Net-Zero or Clean Air? India’s Climate Challenge Is About Timing, Not Tradeoffs

As the world’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, India occupies a precarious place in the global climate order. In 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi committed the country to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2070. At the same time, India faces a chronic public health emergency: urban air pollution levels rank among the worst globally, leading to over a million premature deaths annually. 

This raises a critical question: is India forced to choose between long-term decarbonisation and short-term pollution control, or can both be pursued through a coherent strategy?

False Tradeoffs
At first glance, the objectives of “net-zero” and “clean air” seem to be two sides of the same coin. Both are driven primarily by the combustion of fossil fuels in power, transport, and industrial sectors. Yet in practice, a policy “tradeoff” often emerges, not in outcomes, but in priorities and capital allocation.

Short-term pollution control often focuses on “end-of-pipe” solutions—technologies like Flue Gas Desulfurisers in coal plants or advanced catalytic converters in diesel vehicles. While these measures significantly reduce local pollutants like sulfur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter PM2.5, they do not reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In some cases, they marginally increase energy consumption, slightly raising carbon intensity.

Conversely, a singular focus on long-term net-zero targets can sometimes overlook immediate air quality needs. For example, a “wait-and-see” approach that hopes for a total renewable energy transition by 2040 might underinvest in cleaning the existing coal infrastructure of today. In a developing economy with finite financial resources, every rupee spent on retrofitting an old coal plant is a rupee not spent on solar capacity or battery storage.

This creates a classic economic tension: should policy prioritise immediate health outcomes for today’s population, or accelerate structural transition for future climate stability?

This tension is most visible in the power and transport sectors. India still relies on coal for approximately 75% of its electricity generation. To meet immediate energy security and development needs, India is currently advising utilities not to retire thermal plants before 2030, even as it scales up renewables. While this preserves short-term stability, it risks “locking in” carbon-intensive infrastructure. 

In transport, electric vehicles are central to the 2070 pathway. Yet, when EVs are charged using electricity from unfiltered coal plants, “zero-tailpipe emissions” simply relocate pollution from city centers to rural districts surrounding power plants. In the near term, shifting buses and taxis to compressed natural gas, improving public transit, and managing traffic may deliver larger air quality gains, even if their carbon benefits are more modest.

“Co-Benefits” Perspective
Despite these tensions, modern research suggests that a tradeoff is not inevitable. This research argues for a “co-benefits” framework, where policies are selected specifically for their ability to address both concerns simultaneously. Some examples of such policies in specific sectors are shown in the Table below.

The obstacle is not technological feasibility, but financing and policy alignment. Reaching net-zero by 2070 is estimated to require over $10 trillion in investment. Simultaneously, the health costs of air pollution already drain an estimated 3% of India’s GDP. Where a tradeoff exists, it is not between clean air and climate goals, but environmental health and short-term economic growth. 

Stringent pollution standards and carbon taxes can increase the cost of production, potentially slowing industrial output in a nation that is still striving to lift millions out of poverty.

There is no inherent tradeoff between zero-carbon targets and pollution control. There is, however, a policy and investment challenge. The deeper failure lies in fragmented governance. Air quality is treated as a municipal problem; climate targets as a global diplomatic commitment, and energy policy as a security issue. This siloed approach guarantees inefficiency. What India needs instead is integrated planning that prioritises decarbonisation pathways with the highest immediate health returns.

India’s climate transition should not be framed as a sacrifice demanded by distant global goals, but as a “Green New Deal” that will save lives today, reduce economic drag from pollution, and build cleaner, more resilient infrastructure for tomorrow.

The real challenge is not choosing between them but aligning policy to deliver both at the pace India needs.