Jaideep Prabhu, Professor of Marketing, Judge Business School, University of Cambridge, in conversation with Srijana Mitra Das (ET Evoke), outlines the path to global sustainability and its drivers:

Q. COP30 concluded with a weaker note on fossil fuel phase-out than expected — what does this mean for the global sustainability drive?

A. The upside here is that at least the world now agrees on where we need to go, which is a just, low-carbon future. The downside is, there is no agreement on how fast we move and who pays for it. The disputes are all about that. This means we won’t be able to achieve what is needed to keep temperature rise within 1.5 degrees. For that, we’d have to move to almost zero use of fossil fuels by around 2040 — that’s not going to happen. But at least, we agree we must move towards clean energy, despite the United States pulling out of the Paris Agreement and not having a federal presence at COP30.

On the upside, there was significant representation from the US, with states, cities and companies acting in concert. A lot of climate action is now moving away from central governments towards more decentralised measures.

Q. Much of the resistance to fossil fuel phase-out comes from oil seller nations — yet, most of the blame for such fuel use is placed on buyer nations in the Global South. How do you analyse that?
A. This is precisely where the consensus starts to fragment. Here, you could characterise particular blocs.On the one hand, you have the developed nations of Western Europe, Japan and the US. Then, you have the large emerging nations — China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Indonesia. The third bloc is the smaller emerging nations. The fourth one is the producer nations — they have a vested interest in keeping fossil fuel economies going for as long as possible, although they too are now hedging their bets by diversifying.I think the most interesting group here is the emerging economies — they are in a bind. They would very much like to move to renewables, especially as economically, it makes far more sense to do so with the price of solar, wind and storage consistently falling. Also, China being such a big player, with its commitment to clean energy manufacturing, means the global price of renewable technology itself has shrunk. All this helps emerging countries. Yet, historically, industrialisation, urbanisation and basic energy access came from fossil fuels — and not even the cleaner ones but coal. So, many low-income countries still see that as the fastest way to grow. Hence, the transition for them, even as they undertake it, is a tricky one. It requires innovation, investment and thought about all the people linked to fossil energy sectors.

This is where climate justice applies. The hope was that countries which had benefited from industrialisation earlier — entirely on the back of fossil fuels, thus creating emissions — would contribute. The US pulling out at the federal level symbolises defaulting on their duties.

However, other nations are doing incredible work in this sphere. I was recently in Brazil at a university in Santa Catarina and I was amazed at how much is happening in the frugal innovation space there, in climate action and agriculture. The large emerging countries, like China, Brazil and India, will play a crucial role in this. We will see much more of low-cost clean energy solutions and agricultural adaptation arise from them.

Another exciting area — and here, India is in the lead — is digital public infrastructure. India has done a lot in financial inclusion with UPI, Aadhaar, etc. Now, they’re applying that same thinking to peer-to-peer e-commerce, including mobility, and the Unified Energy Interface, which will enable people with spare energy they produce themselves, through solar, battery, etc., to sell this peer-to-peer through the grid. This is a game-changer — it will create energy entrepreneurs.

Q. What are some significant milestones in the history of global sustainability?
A. Importantly, what we are now seeing — and COP30 has again showed this — is that sustainability has shifted from being a peripheral agenda to being seen as core to national development and industrial policy. This is not just linked to energy but infrastructure, food and water systems and digital-enabled services.

That is a remarkable achievement, driven by various factors. First, the scientific evidence is just overwhelming, showing very clearly how human-used fossil fuels affect climate systems, monsoon rains, crops and productivity. The scientific evidence is rigorous and climate deniers are being pushed back — they are a fringe now.

Second, there is the sheer activism of people around the world, from farmers to parents, workers to medical experts — people who can see the effects of these dramatic climate events. Climate activism has grown into a mainstream measure, pushing governments to act.

Such coordinated efforts are very hard to pull off — the fact that we’ve had COPs held annually, despite all the different factions and sharply conflicting interests, is miraculous.

There is a consensus now that the world must move to renewables. The clashes are over the pace — and who pays.

Q. Why are those issues in the realm of ‘commitments’, while tangible actions, like the European Union’s carbon tax, are mandatory? Does this gap reflect a power differential?
A. Yes — that’s why this is about justice. There is a historical and structural power differential of at least 200 years from the colonial period. Colonialism itself was built on a particular economic model, which was taking resources from developing countries, processing them in industrial countries and then selling them back to the poorer countries. In the post-colonial period, we are still dealing with the consequences of that because poorer countries are trying to industrialise in the way developed countries did — but they cannot use the same resources without endangering their own populations.

Importantly, the developed world is also facing its own serious economic challenges — they are ageing, they have huge entitlements and government spending and sharp relative inequality. The standard of living has declined or become flat for a lot of people in the West — this is causing deep unease, channelled by figures like Donald Trump. It’s harder for Western countries to justify transferring money to other nations because their own growth is slow. They are also being challenged politically — the centre of gravity for economic power is moving away rapidly from Europe or North America towards Asia. This explains current geopolitical tension.

The West owes the rest of the world — but realistically, the West is feeling threatened about its own resources now, which are further committed, on top of huge health and social welfare spending, to war. They can’t justify transferring money to developing nations. This is why I reiterate my belief in emerging economies empowering themselves through frugal innovation. There is also a positive flywheel between growth and renewables — development is linked to clean energy now. Of course, the legacy system and the transition must be dealt with carefully — but today, the line of sight is clear for the world.

Views expressed are personal.