More and More and More: An All-Consuming History of Energy.

Nageswaran uses Fressoz’s analysis to challenge the conventional wisdom about decarbonisation, energy policy, and technological innovation while raising crucial questions about fairness, economic growth, and sustainability.

Nageswaran critiques the common models of energy transition, challenging the widely held belief that one energy source simply linearly replaces another. He argues that energy systems are far more complex and interconnected, with multiple energy sources coexisting and expanding rather than being substituted.

For example, the United States (US) today burns more wood than it did in the 1960s, and Europe consumes three times as much wood as in the early 20th century, illustrating the non-linear and symbiotic nature of energy consumption patterns. This challenges the idealised narrative of a smooth transition from fossil fuels to renewables, highlighting the need for a more nuanced understanding of energy dynamics.

In addition, he critiques the overemphasis on technological innovation as the primary solution to the climate crisis. He argues that focusing on future breakthroughs is a form of procrastination that delays immediate action. Instead, he advocates for policies prioritising existing, scalable, and cost-effective technologies, such as reducing energy demand and promoting fairer emissions distribution. Echoing Fressoz’s call, Nageswaran stresses that climate policies should rely on technologies already available to address the crisis, rather than waiting for speculative innovations.

A key element of his critique is the inequitable distribution of emissions reduction responsibilities. He points out that developed countries, while reducing domestic coal consumption, often outsource their emissions through global supply chains. This creates a “statistical artefact” that allows these nations to claim progress while ignoring their broader role in the global emissions problem, effectively evading their full responsibility in the climate crisis.

Furthermore, Nageswaran critiques policies such as the Carbon Border Adjustment Tax (CBAT), which he sees as a protectionist measure disguised as a climate strategy. By imposing carbon tariffs on goods from countries with looser climate policies, these policies shift the emissions reduction burden onto developing nations, reinforcing global inequalities. This, he believes, not only fails to address the root causes of climate change but also exacerbates geopolitical tensions by preserving the economic dominance of developed countries.

Another significant issue Nageswaran raises is the tension between economic growth and emissions reduction. He points out that emissions tend to decrease during periods of economic contraction, such as during the Great Depression when emissions dropped by 25 per cent.

Yet, Western nations continue to prioritise economic growth, as reflected in forecasts like those from the US Energy Information Administration, which projects steady growth through 2050. He argues that the pursuit of continuous growth is inherently at odds with decarbonisation goals.

“Indeed, a fair and efficient distribution of CO2 emissions would mean that there is a serious consideration of economic de-growth as an option in advanced economies with high per capita income and high per capita emissions.” Nageswaran writes.

Ultimately, Nageswaran calls for a global shift in how climate change is addressed — one that recognises the historical responsibility of developed nations, addresses inequalities in emissions allocation, and provides financial and technological support to developing nations.

Achieving genuine progress, he suggests, will likely involve reconsidering the very structure of the global economy, including the possibility of economic de-growth in wealthy countries.

His arguments suggest that achieving a sustainable and just climate future will require not just innovation but a rethinking of economic growth, fairness in emissions reduction, and the recognition of historical carbon debt.

"Unwilling and unable to grapple with complex challenges and make progress incrementally, the West is trying to brazen it out with corner solutions, ignoring trade-offs between climate goals and other sustainable development goals, including economic growth. Further, western countries resist the issue of recognition of carbon debt. In effect, they are defaulting on it,” he writes in the article.  

Whether developed nations are willing to confront these uncomfortable truths remains to be seen, but Nageswaran’s insights provide a necessary and thought-provoking contribution to the ongoing climate debate.