N※N

Global Jurisprudence Must Keep Pace with Climate-Tech Innovation

85

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. must-keep-pace-with-climate-tech-innovation.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Saturday, November 22nd 2025 at 8:25 GMT by ThePrint

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-11-22 179 x 224 / 13317 Bytes

2025-11-22 179 x 224 / 6996 Bytes

2025-11-22 205 x 224 / 6925 Bytes

2025-11-22 179 x 224 / 8719 Bytes

Global Jurisprudence Must Keep Pace with Climate‑Tech Innovation – A Summary of Jitendra Singh’s Call to Action

The climate crisis is no longer an abstract, future‑oriented emergency—it has become a present‑day reality that demands rapid legal transformation. In a thoughtful article published by ThePrint (https://theprint.in/india/global-jurisprudence-needs-urgent-evolution-for-emerging-climate-tech-phenomena-jitendra-singh/2790073/), former Indian diplomat and legal scholar Jitendra Singh argues that the world’s legal frameworks are woefully ill‑prepared to regulate the fast‑evolving realm of climate‑technologies. Singh lays out a comprehensive blueprint for an adaptive, inclusive, and globally enforceable legal architecture that can govern everything from carbon‑capture and geo‑engineering to climate‑adaptation finance and cross‑border technology transfer.

The Legal Landscape Today – Fragmented and Lagging

Singh begins by sketching the current legal environment: the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, and a patchwork of national environmental statutes. These instruments were designed for a relatively predictable climate‑policy arena—mostly focusing on emission reduction, carbon budgets, and a handful of mitigation measures. They were not conceived to regulate the “emerging climate‑tech phenomena” that are now reshaping the entire climate‑policy spectrum.

He points out that many of the newly developed technologies—direct air capture (DAC), bio‑char, negative‑emission carbon storage, solar‑thermal geo‑engineering, and even advanced renewable energy systems—present novel legal challenges. For example, DAC plants that extract CO₂ from the atmosphere raise questions about ownership of the captured carbon, liability for leaks, and the environmental impact of the energy required to run them. Geo‑engineering projects, meanwhile, carry the risk of unintended global side effects that cross national boundaries. The existing legal frameworks are not equipped to assess, regulate, or enforce obligations in these contexts.

Why Global Jurisprudence Must Evolve

Singh stresses that climate change is inherently a trans‑boundary problem. Emissions released in one country can be absorbed by the forests of another, and the economic benefits of carbon credits can cross borders. Legal mechanisms that can manage such complexities must be rooted in principles of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), precautionary action, inter‑generational equity, and sustainable development.

He also cites the increasing prevalence of climate litigation—cases filed by governments, NGOs, and even citizens that challenge national and corporate policies for failing to mitigate or adapt to climate impacts. In the United States, for instance, lawsuits have forced state governments to adopt stricter emission standards. In India, the Supreme Court’s landmark “Right to a Healthy Environment” judgment highlighted the constitutional duty of the state to prevent climate harm. Singh argues that litigation alone is insufficient; the law must anticipate emerging technologies and provide clear, enforceable standards before disputes arise.

The Core Elements of a “Climate‑Tech” Legal Framework

Singh proposes a multi‑layered approach to building a robust global climate‑technology legal framework:

1. International Treaty on Climate Technologies
   A dedicated treaty—akin to the Paris Agreement but focused on technology—would set out binding standards for the design, deployment, and operation of climate‑tech systems. It would require periodic reporting, independent verification, and cross‑border cooperation to prevent “race‑to‑the‑bottom” scenarios where countries lower environmental standards for competitive advantage.

2. Cross‑Border Pollution Protocols
   Many climate‑tech projects involve transboundary flows of energy, carbon, or chemicals. A new protocol could clarify jurisdiction, assign liability, and create dispute‑resolution mechanisms. Singh cites the need for a “global monitoring system” that tracks emissions, carbon fluxes, and environmental impacts across borders.

3. Intellectual Property (IP) & Technology‑Transfer Mechanisms
   The development of climate‑tech is often driven by private sector investment. Singh calls for an international IP regime that balances incentives for innovation with the public interest. He suggests a “climate‑tech patent pool” to promote collaborative development, coupled with data‑sharing requirements for verification purposes.

4. Climate‑Finance & Liability Instruments
   The legal framework should codify the obligations of developed countries to provide climate finance, as stipulated under the Paris Agreement. Moreover, it should establish clear liability regimes for damages caused by climate‑tech failures—whether through environmental degradation, economic losses, or public health impacts.

5. Human‑Rights and Climate‑Justice Clauses
   Singh urges the incorporation of climate‑justice principles into the treaty, ensuring that vulnerable communities are protected from the disproportionate risks associated with certain technologies. The framework would also recognize the right to climate‑resilient infrastructure and safe migration pathways.

Follow‑Up Links and Contextual Insights

In the course of his article, Singh references several key documents and initiatives that underpin his arguments:

• The Paris Agreement (2015) – The global legally binding treaty that sets the foundation for climate action.
• The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (2022) – Provides the latest scientific consensus on climate impacts and mitigation pathways.
• UNFCCC COP27 and COP28 proceedings – Illustrate the evolving international dialogue around climate finance and technology.
• The EU Green Deal – Serves as a model for a regionally integrated climate‑law approach, particularly in its emphasis on carbon markets and regulatory oversight.
• India’s National Climate Action Plan – Demonstrates how national policies can align with global legal expectations.

By weaving these references into his narrative, Singh underscores that any new legal architecture cannot be designed in isolation; it must build upon and integrate existing international instruments.

The Road Ahead – Challenges and Opportunities

Singh does not shy away from the practical obstacles to his vision. He acknowledges the difficulties of achieving consensus among states with divergent economic interests and the risk of political inertia at major climate negotiations. Enforcement is another thorny issue—international law traditionally relies on states’ willingness to comply, and the lack of a global court with binding jurisdiction over climate‑tech may hamper accountability.

However, Singh is optimistic. He cites the rapid advances in international cooperation over the past decade—most notably the Paris Agreement’s “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) and the unprecedented mobilization of green finance. He points out that technology, too, can be a catalyst for change; by setting clear legal standards, we can encourage investment in scalable, low‑carbon solutions.

Conclusion – A Call to the Global Community

In closing, Jitendra Singh delivers a potent reminder: the legal order is a living, evolving system that must adapt to the science and technology driving climate change. “Global jurisprudence cannot afford to be stagnant,” he writes. “We need an agile, inclusive legal framework that not only mitigates risk but also accelerates the deployment of clean technologies.”

Singh’s article serves as both a critique of the status quo and a roadmap for the future. For policymakers, legal scholars, and climate activists alike, it offers a compelling argument that the law is not a passive backdrop but an active enabler of the climate transition. By embracing a forward‑looking, collaborative legal architecture, the world can harness emerging climate‑technologies while safeguarding the planet and its peoples for generations to come.