Consider the following statements: Statement I: At the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28), India refrained from signing the ‘Declaration on Climate and Health’. Statement II: The COP28 Declaration on Climate and Health is a binding declaration; and if signed, it becomes mandatory to decarbonize health sector. Statement III: If India’s health sector is decarbonized, the resilience of its health-care system may be compromised. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

Answer: (c) Only one of the Statements II and III is correct and that explains Statement I

The declaration is non-binding, so II is wrong; India’s concern was that cutting emissions from health care could hurt its ability to expand care — III explains why it didn’t sign.

The idea

The COP28 Declaration on Climate and Health is a voluntary political statement and creates no legal duty. A declaration’s legal effect depends on its wording and intent, not its title. This one is non-binding, so Statement II is wrong.

Hospitals need cooling: vaccine cold chains, operation theatres, medicine storage → Cooling needs electricity and refrigerant gases → Cutting these emissions quickly could slow the growth of health care → India said this is not practical in the short term → India did not sign

Why the others are wrong

(d) Rejects III, which is the reason India gave.

The trap

Declarations at COPs are almost never binding — check that word first.

Also know

COP28 (Dubai, 2023) held the first Health Day at a climate conference. The health sector causes about 5% of world greenhouse gas emissions. Other COP28 outcomes: the first Global Stocktake, the call to “transition away from fossil fuels”, the start of the Loss and Damage Fund, and a pledge to triple renewable capacity by 2030, which India also did not sign.