As India approaches the BRICS Leaders’ Summit scheduled to take place in New Delhi on September 12 and 13, 2026, and ahead of COP31 in Antalya, Turkey, in November, it is presenting a new case for international climate finance. According to Dr. Vyoma Jha, India Clean Energy Senior Advocate, International at NRDC, the issue is not only how quickly the world transitions to electricity, but also who pays for the transition, under what conditions, and who may be left outside the system.
The article is based on a political and analytical perspective that sees the West Asia crisis and disruptions to oil and gas flows through the Strait of Hormuz as having exposed the vulnerability of countries dependent on energy imports. Jha says that, as a result, countries in the Global South face higher fuel and food prices and reduced growth opportunities, making the shift to domestic clean energy sources an energy-security issue, not merely a climate matter.
India Is Financing Most of Its Needs Domestically
According to the figures cited in the article, non-fossil energy sources accounted for more than 54% of India’s installed electricity capacity, while renewable energy sources covered more than half of electricity demand during the month preceding the publication of the piece. Jha cites the latest Economic Survey data to indicate that 83% of climate-change mitigation finance and 98% of adaptation finance in India come from domestic sources.
This ratio forms the basis of India’s argument before developed countries and international institutions: New Delhi is not asking external finance to replace domestic spending. Rather, it believes that international finance and access to technology should help developing countries implement their climate plans, particularly when their needs are substantial and their ability to borrow or attract private capital is limited.
A Gap Reaching $100 Billion Annually
The article draws on the NITI Aayog report on “developed India” and net-zero scenarios, as well as India’s latest nationally determined contribution submitted to the UNFCCC. The report estimates India’s cumulative financing needs through the 2070 net-zero horizon at approximately $6.5 trillion.
When focusing on the period through 2050, total needs amount to $8.05 trillion, compared with $5.56 trillion in available finance, according to the figures cited. The article converts this difference into an annual need of approximately $100 billion over the next two decades. It notes that this figure equals the value of the pledge made by developed countries to provide $100 billion annually to developing countries by 2020, although they did not meet it on schedule.
According to the source, the NITI Aayog report does not specify the precise division between public and private finance within the international gap. However, the article presents a scenario relying on multilateral development banks, bilateral channels, and climate funds to cover a significant portion of the need, while mobilizing private investment through blended finance and risk-mitigation instruments.
Climate Adaptation Is the Weakest Link
The problem is not limited to emissions-reduction finance. Global adaptation finance reached $64 billion in 2024, compared with approximately $1.9 trillion directed toward mitigation finance, according to the article. The Adaptation Fund also failed to reach its target of raising $300 million annually during the past three years.
Jha considers India’s position—financing 98% of its adaptation needs domestically—to illustrate a broader flaw in the international system, in which vulnerability to climate risks is not adequately accounted for when capital is directed. She emphasizes that the challenge is not merely to declare adaptation important, but to build tools, standards, and institutional channels that make locally based, nature- and community-based investments financeable at scale.
What Does This Mean in Practice?
The article presents the upcoming BRICS Summit as an important forum for shaping the Global South’s position on financing resilience and the energy transition. According to the source, BRICS countries agreed earlier in September to deepen cooperation on adaptation, called for increased international financial support, and adopted four outcome documents, including principles for people- and community-centered adaptation that benefit from traditional knowledge.
The article also links the BRICS process to the COP31 negotiations in Antalya. The goal put forward by the COP31 presidency of raising electricity’s share of global final energy demand to 35% by 2035, compared with slightly more than 20% currently, requires implementable finance, not merely political targets. Similarly, increased attention to resilience within BRICS will not produce practical results without tools capable of attracting private capital.
Jha concludes that India’s request is not a simple redistribution of existing funds, but a call to broaden the financing base through innovative revenue sources, new contributors, and flows among countries of the Global South. Within the new international target of $1.3 trillion in climate finance, India’s estimated annual need of $100 billion represents approximately 7% of the total.
However, this vision leaves open questions about the ability of public and private institutions to provide financing on appropriate terms, and about how funds will be directed toward local adaptation projects. These are not secondary details; the success of India’s proposed model could determine whether climate finance is capable of serving other developing economies that are more exposed to risks.