Metrics of Denial: A Critical Reading of Indian Indices in the Age of Climate Capitalism

Posted on 22nd June, 2025 (GMT 11:25 hrs)

ABSTRACT

This study interrogates India’s position across major global indices—Environmental Performance Index (EPI), Nature Conservation Index (NCI), Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), ESG fund performance, and climate displacement data—revealing deep contradictions between policy rhetoric and ecological realities. With India ranking near the bottom in EPI and NCI, and topping charts in climate displacement, the report juxtaposes these failures against the optimistic ranking in CCPI and the proliferation of ESG funds. Through a chaosophic lens, the study critiques the reductionism of market-led green capitalism and underscores the need to rethink ecological metrics beyond their statistical form. A comparative global–Indian framework highlights shared vulnerabilities and region-specific crises, especially around resource depletion and climate-induced migration, while resisting technocratic fixes and econometric illusions.

I. Introduction

In an era dominated by the condensed worldviews of stochastics and metrics, indices have become not only instruments of governmentality but also the active tools of narrative construction. From environmental performance to climate policy ambition, and from biodiversity protection to financialized green credentials, India finds itself caught in a paradox of numbers when it comes to the “climate question”.

The country’s dismal rankings in the 2024 Environmental Performance Index (176/180) and Nature Conservation Index (179/180) starkly contrast with its high placement in the 2025 Climate Change Performance Index (10/63), exposing a disjuncture between policy intent and ecological outcome. Meanwhile, ESG funds proliferate, commodifying sustainability through market abstractions, even as climate-induced displacement in India and globally accelerates in the absence of legal recognition for climate or ecological refugees. This dossier adopts a rigorous academic lens to examine these contradictions, using statistical data and philosophical critique to probe the structural failures behind the spectacle of “progress” while asking the fundamental — “at what cost?”

II. Environmental Performance Index (EPI): A Deepening Crisis

India’s environmental decline, as captured through global composite indicators, reflects systemic ecological distress and fragmented policy implementation. Among the most revealing of these instruments is the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), a data-driven framework developed by Yale and Columbia Universities. The EPI evaluates national environmental health and ecosystem vitality using metrics like air and water quality, biodiversity, and climate change mitigation. India’s consistent decline in EPI rankings—culminating in one of the world’s lowest scores—underscores the structural challenges in reconciling development priorities with ecological preservation.

Data-At-Hand

In the 2024 Environmental Performance Index, India ranks 176 out of 180 countries, scoring 24.1 out of 100—a marked decline from its 2021 rank of 168 (score: 27.3). The deterioration is particularly acute in air quality, where India ranks 180, with PM2.5 concentrations averaging 74 µg/m³, nearly 15 times higher than the WHO’s recommended threshold of 5 µg/m³. According to IQAir (2024), 21 of the world’s 30 most polluted cities are located in India, including 13 of the top 15. Delhi’s AQI regularly exceeds 500, reaching “hazardous” levels.

Water and sanitation remain equally precarious: ranked 170 in this sub-category, with 40% of the population lacking access to safely managed drinking water, and more than 70% of sewage released untreated (CPCB, 2024). In the biodiversity sub-index, India ranks 172, with just 7% of terrestrial land under protection and significant biodiversity threats—12% of species face extinction risks. Despite policy frameworks like Project Tiger, rapid urbanization and weak enforcement have led to the degradation of over 50% of wetlands and the loss of 1.5 million hectares of forest since 2001.

The EPI’s climate change component places India at rank 133, penalized by an annual 2.4% increase in per-capita emissions and the continuing dominance of coal in the energy mix (55% of generation). However, the growth of renewable capacity—reaching 130 GW in 2024, including 85 GW from solar—supposedly positions India as a “global leader” in clean energy ambition, although its emissions trajectory remains misaligned with global temperature targets under the Paris Agreement.

Comparative metrics reveal India’s underperformance relative to regional peers: Bhutan ranks 88 (score 47.2) and Sri Lanka 102 (score 43.1), while Afghanistan sits lower at 180 (score 19.8). The Indian government has contested the EPI methodology, arguing for the inclusion of so-called developmental baselines; nonetheless, CPCB and NITI Aayog data substantiate the index’s findings on air, water, and biodiversity crises.

India’s trajectory in the Environmental Performance Index signals a multi-dimensional ecological crisis marked by rising pollution, endangered (ecocided) biodiversity, and fragile water systems. Despite advancements in renewable energy capacity and climate policy architecture, the persistent degradation of environmental indicators indicates a decoupling between policy intention and ground-level execution. The EPI’s downward trend, reinforced by corroborative domestic data and regional comparisons, reflects a profound disjuncture between India’s follow-up of the development paradigm and ecological sustainability. The EPI thus serves not merely as a comparative ranking tool but as a diagnostic mirror revealing the systemic incoherence of environmental governance in a rapidly industrializing democratic unfreedom.

III. Nature Conservation Index (NCI): Ecologies Under Siege

The Nature Conservation Index (NCI), introduced as a complementary evaluative framework to the EPI, measures national performance on biodiversity preservation, habitat protection, and species survival. The index seeks to assess a country’s effectiveness in safeguarding ecological integrity in the face of rapid developmental pressures. In its inaugural publication for 2024, the NCI reveals India’s ecological vulnerabilities and exposes the structural inadequacies of conservation governance amid expanding economic and infrastructural regimes.

Data-Exposed

In the 2024 NCI, India ranks 179 out of 180 countries, with a score of 45.5, positioning it among the lowest global performers in nature conservation. According to the index developed by Goldman Sachs in collaboration with global conservation partners, only 5% of India’s land area is under effective conservation management. Biodiversity loss continues at an alarming rate: 12% of recorded species are currently classified as threatened, including keystone species and endemic taxa. Since 2000, India has lost approximately 20% of its forest cover, translating to over 1.5 million hectares, primarily due to mining, infrastructure expansion, and urban sprawl.

The degradation of wetlands acting as carbon sinks—estimated at over 50% nationally—further exacerbates ecological fragility. Protected area frameworks, such as Project Tiger, have witnessed quantitative expansion, but concrete enforcement remains inconsistent. This is reflected in ongoing encroachments, declining habitat connectivity, and increased human-wildlife conflict zones. Despite being home to a significant portion of global biodiversity hotspots (e.g., Western Ghats, Eastern Himalayas), India’s conservation efforts remain fragmented, reactive, and insufficiently integrated with broader land-use and development policies.

Comparative regional data illustrate India’s lag in conservation performance: Nepal ranks 120, significantly higher, despite more modest resource availability; Maldives ranks 180, marginally below India, though with very different ecological parameters. The absence of prior NCI rankings precludes longitudinal comparisons, but its correlation with India’s biodiversity score in the 2024 EPI (rank 172) underscores a consistent ecological distress signal.

India’s performance in the 2024 Nature Conservation Index illustrates a pattern of deepening ecological erosion amidst expanding development frontiers. The data foreground the structural incapacity of existing conservation mechanisms to mitigate habitat loss, species extinction risks, and ecosystem degradation. While legislative and institutional frameworks for biodiversity protection exist, their fragmented implementation and limited spatial coverage have failed to arrest ecological decline. The NCI thus renders visible the cumulative impact of extractivist growth models on the country’s ecological commons, framing conservation not as an ancillary pursuit but as a core crisis within the environmental governance matrix.

IV. Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI): Between Promise and Paradox

Introduction

The Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), developed by Germanwatch, the NewClimate Institute, and Climate Action Network, evaluates the climate policy performance of major emitting nations across four categories: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, renewable energy, energy use, and climate policy. Unlike the EPI, which focuses on outcomes, the CCPI foregrounds policy ambition, per-capita metrics, and sectoral shifts. India’s consistently high placement in the CCPI stands in stark contrast to its low rankings in other environmental indices, raising questions about the metrics of performance and the paradoxes of climate leadership in the Global South.

Data-At-Disposal

In the 2025 CCPI, India ranks 10 out of 63 countries, maintaining its 2023 position and marking sustained recognition of its climate policy framework. India ranks 12th in emissions, attributable to its low per-capita GHG emissions of 2.4 tCO₂e—a figure well below the global average. Its renewable energy sector ranks 8th, with an installed capacity of 130 GW in 2024, including 85 GW solar and 47 GW wind. This capacity growth was driven, in part, by the expansion of decentralized solar systems under the Rooftop Solar Scheme, which added 10 GW in 2024 alone.

India’s climate policy sub-ranking stands at 15, reflecting long-term strategic commitments, including a net-zero emissions target by 2070 and an interim goal of generating 50% of electricity from non-fossil sources by 2030. However, these policy ambitions coexist with the continued dominance of coal, which constitutes 55% of India’s power mix. This contradiction—between renewable acceleration and fossil fuel persistence—renders India’s climate transition a site of friction between crony developmental exigencies and decarbonization imperatives under the international covenants on shared climate responsibilities that fixate long-term low emission development goals (LT-LEDs). Is India under its present autocratic regime swaying far from these goals just to protect the crony giants of oil, gas or coal? In a billionaire-driven setup with environmental extortionist personae such as Adani and Piramal dominating the scene, India’s ecological targets remain elusive, and often sidelined without explanation or excuse.

Urbanization-induced emissions remain a critical issue, with 60% of PM2.5 levels in cities linked to transport, construction, and energy sectors (CPCB, 2024). While green hydrogen and battery storage technologies are in nascent stages—contributing less than 0.1% to India’s energy matrix—the contemporary policy frameworks envision rapid scaling.

Comparative regional analysis places India ahead of all South Asian nations and among the top performers in the G20. However, it still trails leading European countries such as Denmark (rank 4) and Sweden (rank 5). The disparity between India’s CCPI score and its climate ranking in the EPI (133) underscores the divergence between policy intent and environmental outcome frameworks.

India’s position in the 2025 Climate Change Performance Index reflects a complex climate trajectory marked by strategic policy ambition, low per-capita emissions, and expanding renewable infrastructure. However, this narrative of leadership coexists with persistent structurally asymmetric dependencies on fossil fuels and accelerating urban emissions. The CCPI’s methodology—privileging policy over pollution—foregrounds India’s diplomatic and infrastructural commitments to climate action but remains analytically detached from the ecological consequences manifest in parallel indices. The juxtaposition of high policy scores with degraded environmental outcomes encapsulates the paradoxes of climate governance in postcolonial developmental states.

V. ESG Funds, Green Capitalism, and Climate Reality: A Chaosophic Critique of Irrationally Rational Market-Centrism

(i) The Rise of ESG Funds

ESG funds evaluate investments based on environmental (e.g., carbon emissions), social (e.g., labor practices), and governance (e.g., transparency) criteria. Marketed as a tool to mitigate climate risks while generating returns, ESG funds have attracted institutional and retail investors. By 2025, ESG funds account for nearly 20% of global investment assets (Morningstar, 2025). Proponents argue that ESG integration incentivizes corporate sustainability, aligning profit motives with planetary goals.

(ii) Green Capitalism and Its Discontents

Green capitalism posits that market mechanisms—such as carbon pricing, ecosystem services, biodiversity offsets, emissions trading schemes, green bonds, and ESG funds—can address environmental crises without dismantling capitalist structures. This ideology assumes that economic growth can be decoupled from environmental harm, a claim increasingly debunked by ecological economists (Hickel, 2020). Critics argue that green capitalism commodifies nature, transforming ecosystems into financial assets while perpetuating extractive practices. For instance, ESG funds often invest in companies with questionable environmental records, such as fossil fuel firms with “net-zero” pledges that lack enforceable timelines (Rainforest Action Network, 2024).

(iii) The Climate Reality Gap

Climate reality—characterized by accelerating global warming, biodiversity loss, and extreme weather—demands transformative action. Yet, ESG funds frequently fall short. Studies reveal that many ESG portfolios perform no better than conventional funds in reducing carbon intensity (FT, 2024). Greenwashing, inconsistent ESG metrics, and a lack of regulatory oversight further undermine their credibility. This gap between ESG rhetoric and climate outcomes underscores the need for a deeper critique of their underlying logic.

Chaosophy: A Framework for Critique

(i) Understanding Chaosophy

Guattari’s chaosophy rejects linear, hierarchical systems in favor of multiplicity, flux, and non-linear dynamics. In works like A Thousand Plateaus (1980), Deleuze and Guattari describe the proposal of reality as a chaotic assemblage of flows, intensities, and becomings, resisting the totalizing capture by rigid structures. Chaosophy critiques “territorializing” forces—such as state capitalism or bureaucratic systems—that impose order on chaotic realities, reducing their complexity to manageable units.

(ii)The Irrationally Rational Stock Market

Stock markets operate on an “irrationally rational” logic, combining speculative fervor with quantitative precision. Prices reflect not objective value but collective perceptions, driven by algorithms, sentiment, and herd behavior. Deleuze-Guattari’s chaosophy as part of Schizoanalysis reveals this as a territorializing process, where the chaotic multiplicity of economic and ecological realities is reduced to numerical abstractions (e.g., stock prices, ESG scores). This reduction obscures the non-linear, unpredictable nature of climate systems, rendering markets ill-equipped to address ecological crises.

(iii) ESG Funds as Territorializing Machines

ESG funds exemplify territorialization by imposing standardized metrics on complex socio-ecological systems. For example, carbon footprint calculations simplify diverse emissions sources into a single number, ignoring contextual nuances. Deleuze-Guattari’s concept of the “rhizome”—a non-hierarchical, interconnected network—contrasts with ESG’s arborescent (tree-like) structure, which privileges linear causality and measurable outcomes. By reducing climate reality to checkboxes, ESG funds domesticate the chaotic urgency of ecological collapse, aligning it with capitalist priorities.

Critiquing ESG Funds Through Chaosophy

(i) The Illusion of Order

ESG funds create an illusion of order by quantifying sustainability, yet climate systems are inherently chaotic, characterized by tipping points and feedback loops. Deleuze-Guattari’s chaosophy critiques this attempt to “smooth” ecological chaos into predictable models. For instance, ESG ratings often prioritize short-term metrics (e.g., emissions reductions by 2030) over long-term systemic risks, failing to account for non-linear climate dynamics. This territorializing impulse aligns with green capitalism’s need to render nature legible for profit, rather than confronting its irreducible complexity.

(ii) Complicity in Extractive Flows

Chaosophy reveals how ESG funds channel capital within capitalist flows, reinforcing extractive economies. Many ESG portfolios include firms engaged in deforestation or fossil fuel expansion, justified by incremental improvements in governance or social metrics. Deleuze-Guattari’s notion of “lines of flight”—moments of rupture that disrupt systems—suggests that felt sensible ecological change requires escaping capitalist territoriality. Yet, ESG funds reterritorialize these flows, integrating green rhetoric into profit-driven structures without challenging their extractive core.

(iii) The Irrationality of Market Rationality

The stock market’s irrationality—evident in speculative ESG bubbles and greenwashing—clashes with its rationalist veneer. Deleuze’s critique of capitalism as a desiring-machine highlights how markets produce desires (e.g., for green credentials) that serve accumulation rather than ecological needs. ESG funds amplify this by commodifying sustainability, creating value through perception rather than material impact. For example, Tesla’s high ESG rating in 2023, despite labor controversies and high production emissions, reflects market sentiment rather than climate reality (X posts, 2023, user analysis).

(iv) Reimagining Economic Systems

Deleuze-Guattari’s chaosophy invites us to embrace the chaotic multiplicity of climate reality, rejecting the territorializing logic of ESG funds. Rather than reforming markets, we propose:

Rhizomatic Economies: Foster decentralized, non-hierarchical economic systems that mimic ecological networks, prioritizing mutual aid, commons-based resource management, and degrowth.
Lines of Flight: Support grassroots movements and Indigenous-led initiatives that disrupt capitalist flows, creating spaces for alternative economic imaginaries.
Embracing Complexity: Develop climate policies that account for non-linear dynamics, moving beyond reductive metrics to prioritize systemic transformation.

ESG funds, as emblematic of green capitalism, promise to reconcile markets with climate imperatives but ultimately reinforce extractive systems. Through Deleuze-Guattari’s chaosophy, we expose their territorializing logic, which imposes order on the chaotic reality of climate systems, perpetuating an “irrationally rational” market paradigm. By reimagining economic systems as rhizomatic and open to lines of flight, we can move toward solutions that embrace ecological complexity and challenge the more-than-climate crisis at its root. Future research should explore how decentralized, non-capitalist frameworks can address climate reality more effectively than ESG-driven green capitalism.

VI. Climate Displacement and Resource Challenges: A Comparative Overlap of Global and Indian Contexts

The global crisis of climate-induced displacement unfolds amidst intensifying pressures on finite ecological resources—land, freshwater, topsoil, and biodiversity. With the Earth’s surface largely inhospitable to human habitation and its freshwater stores increasingly inaccessible, the human burden on ecosystems has reached critical proportions. The total habitable land area constitutes less than a third of terrestrial surface, and only 0.5% of Earth’s water is readily drinkable. These scarcities intersect with population growth, where India alone, at over 1.4 billion people, exemplifies a demographic concentration that compounds environmental stress. Climate change acts as a multiplier, triggering mass displacement, disrupting agrarian economies, and accelerating biodiversity loss. In 2022, over 32.6 million people were displaced globally by extreme weather; India accounted for nearly half that figure. This section contextualizes these displacements within resource constraints, contrasting global patterns with India’s specific vulnerabilities, while exposing the absence of legal recognition for climate refugees.

Global Context

Land and Population
The Earth’s total landmass—148 million km²—yields only 48 million km² as habitable, due to the exclusion of glaciers, deserts, and mountainous terrain. Agricultural use occupies 4.8 billion hectares, split between cropland and pasture. With a global population exceeding 8 billion in 2022, average population density stands at 50 people per km². However, urbanization, deforestation, and desertification steadily erode this habitable zone.

Water Availability
Although water covers 71% of Earth’s surface, 97% is saline. Of the remaining 3% freshwater, 69% is locked in glaciers, 30% is subterranean, and only a fraction—less than 0.5%—is immediately accessible. This vital resource is unevenly distributed and frequently contaminated, creating both scarcity and political conflict.

Topsoil and Agriculture
Topsoil—formed over centuries—is foundational to food systems but remains geographically uneven and vulnerable. Approximately 30% of global agricultural land is already degraded due to erosion, intensive monoculture, and deforestation. The loss of topsoil not only imperils crop yields but compounds climate vulnerability.

Biodiversity Conditions
Global biodiversity faces systemic collapse. An estimated 39.4% of plant species are at risk of extinction, driven by habitat loss, overexploitation, and climate instability. Faunal populations exhibit similar declines, with the World Wildlife Fund listing both iconic (polar bears, sea turtles) and lesser-known species under critical threat.

Climate Displacement
Extreme weather displaced 32.6 million people globally in 2022—a 41% rise since 2020. Forecasts suggest a range between 25 million and 1.2 billion climate refugees by 2050. Internal displacement dominates, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America. Crucially, the 1951 Refugee Convention excludes climate-displaced persons, rendering them legally invisible in international frameworks.

Indian Context

Land and Population
India’s land area of 3.287 million km² supports over 1.4 billion people, translating to a population density of 450/km²—nine times the global average. Nearly 1.8 million km² is under agriculture, but 30% of this is degraded due to overcultivation and development pressures. Urban expansion continues to consume fertile land, intensifying competition between habitation and cultivation.

Water Availability
India’s freshwater crisis is acute. Although groundwater provides over 50% of irrigation, depletion and contamination have rendered large areas water-stressed. Surface water, of which 70% is polluted, remains reliant on erratic monsoon cycles. Per capita availability has fallen from 1,816 m³ in 2001 to 1,486 m³ in 2021—below the global stress threshold.

Topsoil and Agriculture
Topsoil in India is concentrated in the Indo-Gangetic plains and deltaic regions. However, 43% of agricultural land shows signs of erosion or nutrient depletion. This degradation undermines food security for a population where 43% of the workforce remains agriculture-dependent.

“Dr.” M.S. Swaminathan’s so-called legacy as the architect of the Green Revolution is to be critically re-examined through the lens of ecological degradation, biopolitics, and the commodification of life. The transformation of agriculture following World War II—whereby unused wartime chemicals were redirected into fertilizers and pesticides—marked a shift from traditional/indigeneous/multi-generational arming practices to a regime dominated by monoculture, genetic engineering, and chemical-industrial dependency that robbed the top-soil of its constituent nutrients and did away with the adaptive acclimatization/optimization of seeds with history. This shift did not merely aim to arbitrarily feed into the narrative of over-production but also served the interests of pharmaceutical and agrochemical industries, birthing what can be termed a “death industry” as well as “pesticide generation” that thrives on ecological uniformity, soil exhaustion, and farmer disenfranchisement. Life itself became a target of industrial control, with seeds, biodiversity, and ecosystems reduced to manipulable units in service of profit. Echoing philosophical critiques of a defaced modernity, this trajectory illustrates how science, when organized-institutionalized-funded with market and state power, can function as a mechanism of control, surveillance, and intermittent violence—transforming the promise of food security into a machinery that governs death industry by perpetuating a sick society.

Biodiversity
India’s biodiversity is rich but endangered. Approximately 10% of its plant species, including medicinal flora, face extinction risks. Keystone species like the Bengal tiger and Indian rhinoceros are imperiled by habitat fragmentation, poaching, and urban encroachment. With only 5% of its land under effective conservation, India mirrors global trends of ecological precarity.

Climate Displacement
India reported 14.5 million internal displacements in 2022 due to climate-related disasters, including floods in Assam and droughts in Karnataka. The World Bank projects 45 million climate migrants within India by 2050, driven by rising seas (Sundarbans), recurrent cyclones, and freshwater scarcity. South Asia—where India dominates in scale—accounts for nearly 40% of global displacement risk. Despite this, India lacks a statutory framework for climate refugees, relying instead on disaster relief mechanisms.

Comparative Analysis: Global vs. Indian Metrics

Aspect	Global Context	Indian Context
Population Density	50/km²	450/km²
Habitable Land	48 million km²	3.287 million km²
Agricultural Land at Risk	30%	30% (of 1.8 million km²)
Water Availability	0.5% of Earth’s water is drinkable	70% of surface water polluted; groundwater depleting
Topsoil Degradation	30% of global farmland	43% of agricultural land
Biodiversity Risk	39.4% of plant species	10% of flora threatened; 20% of fauna vulnerable
Climate Displacement (2022)	32.6 million	14.5 million
Projected Climate Refugees (2050)	25 million–1.2 billion	45 million
Legal Protection	No climate refugee status under international law	No national legal framework

The interplay between ecological limits and human displacement renders climate-induced migration one of the defining crises of the twenty-first century. Both globally and within India, the convergence of high population density, declining topsoil, freshwater scarcity, and habitat loss is accelerating socio-ecological breakdown. With 32.6 million people displaced globally in 2022, and 14.5 million in India alone, the scale of dislocation is unprecedented. Projections of up to 1.2 billion global climate refugees—and 45 million within India—suggest a future wherein mobility is no longer a choice but a compulsion driven by environmental duress. Yet, neither global nor national legal frameworks afford formal recognition or rights to those displaced by climate-induced factors. India’s resource crisis is emblematic of a broader planetary impasse, where the erosion of ecological stability displaces not only communities but the very suicidal assumptions of developmental modernity.

VII. Key Environmental Lip Services by the Indian Government

Indian government has launched numerous environmental initiatives, many of them ambitious on paper. However, their implementation record is poor, with widespread concerns about lip service, bureaucratic inertia, greenwashing, and ingrained contradictions.

National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC, 2008)
- Comprises eight “missions” (e.g., National Solar Mission, National Water Mission, National Mission for a Green India).
- Designed to address climate change while advancing economic development.
National Electric Mobility Mission Plan (NEMMP)
- Aims to promote EV adoption and reduce fossil fuel dependency.
Perform, Achieve, and Trade (PAT) Scheme
- A market-based mechanism to improve energy efficiency in energy-intensive industries.
Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (FAME I & II)
- Promotes electric vehicles with subsidies.
International Solar Alliance (ISA, launched 2015)
- Joint initiative with France to mobilize solar power deployment in tropical countries.
National Clean Air Programme (NCAP, 2019)
- Target: 20–30% reduction in PM2.5 levels in 132 cities by 2026.
National Biodiversity Action Plan (NBAP)
- Aims to safeguard India’s biological heritage.
Green India Mission (GIM)
- Focus on afforestation and ecosystem services.
Unnat Jyoti by Affordable LEDs for All (UJALA)
- Distributes energy-efficient LED bulbs at subsidized rates.
National Adaptation Fund on Climate Change (NAFCC)
- Supports state and UT projects to address climate vulnerabilities.
LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment) Campaign (2022)
- Advocates behavioral change and sustainable consumption patterns.

Ridiculous Remarks By The Indian PM

Major Critiques and Challenges

Issue	Description
Implementation Gap	Several missions remain underfunded or poorly executed.
Data Suppression	Air and water pollution data are sometimes withheld or selectively released.
Coal Dependency	India still generates ~55% of electricity from coal, with new coal plants being commissioned.
Deforestation	Infrastructure projects often get fast-tracked environmental clearances (e.g., highways through forests).
Urban Air Quality	Despite NCAP, 21 of the world’s 30 most polluted cities are in India (IQAir, 2024).
Lip Service in Global Forums	Strong climate diplomacy (e.g., net-zero by 2070) is often not reflected in local governance or regulation.
Dilution of Environmental Regulations	EIA 2020 draft faced backlash for weakening project clearance norms and public consultation processes.
Greenwashing	ESG narratives often hide the environmental degradation caused by private corporations supported by public policy.

India does APPEAR TO have a robust portfolio of environmental policies on paper—but their success is often undermined by developmental priorities, weak enforcement, regulatory dilution, and a state–corporate alliance that privileges GDP over ecosystem integrity.

In short: not all initiatives are lip service, but many are selectively implemented, rhetorically inflated, and strategically ignored when they conflict with industrial or electoral interests.

Here is a detailed academic study that compares India’s debt-driven development model with its promotion of anti-green projects, exposing contradictions between stated environmental commitments and on-ground practices.

VIII. Debt, Development, and Destruction: India’s Anti-Green Trajectory in the Age of Ecological Crisis

India’s CURRENT economic growth model, heavily reliant on debt-financed infrastructure, perpetuates environmentally unsustainable and socially exclusionary development. Drawing on policy documents, ecological economics, and case studies of projects such as coal mining, river-linking schemes, and highway construction, this study examined how India’s escalating public and corporate debt is serviced through extractive ventures framed as national prideful (pride-fool?!) progress. Despite global climate commitments and rhetoric promoting sustainability, India’s development strategy reveals a stark contradiction: greenwashing on the international stage masks ecologically destructive practices at home. Analysis of initiatives like the National River Linking Project and coal mining expansion in states like Chhattisgarh highlights the environmental toll—deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water depletion—while displacing marginalized communities and exacerbating inequality. Ecological economics critiques, such as those in Hickel (2020), underscore the limits of growth-centric models in resource-constrained systems. Policy documents, including NITI Aayog’s (2024) development plans and the Ministry of Environment’s (2023) afforestation data, reveal a reliance on compensatory (like spreading phenyl in a dirty washroom!) measures that fail to offset the systemic roots of the big picture ecological harm. This article argues for a paradigm shift from debt-driven, extractive growth to regenerative, post-extractive economies that prioritize ecological restoration and social equity, aligning with global sustainability goals while addressing India’s unique socio-economic challenges.

A. The Debt–Development Nexus

India’s post-liberalization economy has witnessed exponential growth, but at a cost. By 2024, public sector debt crossed ₹180 lakh crore (~89% of GDP), while private sector debt escalated through PPP (Public–Private Partnership) models. This debt spiral sustains an extractivist growth regime, where land, forests, and rivers become collateral for repaying sovereign and corporate borrowings. Infrastructure-led growth—expressways, hydropower dams, smart cities—forms the backbone of this model, even as climate risk, displacement, and ecological degradation soar.

B. Debt-Driven “Development”: Fiscal Expansion or Ecological Extinction?

Parameter	Value (2024)	Implication
Public Debt	₹180 lakh crore	Borrowed funds finance high-carbon sectors
GDP Growth Target	7.6%	GDP-centric logic used to justify ecological trade-offs
Infrastructure Budget	₹11 lakh crore (2023–24)	Focus on roads, railways, power over ecological regeneration
Energy Mix	55% coal	Coal-based energy projects prioritized due to quicker returns

Debt-funded development is rationalized as “modernization,” with large-scale projects often receiving fast-tracked environmental clearances. However, this fuels a resource-extraction feedback loop, where natural wealth is converted into financial flows (nature-as-cash-cow!!!)—primarily to service interest obligations and incentivize speculative capital.

C. Case Studies of Anti-Green Projects Enabled by Debt

(i) Coal Mining Expansion in Hasdeo Aranya (Chhattisgarh)

Over 18,000 hectares of forestland allocated for coal blocks.
Adivasi resistance ignored; clearances bypassed despite Compensatory Afforestation Act.
Coal India and Adani Power among major beneficiaries, linked to debt repayments and state subsidies.

(ii) Char Dham Highway Project (Uttarakhand)

889-km all-weather road network justified for “national security.”
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) waived in many stretches.
Himalayan ecology destabilized—triggering landslides, biodiversity loss.
Financed via NHAI bonds; debt repayment tied to toll monetization.

(iii) Ken–Betwa River Interlinking Project

₹44,605 crore project to link rivers across Bundelkhand.
Will submerge over 9,000 hectares of Panna Tiger Reserve.
Financed via multilateral institutions and NABARD; ecological cost disguised as “water security.”

(iv) Mumbai Coastal Road Project

Reclamation of 90 hectares of marine ecosystem.
Bypassed coastal zone regulations under ‘public interest’ exemption.
Funded via municipal bonds (MCGM); revenue recovery through toll concessions and real estate.

D. Green Rhetoric, Brown Practice: The Environmental Hypocrisy

Despite lofty commitments like:

Net Zero by 2070
500 GW of non-fossil fuel energy capacity by 2030
Mission LiFE (Lifestyle for Environment)

India remains:

The third-largest CO₂ emitter globally.
Among the top 5 coal-producing nations (780+ MT in 2024).
Responsible for 13 of the 15 most polluted cities (EPI, 2024).
Lagging in water and sanitation (EPI Rank: 170/180).

Green investments (e.g., solar parks, EVs) are often funded by the same debt instruments used for anti-green projects—creating contradictory capital flows within the same fiscal ecosystem.

E. Ecological and Social Costs

Displacement: Over 50 million people displaced since 1947 in the name of development; ~14.5 million in 2022 alone due to climate and infrastructure projects.
Deforestation: India lost 1.5 million hectares of forest cover (2001–2023), much under compensatory afforestation clauses that rarely deliver.
Topsoil and Water Stress: 43% of agricultural land degraded; per capita water availability approaching scarcity threshold (1,486 m³).
Biodiversity: India ranks 179/180 in the Nature Conservation Index (2024).

F. The Debt–Extraction–Displacement Spiral: A Theoretical Model

This model shows how debt-financed projects fuel environmental destruction, displace communities, and justify greenwashing to attract further finance—a closed loop of extractive modernity.

Extractive Growth, Implosive Futures

India’s debt-driven development model is neither green nor sustainable. It is marked by contradictions: green diplomacy abroad, brown capital accumulation at home; carbon targets in speeches, coal mines in forests. The model externalizes environmental costs onto future generations and marginalized communities, while celebrating GDP gains.

Unless structural changes decouple development from extraction, the result will not be a “Viksit Bharat” (Developed India) but a “Vik-SHIT Paryavaran” (Devastated Environment).

Here is a visual representation of the Debt–Ecology Feedback Loop in India’s development model. It illustrates how increasing sovereign debt funds land and forest acquisition, which fuels infrastructure expansion. This, in turn, causes ecological degradation and displacement, while capital inflows reinforce the debt cycle, perpetuating an extractive, anti-green growth pattern.

IX. Conclusion: Debt, Development, and Destruction– India’s Anti-Green Trajectory in the Age of Ecological Crisis

India’s ecological crisis is no longer peripheral; it lies at the heart of its developmental trajectory. While the country receives accolades for climate diplomacy and renewable expansion, environmental indices, climate displacement figures, and biodiversity data reflect a deeply compromised reality. ESG finance, rather than offering systemic solutions, reinforces extractive paradigms through superficial metrics. The state’s own initiatives oscillate between policy announcements and ecological amnesia. As India navigates its aspirations to global power status, it must confront the contradiction between debt-fueled development and environmental collapse. Recognition of this crisis requires not cosmetic reforms, but a rethinking of growth, justice, and planetary stewardship.

The critical survey of India’s standing across environmental, ecological, financial, and humanitarian indices reveals not isolated policy failures but a systemic misalignment between developmental ideology and planetary limits. Statistical rankings, while presented as neutral evaluations, often obscure structural violence, ecological degradation, and human displacement. India’s impressive climate policy posturing and renewable energy targets mask deeper environmental deterioration and biodiversity collapse. ESG funds, heralded as instruments of green finance, emerge as mechanisms of reterritorialization that domesticate the chaos of climate collapse into digestible investment metrics. As climate displacement intensifies and essential resources like water and topsoil dwindle, both India and the world face a reality that resists quantification. This dossier concludes that the metrics themselves—constructed within the logic of extractive capitalism—require interrogation, not merely interpretation.

SPECIAL FEATURE

The Urgency of Ending India’s Climate Denial

Thus….. Is India genuinely committed to its LT-LED (Long-term Low Emission Development) objectives, or is it prioritizing its chosen crony capitalists? Activists have been focusing their efforts on various shortsighted endeavors, such as the Stop Adani movement in Australia (2014) and the US Court summons (2024) aimed at penalizing the Adani Group for its financial misconduct connected to renewable energy investments. Adani maintains close ties with India’s ruling party and oversees the Calcutta Port under a five-year contract; additionally, pharma billionaire Ajay Piramal has faced penalties for violating environmental regulations in Digwal, Telangana, where he has contributed to the pollution of water, land, and air. Meanwhile, mega-projects like the Bullet Train and Great Nicobar Island threaten to slice through forests; coal mining in Hasdeo Arand displaces indigenous communities; and the Chardham Himalayan super highway cuts across delicate mountainous terrain. The (un-)implemented Namami Gange initiative, meant to safeguard oxygen levels, remains a promise unfulfilled alongside the deeply polluting 2025 Mahakumbh festival; and engineer and educator Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike represents a stand against the hyper-industrialization of Ladakh’s fragile ecosystems. Prime Minister Modi’s assertion in a Teachers’ Day speech in 2014, “It is not the climate that has changed, we have changed,” encapsulates a troubling denialism.

At least five regional environmental movements in contemporary Indian history, viz., Save Narmada Movement (1969), Chipko Movement (1973), Silent Valley Movement (1973), Save Ganga Movement (1998, 2009, 2011, 2018) and Ladakh Movement (2024)— have failed to pressurize the ruling oligarchs enough to protect the natural world, with all its limits and self-regenerative capacities. Although Indigenous groups have resisted Adani’s coal-mining project in the Hasdeo forests in Chhattisgarh (2022), support is still needed to bolster a decentralized, yet pan-Indian, movement that positions climate threat as the top priority.

Be it the tactics of Green Capitalist whitewashing, the false promises of climate finance, or the narrow focus on carbon-centric thinking that overlooks other variables of toxicity in the holistic environmental crises we are currently facing—lip service to “going green” or “going local” will not resolve the issues at hand. A profound change in lifestyle patterns is necessary to genuinely envision a dynamic mode of collective existence that is more aligned with the processes of the natural world.

To truly engage with the pressing realities of our time, one must be prepared to question the unwavering emphasis on Al Gore’s “climate narrative” and shift our gaze towards the more expansive crises that define our existence within the intricate web of the natural world itself.

References

1. Environmental Indices and Climate Data

Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), Government of India. (2024). National Ambient Air Quality Report.

Germanwatch, NewClimate Institute, & Climate Action Network. (2025). Climate Change Performance Index 2025. Retrieved from https://climate-change-performance-index.org

Goldman Sachs & Biodiversity Futures Initiative. (2024). Nature Conservation Index 2024. Retrieved from https://goldmansachs.com

IQAir. (2024). World Air Quality Report 2024. Retrieved from https://iqair.com

NITI Aayog. (2024). Composite Water Management Index. Government of India.

Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. (2024). 2024 Environmental Performance Index. Retrieved from https://epi.yale.edu

2. Climate Displacement and Resource Analysis

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). (2023). The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources.

Institute for Economics and Peace. (2020). Ecological Threat Register. Retrieved from https://visionofhumanity.org

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC). (2023). Global Report on Internal Displacement. Retrieved from https://internal-displacement.org

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). (2023). World Population Prospects 2022.

World Bank. (2018). Groundswell: Preparing for Internal Climate Migration.

WWF. (2024). Living Planet Report 2024. Retrieved from https://worldwildlife.org

3. ESG Funds and Green Capitalism

Bloomberg. (2024). Global ESG Assets Surpass $40 Trillion. Retrieved from https://bloomberg.com

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1995). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.

Financial Times. (2024). ESG Funds Fail to Outperform on Carbon Intensity. Retrieved from https://ft.com

Guattari, Félix. Chaosophy: Texts and Interviews 1972–1977. Edited by Sylvère Lotringer, translated by David L. Sweet et al., Semiotext(e), 2008.

Hickel, J. (2020). Less Is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World. Penguin Books.

Morningstar. (2025). Global ESG Fund Report 2024. Retrieved from https://morningstar.com

Rainforest Action Network. (2024). Banking on Climate Chaos: Fossil Fuel Finance Report. Retrieved from https://ran.org

4. India-Specific Reports and Data

Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). (2022). Audit Report on EIA Processes.

Henley & Partners. (2024). Global Passport Index.

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC). (2023). Compensatory Afforestation Data.

Ministry of Jal Shakti. (2023). Water Resources Annual Report. Government of India.

National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5). (2021). Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India.

NITI Aayog. (2024). State of Water Resources Report.

Oxfam India. (2024). Inequality Report: Survival of the Richest.

Press Information Bureau (PIB). (2024). Annual Renewable Energy Update. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF). (2024). World Press Freedom Index.

5. Climate Displacement and Resource Challenges