PPrelimo← Home

International Relations · UNFCCC, COP & Paris Agreement

UPSC Prelims 2025, Question 32

The concept being tested: COP28 Declaration on Climate and Health and India's climate policy stance.

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?

Options

  1. ABoth Statement II and Statement III are correct and both of them explain Statement I
  2. BBoth Statement II and Statement III are correct but only one of them explains Statement I
  3. COnly one of the Statements II and III is correct and that explains Statement ICorrect answer
  4. DNeither Statement II nor Statement III is correct

The answer: Only one of the Statements II and III is correct and that explains Statement I

The COP28 UAE Declaration on Climate and Health, launched at Dubai in December 2023, is a voluntary political commitment endorsed by over 140 countries, not a binding treaty, so nothing in it makes decarbonizing a signatory's health sector mandatory. Statement II is therefore factually wrong. India stayed out of the Declaration because a large share of its health-care system depends on fossil-fuel-backed power, diesel generators keeping hospitals, ICUs, and vaccine cold chains running through grid outages, and rural primary health centres with unreliable electricity supply. An imposed, rapid decarbonization of this sector without matching reliable renewable capacity could genuinely weaken that resilience, which is what Statement III captures accurately. Since Statement III alone is correct and it directly supplies India's real reason for refraining from signing, it is Statement III, not Statement II, that explains Statement I.

What UPSC was testing

The three-statement, options-as-logical-combinations format is designed to punish reflexive elimination; the trap is assuming both II and III must be true simply because both sound plausible, when checking the Declaration's non-binding legal status against Statement II's 'mandatory' claim knocks it out immediately.

How often this comes up

This concept has appeared 6 times in UPSC Prelims General Studies Paper I between 2015 and 2025 — in 2015, 2016, 2024 and 2025.

The option-by-option autopsy for this question — why each of the other three is wrong, and which neighbouring concept each one was built from — is in the app.

More questions on this

Other past-year questions touching UNFCCC, COP & Paris Agreement.

UPSC 2025 · Q34

Consider the following statements: Statement I: Article 6 of the Paris Agreement on climate change is frequently…