Climate Diplomacy Back on the Table: India and China Explore Renewed Cooperation

• China’s climate envoy visit signals improving India-China ties and scope for renewed cooperation.

• Both nations historically shaped global climate talks, especially on CBDR and equity.

• Low-risk sectors like energy efficiency and sustainable agriculture offer immediate collaboration potential.

• Sensitive areas (EVs, batteries, solar) need balanced regulatory frameworks.

• Multilateral platforms and subnational partnerships can rebuild trust and advance climate leadership.

A recent visit by China’s Special Envoy for Climate Change, Liu Zhenmin, to India has drawn attention to the evolving dynamics between the two Asian powers. The envoy’s participation in two key meetings focused on climate policy and renewable energy suggests that improving diplomatic relations may be paving the way for renewed collaboration in areas of shared environmental concern.

During his trip, Liu held discussions with Sibi George, Secretary (West) in India’s Ministry of External Affairs, where the global climate agenda featured prominently. He also met Santosh Sarangi, Secretary in the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy. Analysts at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP) view these engagements as an early sign that climate and clean energy could become constructive spaces for cooperation after a prolonged period of diplomatic strain.

Historically, India and China have exercised significant influence over international climate negotiations, particularly as leading voices of the Global South. Both countries have often taken coordinated positions, especially in defending the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR) and emphasizing equity in global climate frameworks. Their alignment has, at times, shaped broader negotiating blocs and influenced global climate outcomes.

A forthcoming CSEP policy paper, titled Framing India’s China Strategy on Climate and Clean Energy and authored by Pooja Vijay Ramamurthi and Shruti Jargad, argues that any renewed engagement must reflect present-day geopolitical realities. The study examines past bilateral and multilateral exchanges to draw lessons for future collaboration.

According to the paper, certain sectors are better suited for immediate cooperation. Areas such as energy efficiency, sustainable agriculture, waste management, resilient urban planning, and sustainable food systems are considered relatively less politically sensitive. These “low-politics” domains offer practical opportunities for collaboration without triggering strategic concerns.

By contrast, cooperation in technology-intensive sectors—such as electric vehicles, battery manufacturing, and solar and wind component production—poses greater challenges. These industries are central to India’s energy transition but are also strategically sensitive due to their links to supply chains, industrial competitiveness, and national security. The authors suggest that advancing collaboration in these areas will require carefully designed regulatory frameworks and financial mechanisms to manage risk while enabling progress.

Beyond bilateral engagement, the paper underscores the importance of working through smaller multilateral platforms and regional groupings. Institutions such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), along with multilateral development banks including the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the New Development Bank (NDB), could serve as venues for building shared standards. These platforms may help align approaches to climate finance, resilience strategies, and green taxonomies, while reinforcing leadership from the Global South.

The research underpinning the CSEP paper draws on historical analysis, policy documents, expert interviews, and consultations. The authors also assembled an original dataset documenting 44 official bilateral engagements between India and China from 1993 to 2020, based on records from India’s Ministry of External Affairs.

Their analysis identifies three broad phases in India-China climate and energy engagement. The first phase, spanning the 1990s to 2007, was marked by strong alignment in multilateral climate negotiations and modest but growing bilateral cooperation. During this period, the two countries coordinated closely around CBDR and development equity while initiating cooperation on environmental protection, minerals, and renewable energy.

Between 2008 and 2015, engagement deepened significantly. The two governments expanded collaboration through memoranda of understanding, strategic economic dialogues, joint research programmes, and even sister-city agreements at the subnational level. Climate and energy cooperation became more structured and frequent during these years.

However, from 2016 onward, ties entered a period of contraction. A series of geopolitical disruptions—including the Doklam standoff, the Covid-19 pandemic, and the Galwan Valley clashes—contributed to a sharp decline in engagement. At the same time, structural imbalances grew more pronounced. China strengthened its position in global green supply chains, while India’s trade deficit with China widened, including in environmentally related goods.

Despite these challenges, CSEP’s recommendations suggest that rebuilding cooperation is both possible and desirable—provided it is approached pragmatically. Joint research initiatives, partnerships between cities, and exchanges at the subnational level focused on air quality, resilient infrastructure, and sustainable mobility could help rebuild trust while generating actionable policy solutions.

As Shruti Jargad notes, the two countries have spent decades developing a layered framework for climate cooperation. Revitalizing that foundation will require adapting to new economic and strategic realities and prioritizing sectors where risks are manageable and benefits are tangible.

With climate change intensifying and energy transitions accelerating worldwide, renewed India-China collaboration—carefully calibrated and strategically grounded—could once again shape global climate governance.