The Jio World Convention Centre in Mumbai, India’s financial capital, was buzzing with climate ambition this week. Start-ups showcased climate-centred products, philanthropic foundations exchanged notes with impact investors, young founders pitched adaptation tools for heat-stressed cities at the Mumbai Climate Week.

Amid the climate-tech demonstrations and policy exchanges, Hillary Clinton’s address stood out for its strategic clarity — positioning the Global South not merely as a beneficiary of climate action, but as its architect.

Her message was less about symbolism and more about systems — about resilience funds, insurance products, clean cooking, AI governance, and the moral responsibility of both North and South in confronting a warming world.

India as a Climate Laboratory

Clinton placed India squarely at the centre of her remarks — not as a victim of climate change, but as an innovator.

“One of our projects which I wanted to mention to you is creating a climate resilience fund to create a place where philanthropic dollars and corporate dollars and the individual dollars could be aggregated to come up with ideas to assist people who are out there working,” she said at the Mumbai Climate Week.

Through the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI), that idea has already taken shape in India.

Working with Humanity Insured — a not-for-profit backed by major insurance firms — and in partnership with SEWA(Self-Employed Women’s Association), CGI launched a parametric insurance product designed for informal women workers vulnerable to extreme heat. The concept is simple but transformative: when temperatures cross 39°C, women who cannot work a full day can claim compensation for lost income.

“As I speak right now, we’ve got this product up and going. India is the example. It’s the model,” Hillary Clinton said. “We now have 500,000 insurance holders here in India. And India will be the model for the rest of the global south because of this CGI commitment.”

The insurance scheme reflects a larger shift in climate discourse — from abstract mitigation targets to hyper-local resilience. For informal workers, climate change is not a policy debate; it is lost wages when heat makes construction sites unworkable.

Clinton framed the model not merely as philanthropy but as smart economics. “This is not only a good thing to do. It is smart. It is a new market.”

The Global South as Agenda Setter

Repeatedly, she argued that climate solutions must emerge from the regions most affected.

“We have to focus attention on solutions in the places that are clearly now most affected by climate change… the front lines of the fight against global climate change is right here in the Global South.”

While acknowledging the historical responsibility of industrialised nations, she did not shy away from noting that emerging economies must also accelerate their transition to clean energy. Pollution, she stressed, is not an abstract carbon statistic — it is a health crisis.

“When I talk about fossil fuels, I’m not just talking about climate change. I’m talking about the pollution that goes in the air in Delhi or Beijing. I’m talking about clear evidence that pollution is impacting our health… particularly the health of our children.”

Climate, she insisted, is inseparable from public health.

Philanthropy Beyond Charity

One of the sharper threads in her address was directed at philanthropy. Charity alone, she argued, cannot solve structural crises.

“If you want to feed a hungry person, give them a fish. If you want to end hunger, teach them to fish,” she said, invoking the familiar metaphor to argue for systemic reform.

The climate resilience fund is intended as catalytic capital — seed funding that aggregates philanthropic, corporate and public resources to unlock scalable models. Adaptation, in her framework, must sit alongside mitigation.

Hillary Clinton also pointed to the massive intergenerational transfer of wealth underway globally, urging that it be channelled into long-term climate solutions rather than short-term relief.

AI, Energy and the Next Disruption

Though the week’s focus was climate, Clinton ventured into another domain shaping the future: artificial intelligence.

AI, she acknowledged, could optimise renewable grids and enable hyper-local climate projections. But she warned against uncritical adoption.

“This technology is also consuming vast amounts of power, water, infrastructure… We would be naive not to recognize the potential threats that AI and its development is causing.”

She raised pointed questions about data centres’ energy and water demands, labour market disruptions, and the political influence of tech giants.

“The people running these companies are the richest people in the world… They want to shape the future… Governments need to be ready to demand answers.”

Drawing lessons from social media’s regulatory lag, she cautioned against waiting a decade to understand AI’s harms. “Let’s figure out how we can deal with that ahead of time and try to shape it rather than shape the life.”

“We inherited it. And with that inheritance… should come a sense of responsibility”

In a country rapidly expanding both its renewable capacity and digital infrastructure, the intersection of AI and climate carries particular urgency.

A Personal Case for the Planet

Beyond policy and programmes, Hillary Clinton’s speech carried a deeply personal note. She spoke of hiking the day after the 2016 US election — an act of reconnecting with nature in a moment of political upheaval.

“I find it so reinvigorating… now we know that spending time in nature… actually does help reset your brain,” she said.

Her environmentalism, she explained, stems from reverence. “We inherited it. And with that inheritance… should come a sense of responsibility.”

Climate change, she warned, will not only intensify heatwaves and wildfires but amplify migration, conflict and political instability. Ignoring it is neither economically nor strategically rational.

“If we don’t take care of our world today, it will cost us more money. It will cost us more death and destruction. It will cost us more political conflict.”

A Message to Young Innovators

Among the audience were young founders and activists — many from India’s growing climate-tech ecosystem. Clinton’s closing words were directed at them.

“Do not give in to the naysayers and the cynics. Do not doubt that you are engaged in historic, important work.”

Hillary Clinton acknowledged that global climate finance often bypasses grassroots innovators, particularly women in the Global South. That imbalance, she implied, must change.

“Keep knocking on doors, making your arguments, showing up… ideas are going to come from everywhere and they’re going to be good ideas.”

Mumbai Climate Week, positioned as a first-of-its-kind platform in India, was organised by Project Mumbai with support from organisations including IDFC First Bank and Monitor Deloitte.

Global energy leaders convened in Paris this week for the International Energy Agency’s Ministerial Meeting, underscoring the agency’s expanding role in shaping international cooperation at a time of rising demand, geopolitical tensions, and accelerating energy transitions.

The two-day gathering drew senior government representatives from a record 54 countries, around 40 of them at ministerial level. Executives from 55 companies — representing a combined market capitalisation of $14 trillion — joined leaders of intergovernmental organisations in what became the largest Ministerial Meeting in the agency’s history.

At the heart of the discussions was a clear message: energy security, affordability and sustainability can no longer be pursued in isolation. They require deeper multilateral coordination, stronger data systems, and expanded institutional alliances.

Expanding the IEA Family

Member governments unanimously agreed to move forward on strengthening institutional ties with Brazil, Colombia, India and Viet Nam. In a major step, Colombia was invited to become the IEA’s 33rd Member. Brazil was invited to begin the process toward full membership following a request from its government. Ministers also welcomed recent progress in discussions with India regarding its request for full membership. Viet Nam joined as the newest Association country in the IEA Family.

The expansion significantly alters the geometry of global energy governance. With these additions, the IEA Family’s share of global energy consumption now exceeds 80%, up from less than 40% a decade ago — reflecting a profound shift in the agency’s global reach.

“This Ministerial Meeting, our largest ever, affirmed the immense value of the IEA at a moment when global energy demand is rising and the challenges facing the energy system are intensifying. In this context, our wide range of objective data and analysis is more important than ever,” said IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.

“In a strong step forward for global energy governance, key countries such as Brazil, Colombia, India and Viet Nam are strengthening their ties with the IEA. This puts the IEA Family’s share of global energy use at more than 80%, up from less than 40% ten years ago. With major energy issues high on the international agenda, we stand ready to support governments with the insights they need to plan for the future, helping leaders deliver on their goals of ensuring greater energy security, affordability and sustainability.”

Deputy Prime Minister Sophie Hermans of the Netherlands, who chaired the Ministerial, framed the discussions in terms of resilience amid uncertainty.

“These two days in Paris have reaffirmed how essential energy is to our daily lives – it is the invisible driving force behind everything we do. Under the umbrella of knowledge of the International Energy Agency, we have once again seen that international cooperation is key,” she said. “Our priority is clear: secure, affordable and sustainable energy – and resilient systems that can endure in an uncertain world.”

In a video address opening the meeting, French President Emmanuel Macron emphasised the IEA’s analytical leadership. “Through its in-depth analyses, and the technical expertise of its team, the IEA, under the leadership of its Executive Director Fatih Birol, plays an essential role. It enlightens us to help us guarantee our energy security and steer the energy transition.”

Beyond institutional expansion, the Ministerial marked a strong endorsement of deeper cooperation on critical minerals — increasingly viewed as the backbone of clean energy technologies.

In a special declaration, Ministers backed expanding collaboration under the IEA Critical Minerals Security Programme to address mounting risks to global supply chains. They called for strengthened data tools, collaborative exercises and clearer guidance on measures such as stockpiling, aimed at diversifying supply chains and building resilience against supply shocks.

Clean Cooking and Energy Access

Member countries also approved the integration of the Clean Cooking Alliance into the IEA, positioning the agency as the principal multilateral forum for advancing clean cooking solutions. The move seeks to accelerate access for the more than two billion people worldwide who still lack clean cooking technologies.

The integration comes ahead of the IEA’s second Summit on Clean Cooking in Africa, scheduled for July 2026 in Nairobi, where governments and industry leaders are expected to review progress since the inaugural 2024 summit and outline new financing and policy pathways.

Energy Security in the Age of Electricity

Two high-level dialogues during the Ministerial focused on safeguarding energy security in what officials termed the “Age of Electricity,” and on supporting Ukraine’s energy system amid ongoing disruptions. Ukrainian First Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Energy Denys Shmyhal participated in discussions on rebuilding and securing Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.

As energy demand continues to climb and transition pathways grow more complex, the IEA’s expanding membership and programme scope suggest that multilateral coordination — once largely confined to oil security — is now being repositioned as the backbone of a rapidly electrifying and mineral-intensive global energy system.

The climate impact of FTAs is becoming a defining issue for India’s trade negotiations, as carbon-linked rules like the EU’s CBAM increasingly shape market access and industrial competitiveness.

As India accelerates negotiations on free trade agreements (FTAs) with the European Union, United Kingdom, EFTA countries and the United States, a parallel transformation is unfolding — one where trade policy is increasingly shaped by climate-linked conditions.

A recent policy discussion summarised in India’s FTAs: Trade, Climate and Strategic Choices, organised by Climate Trends, argues that the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) represents not a marginal environmental tool, but a structural shift in global trade governance. The deeper question is whether India’s trade engagements are effectively becoming instruments of climate policy — and if so, under whose terms.

CBAM: From Environmental Tool to Structural Trade Instrument

Ajay Srivastava, Founder and CEO of GTRI, cautioned against viewing CBAM as a narrow carbon levy limited to a handful of sectors. While the current scope covers steel, aluminium, cement, fertilisers, hydrogen and electricity, the EU has stated its intention to expand the mechanism to all industrial products by 2033.

“What most people ignore about CBAM is that it will not only hurt six products,” Srivastava said. “After a few years when CBAM is in full form, then the normal CBAM liability on exports will range anywhere between 20% to 35%, and even 50% or more for products like aluminium.”

India’s average applied tariffs into the EU are currently around 3–3.5%. CBAM, by contrast, could impose carbon-linked charges many times higher. “Instead of 3% custom duties… exporters may pay 20%-40% under CBAM. And in return, all EU goods will be entering India at zero tariffs. Such a deal appears asymmetric,” he added.

From this perspective, CBAM is less a climate safeguard and more a structural replacement of tariffs with carbon-linked entry costs — one that sits outside the formal FTA framework while reshaping its economic value.

Climate Compliance as Market Entry Condition

The broader concern is cumulative compliance. CBAM does not operate in isolation. The EU Deforestation Regulation, supply-chain traceability rules, and ESG-linked disclosure expectations together create what analysts describe as an embedded climate cost for market access.

Colette van der Ven, Founder and Director of Tulip Consulting, noted that CBAM was a key sticking point in EU–India negotiations. “Even if the Indian government’s press statements suggest that there are provisions around MFN treatment, that may, in practice, not have very much value… giving country-specific flexibilities was already off the cards for the EU.”

In effect, climate-linked measures are emerging as non-negotiable features of trade architecture.

Divergent Impact: Large Firms vs MSMEs

The climate-trade shift is not uniform in its impact.

Large integrated producers such as Tata Steel and JSW, according to van der Ven, are relatively insulated. Many operate European subsidiaries, have internal monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) systems, and possess capital for cleaner technologies. For them, CBAM is a manageable compliance cost.

However, the situation is starkly different for MSMEs.

Ajay Srivastava pointed to early evidence from CBAM’s reporting phase, which began in October 2023. “In FY25, our exports of steel and aluminium to the EU were down by 24%. Why? Because MSMEs could not supply data, and EU-based importers stopped placing orders from them. So, MSMEs will be the hardest hit. It will soon be a game only for large players.”

Van der Ven added that default carbon values under CBAM are punitive. “Even if you have relatively clean production, but you cannot measure it, you are still going to be getting a default value that is a lot higher than the actual carbon emissions… That means that your competitiveness level goes down.”

The key barrier is not necessarily emissions intensity, but data asymmetry and compliance infrastructure.

Trade Policy as Domestic Climate Policy

Suranjali Tandon, Associate Professor at NIPFP, framed the issue more fundamentally: “All matters of trade policy are also matters of domestic economic policy.”

She argued that Indian firms will require domestic carbon pricing, measurement systems, and industrial support mechanisms to respond effectively. “Indian companies need to have their own carbon pricing to be able to respond to such measures… The best thing that can be done is to have measurement systems in place while ensuring that there are domestic policies that support increasing production capacity.”

Without robust domestic support — incentives, certification regimes, transitional demand buffers — exporters may struggle to absorb external carbon costs.

Fragmented Global Carbon Regimes

A central tension lies in fragmentation. EU-bound exports account for roughly 20% of India’s trade. The remaining 80% flows to markets without CBAM-style requirements.

Srivastava highlighted the dilemma: Indian firms may need separate production processes for EU markets, raising costs across their operations. Producing “green” goods for a minority of export destinations could erode competitiveness elsewhere.

This fragmentation complicates investment decisions. Without globally harmonised carbon pricing, unilateral measures risk distorting trade patterns rather than aligning them.

Strategic Choices Ahead

The discussion suggests that FTAs are no longer purely about tariffs and quotas. They increasingly interact with carbon pricing systems, sustainability standards, and domestic regulatory reforms.

Recommendations emerging from the dialogue include:

>> Prioritising measurement and MRV infrastructure, especially for MSMEs

>> Designing selective emissions trading systems, beginning with large emitters

>> Aligning industrial, trade, and climate policies domestically

>> Viewing FTAs as platforms for cooperation, rather than solutions in themselves

Archana Chaudhary of Climate Trends summarised the broader shift: “Trade seems to be forcing domestic climate action and capital is being steered in that direction. These new trade deals and the carbon-linked rules are going to be shaping up India’s real economy.”

Climate Alignment or Competitiveness Risk?

The deeper climate perspective is complex. On one hand, CBAM aligns with long-term decarbonisation goals. On the other, its current design places disproportionate adjustment burdens on developing economies and smaller firms.

Van der Ven suggested that alignment exists beneath the friction. “Beyond the differences, there is alignment between the EU and India in wanting to decarbonize. We must think towards these win-win opportunities along the supply chain.”

The outcome, however, will depend less on individual FTAs and more on whether India can integrate trade, industrial, and climate strategies coherently at home.

As climate-linked trade measures proliferate, India’s FTAs may increasingly serve not just as economic agreements — but as de facto climate policy instruments reshaping the country’s industrial future.