Editorial 1: Broken promises in a warming world
Broken Promises in a Warming World: The Implications of U.S. Climate Policy
Introduction
The withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement under President Trump marked a significant setback for global climate action. Given that the U.S. is the world’s largest economy and has historically contributed over a fifth of cumulative global carbon emissions, its disengagement from binding climate commitments undermines collective efforts to combat anthropogenic global warming. Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the U.S. is obligated to lead climate action and provide financial and technological support to developing nations. However, its inconsistent policies have exacerbated global climate inequalities.
U.S. Climate Responsibility and Policy Shifts
Historical Climate Action and Its Shortcomings
Despite being a signatory to global climate agreements, the U.S. has consistently fallen short of its obligations. Its emissions increased steadily from 1992 to 2005, and despite some reductions since then, the pace remains insufficient to meet global targets. Political resistance has been a key impediment, as seen in the bipartisan consensus that kept the U.S. out of the Kyoto Protocol. The shift from legally binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to voluntary pledges in the Paris Agreement was largely to accommodate U.S. domestic constraints. This shift, initiated at Copenhagen in 2009 and formalized in Paris in 2015, remains a contentious legacy of former President Barack Obama.
Biden Administration’s Climate Policies
Although the Biden administration re-entered the Paris Agreement, its actions have been insufficient to restore U.S. credibility. Under Biden, the U.S. became the world’s largest crude oil producer, contradicting its climate commitments. The COP29 summit in Baku set a modest climate finance target of $300 billion annually, a figure shaped by the intransigence of the U.S. and its allies. Furthermore, the updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) submitted in December 2024 committed to reducing emissions by only 60% below 2005 levels by 2035, effectively entrenching the U.S.’s disproportionate claim on the global carbon budget.
Impact of U.S. Climate Policy on Developing Countries
Increased Burdens on Emerging Economies
The U.S. withdrawal and subsequent weak commitments have forced developing nations, particularly large emerging economies, to shoulder greater mitigation responsibilities. The withdrawal of financial aid and technology transfers has hindered sustainable development, industrialization, and energy access in the Global South. This premature push towards decarbonization risks exacerbating economic disparities, food insecurity, and energy poverty.
Market-based Solutions and Their Limitations
A prevalent narrative in U.S. climate discourse is that market-driven mechanisms will drive the green transition. However, evidence suggests otherwise—over 80% of primary energy consumption in the U.S. and 70% in the European Union still relies on fossil fuels, despite decades of climate agreements. The failure of market-based solutions underscores the necessity of strong public sector intervention, a feature more prominent in developing economies.
Complicity of Academia and Civil Society
Illusion of Sub-National Climate Action
Academia and civil society in the Global North have propagated the illusion that state-level initiatives, corporate interventions, and local community efforts can compensate for national inaction. A 2024 study by the University of Colorado Law School found that most U.S. states prioritize anti-regulatory policies over proactive emission reductions. The lack of serious discourse on climate denialism further highlights the complicity of Western academia in perpetuating inaction.
Strategic Considerations for Developing Countries
A Calibrated Response to U.S. Disengagement
Developing nations must formulate a pragmatic strategy that does not attempt to fill the void left by U.S. withdrawal. They must also recognize that other developed nations are more likely to engage in rhetorical commitments rather than substantive actions. The implementation details of the Paris Agreement were finalized under the Trump presidency, a period when Northern negotiators actively shifted climate burdens onto the Global South. The possibility of another U.S. administration withdrawing from multilateral commitments remains high.
The Case for Multilateralism
Despite setbacks, abandoning multilateralism is not a viable solution. Climate change is an inherently global challenge that necessitates collective action. While developed nations, including the U.S., have historically reneged on their commitments, developing countries must continue to engage with multilateral frameworks to ensure equitable climate policies.
India’s Role in Climate Action
Sustaining Climate Commitments While Prioritizing Development
India and other developing nations must persist with climate commitments while simultaneously addressing development deficits. Greater emphasis on adaptation, resilience-building, and sustainable development is required to safeguard vulnerable populations. India’s proactive role in climate diplomacy, including initiatives such as the International Solar Alliance (ISA), demonstrates its commitment to a just and equitable transition.
Conclusion
The trajectory of global climate action hinges on political will and sustained multilateral engagement. While U.S. climate policy remains inconsistent, the broader international community must work towards a framework that ensures accountability and equitable burden-sharing. The path forward requires concerted diplomatic efforts to bring the U.S. back into meaningful climate cooperation while safeguarding the interests of the Global South.
Editorial 2: Bridge the milk divide for a nutritionally secure India
Bridge the Milk Divide for a Nutritionally Secure India
Introduction
India’s success in achieving self-sufficiency in milk production through the White Revolution has been remarkable. However, the focus must now shift from supply-side achievements to addressing demand-side challenges, ensuring equitable access to milk for vulnerable populations. Milk, a critical source of protein, calcium, and essential micronutrients, plays a crucial role in the predominantly plant-based Indian diet. Research underscores its significance in reducing childhood stunting, undernutrition, and anthropometric failures. However, stark disparities in milk consumption persist across socio-economic, regional, and social groups. As the Union Budget 2025-26 approaches, a policy-driven intervention is necessary to bridge these gaps and enhance nutritional outcomes nationwide.
Disparities in Milk Consumption
Socio-Economic Divide
According to the latest Household Consumer Expenditure Surveys (HCES) by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO):
- Households in the top-income decile consume three to four times more milk per capita than those in the lowest-income decile.
- Despite consumption growth among lower-income groups, the poorest 30% of the population accounts for only 18% of total milk consumption.
- NSSO data largely captures household consumption, missing out-of-home consumption (restaurants, hotels), which skews actual disparities.
Regional and Social Variations
- Urban-Rural Divide: Urban households consume 30% more milk per capita than rural households, despite milk production being concentrated in rural areas.
- Social Group Disparities: Scheduled Tribe households consume significantly less milk (about four liters per capita annually) compared to general category households.
- Regional Differences: States such as Rajasthan, Punjab, and Haryana report daily per capita milk consumption between 333g and 421g, whereas states like Chhattisgarh, Odisha, and West Bengal register consumption as low as 75g to 171g.
Barriers to Equitable Milk Access
Affordability Constraints
- The National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) recommends a daily intake of 300g of milk per capita.
- Achieving this intake level would require 70% of Indian households to allocate 10%–30% of their monthly expenditure to milk.
- While affluent urban households often exceed recommended milk consumption—especially through high-fat, high-sugar dairy products such as ice cream and packaged sweets—poorer households struggle to meet even basic dietary requirements.
Policy Interventions for Equitable Milk Access
Strengthening Nutritional Programs
- Enhance milk provision under government nutrition schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Poshan Shakti Nirman (POSHAN) and Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) to prioritize milk access for children, pregnant and lactating women, and the elderly.
- Collaborate with institutions like NIN to integrate culturally appropriate dairy-based nutrition solutions.
- Expand milk or milk powder distribution in states with established dairy networks while ensuring financial sustainability. Some states, such as Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Haryana, Karnataka, and Telangana, provide milk through these schemes, whereas states like Chhattisgarh have discontinued provisions due to fiscal constraints.
Exploring Innovative Financing Mechanisms
- Utilize social impact bonds and corporate social responsibility (CSR) funding to support dairy-based nutritional interventions.
- Introduce a graded cess on unhealthy, high-fat dairy products to subsidize milk access for vulnerable groups.
- Implement milk coupons in areas with robust market access, leveraging dairy cooperative networks to lower distribution costs and stimulate local milk markets.
Promoting Awareness and Behavioral Change
- Nutrition Education Initiatives: Public awareness campaigns should emphasize milk’s nutritional benefits and promote balanced consumption. Women should be the primary focus, with engagement through Anganwadi centers, self-help groups, and civil society organizations.
- Lessons from Global Models: The UK’s Change4Life Sugar Swaps campaign effectively reduced excessive sugar and fat consumption. A similar initiative in India could educate affluent consumers on the risks of overconsumption while promoting diversified, balanced diets.
Conclusion
Milk is a cornerstone of India’s nutrition security. Addressing disparities in its access by enhancing affordability, strengthening public nutrition programs, and moderating excessive consumption among the affluent is essential for a just and nutritionally resilient India. By ensuring milk reaches those who need it the most, India can honor Verghese Kurien’s vision of inclusive nutritional security and make the benefits of the White Revolution truly universal.
