· Which national (from your own country or another Global South country you’re familiar with) or international climate policy do you think has been most effective in driving action? What factors contributed to its success?
India’s National Solar Mission (2010), launched under the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), is a strong example of a national climate policy that has delivered real results. It helped India rapidly expand solar power capacity, making the country one of the largest solar markets in the world. By 2025, India had already achieved over 135 GW of installed solar capacity, completing its renewable energy target well before the 2030 deadline. This expansion also produced more than 108,000 GWh of solar electricity annually, placing India among the top three solar energy producers globally. The falling costs of solar technology, supported by government incentives and large-scale production, made adoption affordable. The policy created jobs, boosted new industries in renewable energy, and strengthened India’s international commitments under the Paris Agreement. Its success was driven by several factors: economically, declining technology costs and subsidies made solar viable; socially, rural communities gained electricity access and supported adoption; and politically, strong government commitment with clear targets ensured accountability and momentum. When compared to international frameworks, India’s solar policy shows how national-level action with clear goals and support can be highly effective
· Can you share an example of a policy from your country, another Global South country, or an international framework that struggled to deliver its intended results? What barriers limited its effectiveness?
A good example of policies in India that struggled to deliver their intended results are those aimed at controlling water, land, and air pollution. Despite strong laws like the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (1974) and the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (1981), implementation has often been weak, leading to serious pollution problems across cities and towns.
· Water Pollution (Ganga River, Varanasi): Programs like the Ganga Action Plan were launched to clean the river, but untreated sewage and industrial waste continue to flow into it. Limited enforcement, lack of infrastructure, and fragmented governance have prevented meaningful improvement.
· Land Pollution (Delhi & Ghaziabad): Solid waste management policies exist, but landfills remain overflowing and poorly managed. In Delhi, Ghazipur landfill has grown into a “mountain of waste,” showing how weak enforcement and poor segregation of waste limit effectiveness.
· Air Pollution (Delhi & Kanpur): The National Clean Air Programme (NCAP) set targets to reduce particulate matter, but cities like Delhi and Kanpur still face severe smog due to vehicle emissions, crop residue burning, and industrial pollution. Political challenges, lack of coordination between states, and economic dependence on polluting practices have slowed progogress
Barriers of effectiveness
· Economic Barriers: Building sewage plants, waste treatment facilities, and clean energy systems costs a lot of money. Many cities don’t have enough funds to do this properly. At the same time, industries like coal power and factories cause pollution but also provide jobs and income, so the government is often hesitant to impose strict rules that might hurt the economy.
· Social Barriers: People are not always aware of how serious pollution is or how it affects health. Waste segregation at home is weak, so most garbage ends up mixed in landfills. Communities often don’t have the habit, knowledge, or motivation to follow cleaner practices. Sometimes, people resist changes if they feel it is inconvenient or expensive.
· Political Barriers: Different levels of government—central, state, and local—don’t always work together smoothly, which causes poor coordination. Pollution control agencies often don’t have enough staff or money to enforce rules. Development goals like building industries or expanding cities are often given more importance than environmental protection. Political will is also inconsistent, with strong promises made but not always followed through because of pressure from industries or short-term growth needs.
Are current international frameworks (such as the Paris Agreement) sufficient to meet global climate goals? Why or why not?
Current geopolitical tensions and wars often push climate change down the list of priorities for governments. In such situations, international frameworks like the Paris Agreement struggle to get the urgent attention they need. Countries focus on security and economic survival, which slows collective climate action. This is one of the main reasons why global progress toward climate goals has been uneven and often too slow.
But at the same time, individuals and communities is very important. Across the world, many grassroots groups, local organizations, and even city-level initiatives are working hard to reduce emissions, promote renewable energy, and adapt to climate impacts. These smaller-scale interventions show that while international frameworks may be limited by politics, local and community-driven efforts can still make meaningful contributions.
So, while the Paris Agreement and similar frameworks are valuable for setting global targets and encouraging cooperation, they are not sufficient on their own. Their effectiveness depends heavily on political will, stable global conditions, and strong national implementation. Without these, the gap between ambition and action remains wide.
How do political, economic, or social factors influence the success or failure of climate policies?
Political, economic, and social factors play a huge role in deciding whether climate policies succeed or fail.
· Political factors: Strong government commitment, clear targets, and coordination across different levels of governance make policies effective. When political will is weak, enforcement is poor, or priorities shift toward short-term growth or security concerns, climate policies often stall. For example, fragmented governance between central and state governments in India has slowed air pollution control efforts.
· Economic factors: Climate policies need funding and must balance environmental goals with economic growth. If clean technologies are affordable and supported by subsidies, adoption is faster—as seen in India’s solar mission. But when industries that pollute are also major job providers, governments hesitate to impose strict rules, limiting progress.
· Social factors: Public awareness and participation are essential. Policies succeed when communities adopt practices like waste segregation, energy conservation, or sustainable farming. Without social buy-in, even strong laws remain ineffective. Grassroots movements and local initiatives often show how social engagement can drive climate action, even when national or international frameworks struggle.
What lessons can be drawn from Bangladesh’s climate policy experience that might apply to other countries in the Global South?
Bangladesh’s climate policy experience teaches some simple but powerful lessons for other Global South countries. First, Bangladesh has shown the importance of working together internationally. Even though it is a small country, it has played a big role in global talks, especially through the Climate Vulnerable Forum and by pushing for the Loss and Damage Fund. This shows that smaller nations can influence global decisions if they build alliances and speak with a united voice.
Second, Bangladesh has focused a lot on community-based solutions. Things like cyclone shelters, early warning systems, and climate-friendly farming practices have helped protect people at the local level. This proves that policies work best when they involve communities directly and respond to their everyday needs.
Third, Bangladesh’s experience highlights the difficulty of balancing development and environment. While it has made progress in adaptation, it still struggles with air pollution and urban challenges. This shows that climate policies must be linked with economic growth, public health, and infrastructure planning to be truly effective.
· What new policy approaches or reforms could help bridge the policy–action gap?
To close the gap between climate policies and real action, countries need to make their approaches simpler, stronger, and more connected to everyday realities.
· Better enforcement: Rules should not just exist on paper. Governments need strong monitoring systems and penalties for those who break environmental laws.
· More funding: Climate projects require money. Combining government funds, private investment, and international support can make clean energy and adaptation projects affordable.
· Community involvement: Policies work best when local people are part of the solution. Training, awareness programs, and giving communities decision-making power can make interventions more effective.
· Joined-up planning: Climate change affects energy, transport, farming, and health. Policies should connect these areas instead of working separately.
· Flexibility: Climate conditions and technology change quickly. Policies should be updated regularly to stay relevant.
· Political will and cooperation: Leaders need to treat climate action as a priority, even during conflicts or economic challenges. Countries in the Global South can also form alliances to demand fair support from richer nations.