The narrative of Asian leadership at COP30 (global climate agenda) is not a story of moral ascendancy, but one of strategic default. The persistent and deliberate absence of the United States from a coherent global climate framework has not created a void; it has created a vortex, pulling in Asian powers who are motivated less by altruism and more by raw opportunism and regional survivalism.
While countries like China and India have stepped into the spotlight, their actions and roles reflect neither unqualified leadership nor a clear pathway to resolving the global climate crisis. Instead, significant gaps in ambition, accountability, and justice persist, with Asian powers leveraging the US absence more for geopolitical gains and economic advantage than for transformative climate action.
The Illusion of Leadership
To frame China and India as climate leaders is to ignore the contradictory realities of their domestic policies. Their dominance at COP30 is a direct function of the vacuum left by the US, not a pre-planned coup.
China, the Carbon Juggernaut in Green Clothes: China’s prominence at COP30 is not an unmitigated success story but a strategic maneuver that sidesteps deeper systemic issues. Its renewable energy stats are staggering—over 50% of global new capacity. But China is a story of industrial policy, not pure climate commitment.
China, despite leading in green technology exports and promoting itself as a multilateral climate leader, sets cautious emission reduction goals. A snapshot of China’s targets:
- Reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by 7-10% from peak levels by 2035.
- Peak emissions by 2030
- Increasing non-fossil fuel energy to over 30%
- Expanding wind and solar power capacity.
- Beijing remains the world’s largest financier of coal power abroad
China’s push for multilateralism conveniently aligns with protecting its economic interests without raising climate ambition. The country’s track record on human rights and resource extraction, notably in regions like Tibet and Xinjiang, remains glossed over at COP30, exposing a dissonance between climate diplomacy and broader ethical considerations.
India, the Developmental Realist: India’s renewable targets are ambitious, but its narrative is one of energy justice and development, not climate mitigation. The government rightly points out the historical emissions of the West and refuses to compromise its economic ascent.
India’s role similarly warrants scrutiny beyond the surface narrative of Global South advocacy. While the country frames its position around historical responsibility and climate finance equity, its domestic emissions have surged, ranking third globally behind China and Indonesia.
- India’s delayed submission of an updated climate strategy
- Continued heavy reliance on coal raise questions about energy transition.
- Yet to announce 2035 NDC targets
Both China and India benefit from the US withdrawal by expanding their geopolitical influence in climate talks. But the foundational ambition and implementation gaps remain stubbornly unaddressed.
Impediments:
This Asian-led paradigm is structurally unstable and lacks the foundational elements for true, accountable global stewardship.
Unlike the (often flawed) scrutiny applied to Western nations, the data and environmental reporting from many Asian powers lack independent verification, leading to transparency issues.
Climate finance and technology are becoming new currencies in a neo-colonial scramble for influence across Africa and Southeast Asia.
The region is riven with its own tensions—India vs. China, Japan vs. South Korea—that will prevent a unified, ambitious front.
Our take
The outcome of this power shift is not a more ambitious climate agenda but a more fragmented and less effective one.
The rise of Asia at COP30 is not a cause for celebration, but I see it as a paradox. This new leadership should be critically viewed. Not as a sign of progress but as a reflection of shifting power balances in a still deeply troubled and inequitable global climate landscape. A fragmented, multipolar climate governance regime can often overshadow urgent climate imperatives. Resulting in national self-interest, ensuring the global climate transition will be slower, less transparent, and ultimately insufficient.
