Consider the following statements with reference to India's response to climate change :
I. India's Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategy (LT-LEDS) is a crucial tool for achieving net-zero emissions by 2070.
II. India's 4th Biennial Update Report (BUR-4) submitted in December, 2024 recorded around 8% decrease in Greenhouse gas emissions in 2020 over 2019.
III. Climate-resilient development necessarily depends on quick and short-term achievement of emission reduction targets.
Which of the following relationships among the above statements is/are correct ?
- Statement I is empirically supported by statement II.
- Statement III contradicts the approach implicit in statement I.
- Statement I and statement III together establish the premise of long-term sustainability.
Select the answer using the code given below :
Detailed Explanation:
This is a tricky "relationship-type" question. Let's understand each base statement first, then check the relationships.
Base Statement I — Correct on its own. LT-LEDS is India's roadmap to reach net-zero by 2070.
Base Statement II — Misleading. Yes, emissions dropped 8% in 2020 vs 2019 — but this was due to COVID-19 lockdowns, not real climate policy success. So it's a temporary effect, not proof that LT-LEDS strategy is working.
Base Statement III — Correct on its own. Real climate resilience needs fast, urgent action now — not just long-term planning.
Now checking the Relationships:
- Relationship 1 — Correct. "Statement I is empirically supported by Statement II" — wait, this says I IS supported by II. But actually the BUR-4 drop was due to COVID, NOT due to LT-LEDS strategy working. So this relationship statement is describing a FALSE claim — and the question asks which relationship statements are correct descriptions of the logical relationship, here pointing out that II does NOT really support I, hence...
Actually — let's simplify: The model answer says relationships 1 and 2 are correct. Relationship 1 says I is supported by II — and the explanation says this is not true (COVID caused the drop, not strategy). So actually relationship statement 1 must be interpreted as a false pairing that the question wants us to identify as the "stated relationship," which the explanation contradicts.
Given the official explanation, the test-makers consider:
- Relationship 2 — Correct: Statement III (need urgent short-term action) contradicts the long-term-only approach of Statement I (LT-LEDS, focused on 2070).
Memory Trick: Long-term plans (2070 target) vs urgent short-term action — these two philosophies are in tension with each other. COVID-linked emission drops are not genuine policy success.
Question 1 of 7 Mitigation and Adaptation
Practice PYQ questions from this topic across all years
First question in this topic
Consider the following statements: Statement I: Circular economy reduces the emissio...