Interview | ‘Without Justice, Climate Action Will Fail as Fossil Fuel Lock-Ins Deepen’

What does climate justice mean in a deeply divided world? How can governments deliver effective climate action in a world of short-term national interests? Professor Joyeeta Gupta,  an internationally acclaimed academic, author, and expert on climate change, has grappled with these questions. 

Gupta is professor of Environment and Development in the Global South at the Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences of the University of Amsterdam (UVA) and IHE Delft Institute for Water Education. She won the highest academic recognition in the Netherlands – the Spinoza prize in 2023,  in addition to many other awards and grants.

In this conversation, Gupta discusses global climate governance, the Paris Agreement, national interest versus international commitment, the North-South debate on climate change, and more.

Joyeeta Gupta. Photo: By arrangement.

Edited excerpts are as follows:

You were a lead author in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special and main reports between 1988–2014, during which period the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. Could you talk about your experience at the IPCC?

It was an honour to be nominated by the Netherlands Government, and then to be short-listed and invited by IPCC three times in a row. I started as a lead author in the Special Report on Technology Transfer and that was quite an interesting learning experience. There was a lot of hope then that with the right technology transfer and capacity building exercises, the climate change problem could be controlled. But there was also fear that we did not have the right technologies to transfer, that governments do not own technologies, and that technologies may not be appropriate. But thinking back about those days, the joint assessment of the scholarship was accompanied by  friendly discussions and debates and it was very enjoyable. In the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports I was assigned to the chapter on international cooperation. International cooperation is a politically charged domain. This is where most of my work is and I have always focused on North South issues. In the Third Assessment Report, the authors were able to find a modality to work amicably together and the coverage of issues was quite balanced. Shortly thereafter, we had the privilege of winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The Fourth Assessment Report was much more challenging. The structure and editing of the chapter left little space for the kinds of issues I was working on; there was a global economic recession; tensions were building up; and motivation was low in the pre-Paris world. Working as a lead author takes months of evenings and weekends as it is not always possible to combine it with your paid job. But if such work also brings a lot of tension, it becomes difficult to maintain enthusiasm. I decided not to volunteer for future rounds.  

How do you look at today’s global climate governance? [Gupta wrote the book, History of Global Climate Governance] Is the global climate governance system in place at the moment enough to address the challenges of climate change? 

I have been studying climate governance for 36 years. Patterns repeat themselves over the years. I remember in 1989 the US made a speech at the Nordwijk Conference on Climate Change that it not only understood the right of developing countries to develop but it also shared this right. And that made me think then that the US would not necessarily shift its development pathway off fossil fuel if it did not suit its ‘development’ interests. In 1987, when I worked on my PhD thesis on the Climate Convention, I discovered that the consensus in the Convention was very shallow and did not really deal with all the conflicts of interest between countries. In 2014, the conflicts of interest had become sharper. And today in 2026, the conflicts are worse. In simple words, addressing climate change implies adopting a temperature target, translating that into a carbon budget and allocating that between countries. But theoretically the carbon budget in 1990 was much bigger than today when we have just two – three years left before the budget shrinks to zero; so of course we will all argue about who has the right to emit greenhouse gases and since it looks almost impossible to share this tiny budget, we are using ‘overshoot’ and ‘net zero’ narratives or as the US is doing even leaving the Paris Agreement. Behind this story, are the multiple ways in which we are all locked-into the fossil fuel world; fossil fuel remains very profitable today and investors continue to invest in fossil fuel and investments are protected by legally binding contracts. With the market encouraging fossil fuel use, it is very difficult for formal climate negotiations to bring almost 200 countries together in an ambitious programme, especially as most political leaders are only interested in short-term issues and few really understand how serious and irreversible the problem is.  

It has been a decade since the Paris Agreement was signed in 2015. How do you look at its targets and goals? 

The main achievement of the Paris Agreement is the 2°C and if possible as low as 1.5°C temperature objective and the need for financial coherence in the international arena. The Paris Agreement mobilised countries once more, post the global recession, to focus on climate change. While it mobilised countries and they are submitting their national reports – the level of ambition of countries is not commensurate with what is needed for phasing out fossil fuel or for achieving 1.5°C. This is possible because each country can volunteer what it will do and this makes room for free riders. It is also because by 2015, the remaining carbon budget for 2°C and 1.5°C had shrunk so much, and so much time was lost since 1992, that politicians could not mobilise to solve a problem that few really understand seriously or care about hoping that they can shift responsibility to the next political leader.

A technician repairs an air conditioner of a house, in Srinagar, Tuesday, July 8, 2025. The sale of air conditioners and coolers have gone up amid the prolonged heatwave across Kashmir. Photo: PTI.

What are the most important challenges at the moment?

Neo-liberal capitalists want freedom of the individual and markets, deregulation and reduced multilateralism. But addressing the climate change problem requires limiting the freedom of the individual and markets; it requires regulation and enhanced multilateralism, an egalitarian approach. The tensions between these two discourses has become very obvious over the years. 

Second, it is not enough to phase in renewables and other alternative energy, it is imperative to have a strategy to phase out fossil fuel. Markets will not phase out fossil fuel, until markets as a whole experience the impacts of climate change. In the meantime, fossil fuel is a very profitable business, supported by huge subsidies and long-term legally binding contracts. This means that investors continue to invest in fossil fuel. And where the market for fossil fuel declines (e.g. in Pakistan and the Netherlands), the companies demand compensation (e.g. the independent power producers in Pakistan and Shell is suing the Netherlands for closing down the gas fields of Groningen). In addition to legal and investment lock-ins there are fiscal lock-ins as in India, discursive lock-ins (e.g. overshoot, net zero, energy security, resource nationalism), infrastructural lock-ins, labour lock-in, behavioural lock-in and professional lock-in. Professional lock-in refers to the fact that most people may understand climate change, but cannot (or will not) act as it is not in their professional mandate. 

The key priority is understanding the different fossil-fuel lock-ins per country and trying to create a legitimate, just and yet rapid unlocking process. We pass 1.5ºC in 2-3 years; we are in danger of triggering tipping points that will make the climate system irreversible with huge costs to societies worldwide.    

You have been the lead of various international commissions on climate change. As human beings, how do you feel we should share our land, water, and ecosystems while ensuring social justice?

The biggest challenge I face is trying to communicate that without a just approach we cannot control the climate change problem. This is because within rich countries if the underprivileged segments of society are not encouraged and helped to participate in the energy transition, they will vote in governments that do not believe in climate change. If rich countries do not help poorer ones to get off fossil fuel, everyone loses as 78% of the remaining fossil fuel is in the developing world. So very simply justice is needed for environmental effectiveness. But it is difficult to sell this reasoning in the different commissions. Within UNEP, the initial argument was that UNEP covers environmental issues and not equity, but eventually we were able to include discussions on equity in the Global Environment Outlook (GEO)-6 which I co-chaired. Within the World Economic Forum, one has to take a different tactic: I argue in a blog that international court cases might imply that companies need to take litigation risk seriously. Within the Earth Commission, it was easier to push for a systemic Earth System Justice approach.   

The biggest problem in addressing climate change is that from the poorest to the richest people we are all locked-into fossil fuel use; and this lock-in is carefully nurtured by fossil fuel companies and by national governments that mostly own these resources. 

How does national interest influence international commitment in fighting climate change?

The question is – does national interest reflect the public interest? I believe that it is in the public interest of all states to manage the climate change problem in a way that we do not cause significant harm to others and that avoid triggering tipping points that lead to irreversible change. But politicians may see national interest as reflected in short term GDP increases or the interest of their industries. They may fail to understand how climate change will reduce the GDP in the long-term, by affecting their agricultural sector, their water system, and hence water and food security; by affecting human health and the health of their ecosystems; and of course by affecting the upstream and downstream supply chain. Climate change cannot be addressed by focusing on short-term narrow national interests which may reflect the short-term private interests of the most powerful. It requires countries to collaborate in their common and shared short to long-term interests.   

What is your take on the North–South debate on climate change?

North-South is shorthand for a very complex world. But essentially, there is also a North in the South and a South in the North. Rich people are served by the economic and financial system and think they can adapt to environmental problems like climate change. Less privileged people are generally poorly  served by the economic and financial system and are exposed to the harms caused by environmental issues such as air and water pollution and climate change. This is pretty much the same story worldwide. The rich people in the global North and South collude in this developmental race of trying to ensure more and more GDP for the country and profits for the big companies. But in many ways, it is the way we define development which is really a big problem and the cause of the environmental and health challenges that confront us today and all countries have to engage in redefining development.

A homeless man sleeps on the pavement on a hot summer day, at Patel Chowk in New Delhi, Tuesday, April 8, 2025. Photo: PTI.

You earlier said that when it comes to climate change, we are in the phase of denying it. Why are you of such an opinion? 

I said that because politicians and decision makers are not being serious about achieving the 1.5ºC climate objective. We are likely to cross this objective in two to three years and this means that we are moving into the danger zone when irreversible tipping points may be reached. Even if we can return to 1.5ºC later in the century, we will return to a different world. When I wrote my PhD thesis in 1997 I felt that all countries were waiting for other countries to take action, and thirty years later, we are all still waiting for the others. This inaction spiral needs to be reversed fast and in as just a manner as possible. Moreover, the current wars in different parts of the world use a lot of fossil fuel, impact on fossil fuel flows, and create new demands for increasing fossil fuel dependent defense expenditures undermining climate action.

How can we make our industry climate change–friendly? How do we phase out fossil fuels in an equitable manner?

It is critical that each country has a vision of the kind of future it wants to develop. One of clean air or one of dirty air that has to be mitigated through air purifiers in every room? One of clean water provided by municipalities or one of all kinds of equipment to clean the water in middle class homes. One of limited heat, or one where people are forced to buy energy guzzling air conditioners. One of a stable climate or one where we have to continuously react to extreme weather events. In the meanwhile the underprivileged are exposed to dirty air and water and extreme heat. Such a vision implies an integrated and systemic understanding of the need to protect our natural systems so that human health and the health of other species can flourish. This preventive health care will also reduce the costs for the health industry and ensure that people can participate in economic activities that actually improve life. Business needs to function within the limits of the natural system and not externalize negative social and environmental impacts on others in society. This requires regulation. 

Within this broader narrative, phasing out fossil fuel requires understanding how and where it is extracted all the way to where it is used, as well as how the money flows along with the fossil fuel flows. The labour employed in this sector will need alternative work in the same location; users of fossil fuel will need alternative energy; the complex web of financial flows will need to be untangled. This requires deep thinking about the entire system and a well thought out plan to end fossil fuel use without causing major disruptions. But it requires the state to lead in this process.  

Increasingly phasing out fossil fuel is becoming a legal necessity. The International Court of Justice has clearly stated in its advisory opinion of 2025: “Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.” 

India is the most populous country on earth and one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. In this context, what are the main climate change challenges India faces now? What should be India’s top priorities in addressing future climate change issues?

India faces multiple environmental problems and these will be exacerbated by fossil fuel use and the impacts of climate change. Climate change will lead to increased heat stress in India, greater evaporation, melting glaciers, changed  groundwater recharge, salt water intrusion in ground water, extreme weather events and changing monsoonal patterns. This will exacerbate the existing water stress in the country; it will affect farmers and those who work on the streets and are exposed to the elements. There will be severe health impacts on people, also because of the rising exposure to viruses that can multiply faster in the heat. If coping with heat leads to large scale air conditioning, this will also lead to increased energy use and will be a positive reinforcing impact. I think India has the intellectual capacity to think through alternative approaches to developing energy, demand side management and structuring society in a way that preventive health care becomes an organising principle. India needs to engage with the different aspects of the fossil fuel lock-in and mobilise society and the economy to address these problems. Better quality public and shared transport is critical,  demand side management combined with the energy transition to non-fossil fuel, and greening India need to be top priorities. 

People rest in the shade of trees on a hot summer day, near AIIMS in New Delhi, Monday, April 7, 2025. Photo: PTI.

At the moment, you are shaping a global constitution for justice and sustainability…

The global constitution project is a research project. We have three PhDs looking at the technological, financial and legal fields, and I will focus on the environmental field. Together we hope to get a good overview of the way in which we can govern these fields in a manner that promotes a just and sustainable future. We invite anyone above the age of 10 (minors need parental approval) to write an essay of 500-1000 words about what they would like to see in a global Constitution (globalconstitution.org). In return they can become contributing authors to the draft global Constitution. We are hoping to have at least 500 contributing authors from around the world if not more. About four years down the road, we expect to have a draft text. Our goal is to have a desirable text and not a feasible one. 

Given your vast experience in the field, are you optimistic about the future? 

Climate change and the new AI technologies pose unforeseen challenges for the world community. They challenge our economic, political and social systems; and thus they both call for systemic change. However, both climate change and AI are promoted by big money – fossil fuel majors and techbros; these agents become more and more powerful; they promote multiple lock-ins, and they are also able to influence politicians. This makes it more and more difficult to develop an appropriate governance system – making a global Constitution all the more necessary. I am optimistic about the future because I believe that leaders, policy entrepreneurs and social movements will eventually  use science based arguments to demand  a better world; I am optimistic because courts worldwide are ruling on climate change and the three international courts have come up with three different advisory opinions that all interpret international law as requiring states to not cause significant harm to others; to not violate human rights; and to take responsibility for the acts of private actors within the state. The courts may step in where the legislature and executive have failed to protect us from environmental pollution and climate change.  

Jipson John is an independent journalist and can be reached at jipsonjohn10@gmail.com.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.