As climate risks intensify across the globe, one question is becoming harder to ignore: who stands to bear the greatest burden of a warming planet, and who benefits from the decisions we make today? Our latest edition of the EPIC India Dialogue, titled “Who Wins, Who Loses: How Rapid Cooling Could Narrow Global Inequality,” on November 11, 2025 explored how climate mitigation strategies can either widen or narrow global inequity.
The discussion featured Anshuman Tiwari, Postdoctoral Scholar at EPIC India, and was moderated by Shreekant Gupta, Visiting Senior Fellow at CSEP and former Professor at the Delhi School of Economics. The event brought together voices from research, academia, and policy, convening representatives from institutions including the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), Faculty of Law, Delhi University, CSEP, IIT Kanpur, and several development-sector organizations.
Opening the conversation, Anshuman Tiwari challenged a commonly held assumption that climate change affects everyone equally. “Climate change is a stock problem,” he explained. “It’s not about what a country emits today but what it has emitted over decades.” Countries that emitted the most in the past are now the richest, and that economic advantage provides resilience: stronger health systems, better infrastructure, and greater ability to adapt. Meanwhile, many low-income countries, already situated in hotter climates, face increasing mortality risks as temperatures rise.
Drawing from 33 climate models and multiple temperature scenarios for the year 2100, Tiwari presented a stark finding: under a business-as-usual trajectory, hot regions will get hotter, deepening health and mortality risks; meanwhile, some colder, wealthier countries may actually become more livable. “For the same increase in global temperature, the impact on human lives is vastly different across countries,” he noted.
The data revealed a pivotal insight: speed matters. When nations act quickly to cut emissions, especially methane, the reduction in warming occurs faster, and lives are saved sooner. Methane’s short atmospheric lifespan allows for rapid cooling, and those benefits disproportionately accrue to poorer countries.
Anshuman stated, “For every ton of methane we avoid, the real question is the welfare loss, not just the income loss. Cutting emissions from Indian paddy may look small in monetary terms, but it can hit poor farmers much harder. Meanwhile, reducing a ton from a large oil and gas site in the US may cost more financially, but it creates a far smaller welfare burden. Equity matters in how we choose our mitigation pathways.”
The conversation also illuminated the political and economic reality behind climate negotiations. If rapid mitigation benefits the poorest nations most, why is action slow? “Rapid methane reduction is one of the most equitable climate strategies we have,” Prof. Gupta emphasised, underscoring that delay isn’t just a loss of time, it’s a loss of lives.
Tiwari pointed to the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: countries that built wealth through decades of emissions must lead and support mitigation in nations that did not. Prof. Gupta concluded, “Yes, economic growth can support adaptation, but you can’t simply grow your way out of this problem. Delayed action always hits poorer regions the hardest, and the faster we act, the greater the benefits for those who need them most.”
The session’s dialogue evolved beyond scientific findings into a deeper moral argument: climate mitigation is a global public good, and delaying action widens inequality. Acting early not only protects the planet, it also protects people.
Participants actively engaged, exploring how India can leverage these insights to push for fairer climate negotiations and more ambitious methane-reduction commitments.
The Dialogue concluded with a shared understanding: climate decisions are not just about emissions; they are about justice. As nations debate pathways to decarbonization, the research makes one thing clear: when we act fast, the world’s poorest stand to gain the most. When we delay, they lose first and lose most.
This edition of the EPIC India Dialogue continues our commitment to convening evidence-backed, solution-driven conversations on India’s climate and energy future. Previous Dialogues have explored clean air communication, development-led energy transition pathways, emissions trading systems, and climate-linked mortality impacts. Follow #EPICIndiaDialogue to subscribe to all updates from our flagship series.