Citation

Mashrafi, M. (2026). Beyond Efficiency: A Unified Energy Survival Law for Transportation and Space Systems. International Journal of Research, 13(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.26643/ijr/2026/43

Mokhdum Mashrafi (Mehadi Laja)
Research Associate, Track2Training, India
Independent Researcher, Bangladesh
Email: mehadilaja311@gmail.com

Abstract

Classical energy efficiency metrics systematically overestimate real-world performance because they model energy conversion as a single-stage process and implicitly neglect irreversible thermodynamic degradation. Across biological metabolism, electric transportation, information systems, and spaceflight, observed system-level outputs consistently fall far below what component-level efficiencies would predict. These discrepancies are most evident in advanced electric vehicles and reusable launch systems, where increases in battery capacity, power, or thrust do not yield proportional gains in driving range or payload mass.

This paper introduces a Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law that reformulates useful output as a survival-limited, multi-stage process governed by irreversible thermodynamics and finite conversion capacity. An energy survival factor (Ψ) is defined to quantify the fraction of absorbed energy that persists against transport losses and entropy generation. When coupled with an internal conversion competency term (C_int), the framework yields a universal performance relation:

The law is validated against empirical data from biological ecosystems, electric vehicles, and reusable launch systems. Case studies involving Tesla and SpaceX demonstrate that performance saturation arises from survival degradation and bounded conversion capacity rather than inefficient motors or engines. The framework is thermodynamically consistent, experimentally falsifiable, and independent of energy source or system scale, offering a unified physical basis for diagnosing performance limits and guiding system-level optimization.

1. Introduction

Technological systems across biology, transportation, computation, and aerospace consistently exhibit a pronounced mismatch between component-level efficiency and system-level performance. Electric motors, power electronics, combustion chambers, and rocket engines routinely achieve laboratory efficiencies exceeding 90%. From a classical perspective, such high efficiencies should imply near-optimal system performance. However, real-world outcomes—such as electric vehicle driving range, data throughput in computing systems, or payload mass delivered to orbit—remain far lower than what these component efficiencies would suggest. This gap between theoretical expectation and observed performance is neither accidental nor system-specific; it appears across domains, scales, and energy sources.

Crucially, this discrepancy is systematic rather than anomalous. Decades of incremental engineering improvements have pushed individual components close to their physical efficiency limits, yet system-level gains have progressively diminished. Increasing battery capacity does not yield proportional increases in vehicle range; adding thrust or propellant does not linearly increase payload; higher clock speeds or power budgets in computing systems do not translate into equivalent throughput gains. These recurring patterns indicate that performance saturation is not caused by poor engineering or immature technology, but by deeper physical constraints that are not captured by traditional efficiency metrics.

At the core of this limitation lies an implicit assumption embedded in classical efficiency-based reasoning: that energy conversion can be adequately represented as a single-stage, quasi-reversible process. Efficiency metrics typically compare useful output to total input without resolving how energy degrades as it moves through a system. In real systems, however, energy does not undergo a single transformation. Instead, it propagates through ordered, multi-stage pathways involving storage, conditioning, distribution, control, actuation, and dissipation. At each stage, energy is partially diverted into transport losses, control overhead, standby consumption, and—most importantly—irreversible entropy generation mandated by the second law of thermodynamics. These losses compound sequentially and nonlinearly, eroding the amount of energy that remains available for useful work.

Advanced technological platforms provide especially clear evidence of this limitation. Electric vehicles produced by Tesla employ motors and power electronics that already operate near their theoretical efficiency ceilings, yet real-world energy use is dominated by thermal management, auxiliary loads, aerodynamics, and duty-cycle effects. Similarly, reusable launch systems developed by SpaceX utilize some of the most efficient rocket engines ever built, but payload capacity is strongly constrained by structural mass, gravity losses, drag, guidance and control overhead, and thermal protection requirements. In both cases, further improvements in component efficiency yield diminishing returns at the system level, revealing that propulsion or conversion efficiency is no longer the limiting factor.

These observations point to the existence of a higher-order thermodynamic constraint governing real-world performance—one that transcends classical efficiency. Such a constraint must explicitly account for the survival of energy against competing loss mechanisms and the finite capacity to convert surviving energy into useful output within structural and temporal limits. Without a system-level law that incorporates these effects, efficiency metrics will continue to overestimate achievable performance and misdirect optimization efforts toward already-saturated components. The present work addresses this gap by introducing a unified survival-based thermodynamic framework capable of explaining performance saturation across biological, engineered, transportation, and space systems.

2. Methods: Survival-Based Thermodynamic Framework

2.1 Energy Survival Factor (Ψ)

We define the energy survival factor as:

where:

• AE = absorbed energy reaching active, task-performing states
• TE = transport and engineering losses
• ε = irreversible entropy-generating losses

Unlike efficiency, Ψ quantifies energy persistence, not conversion quality. From the second law of thermodynamics, ε ≥ 0, enforcing the bound 0 < Ψ < 1.

2.2 Internal Conversion Competency (C_int)

Even surviving energy cannot be fully utilized unless it can be converted within finite physical limits. We define internal conversion competency as:

This term captures limits imposed by reaction kinetics, transport capacity, geometry, and operational time windows.

2.3 Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law

Combining survival and conversion constraints yields:

All terms are independently measurable using standard telemetry and diagnostics, ensuring experimental falsifiability.

 

3. Results

3.1 Biological Benchmark (Photosynthesis)

Biological energy conversion provides a rigorous and independent benchmark for evaluating any proposed law of useful energy production. Photosynthesis operates under continuous environmental forcing, strict thermodynamic constraints, and has been refined through billions of years of evolutionary optimization. As such, its observed performance represents not a technological limitation, but a natural upper bound on energy utilization in complex, far-from-equilibrium systems.

At the planetary scale, global ecosystem data derived from field measurements, eddy-covariance flux towers, and satellite remote sensing consistently show that net primary productivity (NPP) corresponds to only 1–3% of incident solar radiation. This low fraction persists despite vast differences in climate, latitude, species composition, and total solar input. Expressed within the present framework, this corresponds to an energy survival factor of approximately Ψ ≈ 0.01–0.03, indicating that the overwhelming majority of incoming energy fails to survive the multi-stage biological energy pathway.

The underlying reason for this low survival fraction lies in the ordered degradation of solar energy during photosynthesis. Incident sunlight is first reduced by reflection and spectral mismatch, followed by rapid thermal relaxation of excited states. Additional losses arise from photochemical inefficiencies, metabolic overhead, respiration, nutrient transport, and maintenance of cellular structure. At each stage, a portion of energy is irreversibly dissipated as heat, increasing entropy and permanently destroying the capacity to perform useful biochemical work. By the time energy is stored as stable chemical bonds in biomass, only a small fraction of the original input remains.

Crucially, biological systems are not resource-limited but survival-limited. Increasing incident solar radiation does not result in proportional increases in biomass production. Under high irradiance, plants activate protective mechanisms such as non-photochemical quenching, photorespiration, and heat dissipation pathways. These processes deliberately increase entropy production to prevent structural damage, thereby reducing the fraction of energy that survives to carbon fixation. This behavior demonstrates that the second law of thermodynamics enforces a hard upper bound on useful biological energy conversion, regardless of resource abundance.

From the perspective of the Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law, photosynthetic ecosystems represent a canonical survival-dominated regime. Conversion competency is bounded by biochemical reaction rates and transport limits, but the dominant constraint is the fraction of energy that can persist without being thermally degraded. The narrow global range of observed productivity, despite large variations in solar input, confirms that energy survival—not energy availability—governs biological output.

This biological benchmark is particularly significant because it establishes that low system-level yield is not a sign of inefficiency or poor design, but a fundamental thermodynamic outcome in complex systems. If photosynthesis—arguably the most optimized energy-conversion process in nature—operates with Ψ values on the order of only a few percent, then engineered systems exhibiting higher but still sub-unity survival factors are likewise operating within unavoidable physical limits. Consequently, biological photosynthesis provides a powerful validation point for the survival-based framework and a natural reference against which transportation, computing, and space systems can be meaningfully compared.

3.2 Electric Vehicles (Tesla)

Battery-electric vehicles provide one of the clearest real-world demonstrations of the limitations of efficiency-based reasoning and the explanatory power of the Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law. Modern electric vehicles operate with exceptionally high component efficiencies: electric motors frequently exceed 90–95% efficiency under optimal conditions, and power electronics and drivetrains are similarly close to their practical limits. Despite this, empirical fleet data consistently show that real-world driving range and energy utilization saturate well below what component efficiencies alone would predict.

Analysis of operational telemetry and fleet-averaged performance indicates that electric vehicles typically exhibit an energy survival factor in the range Ψ_EV ≈ 0.7–0.85. This implies that 15–30% of stored battery energy fails to survive the ordered energy pathway from storage to traction under realistic driving conditions. Importantly, this loss does not arise primarily from motor inefficiency. Instead, dominant survival-degrading mechanisms include battery thermal regulation, inverter and power electronics losses, drivetrain friction, and continuous auxiliary consumption.

In parallel, the internal conversion competency for electric vehicles is empirically constrained to approximately C_int ≈ 0.6–0.8. This bound reflects limits imposed by vehicle mass, aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, traffic conditions, and duty-cycle effects such as stop–start driving, idling, and transient acceleration. Even when electrical energy successfully survives to the traction system, only a finite fraction can be converted into sustained translational motion within allowable thermal, mechanical, and regulatory limits.

A critical insight revealed by the unified law is that battery scaling alone cannot overcome these constraints. Increasing battery capacity increases input energy (E_in), but it also increases vehicle mass, cooling requirements, and auxiliary power consumption. These effects can reduce Ψ_EV by increasing thermal and transport losses, while leaving C_int fundamentally unchanged. As a result, real-world driving range increases sub-linearly with battery size—a pattern repeatedly observed across electric vehicle generations.

Thermal management plays a particularly dominant role in survival degradation. Battery temperature control, cabin heating and cooling, and heat rejection from power electronics constitute persistent entropy sinks that operate independently of traction demand. Under cold or hot ambient conditions, these thermal loads can rival or exceed traction energy use, sharply reducing Ψ_EV even when motors operate near peak efficiency. Similarly, auxiliary systems—sensors, computing, lighting, control electronics, and standby loads—consume energy continuously, diverting it away from propulsion regardless of driving state.

From the perspective of the Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law,

electric vehicles are jointly survival-limited and conversion-limited systems. Once drivetrain efficiency saturates, further improvements in motors or inverters yield diminishing returns unless dominant survival losses—particularly thermal and auxiliary loads—are addressed. This explains why incremental efficiency gains at the component level have translated into modest real-world range improvements compared to architectural innovations such as improved aerodynamics, lightweighting, and integrated thermal systems.

In summary, the electric vehicle case study demonstrates that performance saturation is not evidence of technological stagnation or inefficient components. Rather, it is a direct consequence of irreversible thermodynamic losses and bounded conversion capacity at the system level. The Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law correctly predicts observed driving-range limits and provides a physically grounded explanation for why increasing battery size or motor efficiency alone cannot deliver proportional gains in real-world performance.

3.3 Launch Systems (SpaceX)

Reusable launch systems represent one of the most extreme and informative test cases for the Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law. Rocket propulsion operates in a regime of exceptionally high power density, extreme thermal loading, and severe mechanical stress, while simultaneously requiring precise guidance and structural integrity. Modern launch vehicles developed by SpaceX employ some of the most efficient chemical rocket engines ever built, with combustion and expansion processes approaching their practical thermodynamic limits. Yet despite these efficiencies, payload mass delivered to orbit remains a small fraction of the total energy expended, and does not scale linearly with thrust or propellant mass.

Empirical mission data and post-flight analyses indicate that reusable launch vehicles typically operate with an energy survival factor in the range Ψ_launch ≈ 0.3–0.5. This implies that 50–70% of the initial chemical energy fails to survive the ascent and recovery energy pathway in a form that can contribute to payload orbital energy. Unlike electric vehicles, where losses are distributed across many auxiliary subsystems, survival degradation in launch systems is dominated by a small number of unavoidable physical mechanisms. Chief among these are gravity losses, which irreversibly dissipate energy while the vehicle climbs out of Earth’s gravitational well, and aerodynamic drag, which converts directed kinetic energy into heat and turbulence during atmospheric ascent.

Structural mass fractions constitute a second major survival sink. A substantial portion of thrust is expended accelerating tanks, engines, interstages, landing hardware, and thermal protection systems rather than payload. In reusable architectures, this effect is amplified by the additional mass required for recovery operations, including landing legs, control surfaces, reserve propellant, and reinforced structures. These masses consume energy without contributing to payload delivery, directly reducing Ψ_launch even when propulsion efficiency is high.

Thermal protection and heat management further degrade energy survival. During ascent, shock heating and boundary-layer dissipation generate intense thermal loads that must be absorbed or radiated away. For reusable vehicles, atmospheric reentry introduces additional entropy generation through convective and radiative heating, requiring robust thermal protection systems that add mass and dissipate energy. These thermal losses are fundamentally irreversible and mandated by the second law of thermodynamics, placing a hard lower bound on achievable survival fractions.

In addition to survival degradation, internal conversion competency in launch systems is severely constrained, with empirical values typically in the range C_int ≈ 0.05–0.2. Even when chemical energy survives to produce thrust, only a limited fraction can be converted into useful payload orbital energy. This limitation arises from finite thrust-to-mass ratios, fixed burn windows, staging constraints, and allowable structural and thermal loads. Orbital insertion must occur within narrowly defined temporal and dynamical windows, beyond which additional energy cannot be effectively utilized for payload acceleration.

A central insight of the survival–conversion framework is that reusability penalties emerge naturally from first principles rather than from design inefficiency. Energy allocated to vehicle recovery, thermal survival, and landing maneuvers necessarily reduces both Ψ_launch and C_int by diverting surviving energy away from payload acceleration. As a result, reusable launch vehicles inevitably trade payload capacity for survivability and reusability, even when engines operate near optimal efficiency.

Under the Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law,

payload delivery is constrained simultaneously by survival losses and bounded conversion capacity. Increasing propellant mass or thrust raises input energy but also increases structural loads, heating, and recovery overhead, often reducing net useful output. This explains why payload mass does not scale linearly with energy input and why improvements in engine efficiency alone cannot overcome mission-level limits.

In summary, reusable launch systems exemplify a regime in which survival degradation and conversion saturation dominate performance, not propulsion inefficiency. The Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law provides a physically grounded explanation for payload limits, reusability penalties, and the diminishing returns of thrust scaling, unifying launch vehicle behavior with that of electric vehicles and biological systems under a common thermodynamic framework.

4. Discussion

4.1 Why Efficiency Fails as a System Metric

Classical efficiency is defined as a single scalar ratio between useful output and total input energy. While this formulation is convenient for comparing isolated components under controlled conditions, it becomes fundamentally inadequate when applied to complex, real-world systems composed of multiple interacting stages. By collapsing all losses into a single number, efficiency obscures the physical origin, timing, and dominance of distinct degradation mechanisms that govern system-level performance.

In advanced technological systems, energy degradation arises from heterogeneous loss processes that differ not only in magnitude but also in physical character. Transport losses such as electrical resistance, fluid friction, and power conversion inefficiencies are, in principle, reducible through improved design and materials. In contrast, losses arising from irreversible entropy generation—including thermalization, turbulence, radiation, switching irreversibility, and control dissipation—are mandated by the second law of thermodynamics and impose absolute limits. Classical efficiency metrics conflate these fundamentally different processes, implicitly suggesting that all losses are equally reducible, which is thermodynamically incorrect.

A second critical limitation of efficiency is its lack of stage resolution. Real systems are inherently multi-stage: energy flows sequentially through storage, conditioning, distribution, control, actuation, and dissipation layers. Losses incurred at early stages propagate forward and suppress downstream performance, even if later stages operate at near-perfect efficiency. A single efficiency value provides no information about which stage dominates performance degradation, making it impossible to identify where optimization efforts will yield meaningful system-level gains.

Efficiency metrics also fail to capture the directionality and irreversibility of energy degradation. Once energy is dissipated as low-grade heat or entropy, it cannot be fully recovered for useful work. Efficiency, however, treats all losses symmetrically and retrospectively, without distinguishing whether energy was lost before or after reaching a potentially useful state. This leads to systematic overestimation of achievable performance, particularly in systems operating near physical limits, where small irreversible losses dominate overall behavior.

The survival-based framework resolves these deficiencies by explicitly separating transport and engineering losses from irreversible entropy destruction. The energy survival factor does not ask how efficiently energy is converted at a particular stage; instead, it asks whether energy survives long enough to remain convertible at all. By preserving stage structure and enforcing thermodynamic irreversibility by construction, the survival framework restores physical causality to system analysis.

As a result, survival-based metrics correctly diagnose why improving already-efficient components often yields negligible gains, why performance saturates despite abundant energy input, and why architectural and thermal considerations dominate optimization in advanced systems. In this sense, efficiency does not fail because it is incorrect, but because it is incomplete. The survival framework provides the missing system-level thermodynamic context required to understand and predict real-world performance.

4.2 Weakest-Stage Principle

A defining consequence of the survival-based formulation is that energy losses across a system do not add linearly; instead, they compound multiplicatively along the ordered energy pathway. If the fraction of energy surviving each stage i is denoted by , then the total survival factor of an N-stage system is given by:

This multiplicative structure has profound implications for system-level performance. Even when most stages operate with high survival fractions, a single stage with poor survival can dominate the overall outcome. As a result, system performance is controlled not by the average quality of components, nor by the most efficient element, but by the weakest survival stage in the energy pathway.

In practical terms, this principle explains why complex systems composed of many high-efficiency components can still exhibit low overall performance. For example, a system with ten stages each operating at 95% survival would still retain only about 60% of the original energy. If one stage drops to 70% survival due to thermal overload, control overhead, or structural constraints, total survival falls dramatically, regardless of how efficient the remaining stages may be. Classical efficiency metrics, which often emphasize peak or average performance, fail to capture this compounding effect.

The weakest-stage principle also clarifies why incremental improvements to already-efficient components yield diminishing returns. Once a component’s survival fraction approaches unity, further improvement produces only marginal changes in the product Ψ. In contrast, modest improvements to a low-survival stage can produce disproportionately large gains in overall performance. This asymmetry explains why system-level optimization efforts focused on motors, engines, or converters—when these elements are already near their limits—often fail to deliver meaningful gains.

Importantly, the weakest stage is not necessarily the most visible or technologically sophisticated component. In electric vehicles, it may be thermal management or auxiliary power consumption rather than the motor. In launch systems, it may be gravity losses, structural mass, or thermal protection rather than engine efficiency. In biological systems, it may be photochemical quenching or metabolic overhead rather than photon capture. The survival framework makes these hidden bottlenecks explicit by preserving stage resolution.

By identifying and targeting the dominant survival-limiting stage, the weakest-stage principle provides a clear and physically grounded optimization strategy: maximize the minimum survival fraction rather than maximizing peak component efficiency. This shift in focus—from the best-performing parts to the most limiting ones—is essential for overcoming performance saturation in advanced systems and forms a cornerstone of the Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law.

4.3 Design Implications

The Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law implies a fundamental shift in how advanced systems should be designed and optimized. Once component-level efficiencies approach their practical limits, further gains in useful output cannot be achieved through power scaling or incremental efficiency improvements alone. Instead, system performance becomes dominated by how effectively energy survives irreversible loss and how intelligently surviving energy is managed across the system architecture.

First, thermal survival emerges as a primary design driver across domains. Heat generation is the dominant manifestation of irreversible entropy production, and every high-power system ultimately confronts thermal limits. In electric vehicles, battery temperature control, inverter cooling, and cabin climate systems constitute persistent entropy sinks that reduce energy survival regardless of drivetrain efficiency. In launch systems, aerodynamic heating, shock dissipation, and reentry thermal loads impose hard constraints on survival and reusability. Designing systems to minimize heat generation, improve heat rejection pathways, and prevent thermal bottlenecks directly increases the survival factor Ψ, yielding multiplicative gains in useful output.

Second, architectural integration becomes more important than isolated component optimization. Because survival losses compound across stages, the interfaces between subsystems—such as energy storage, power electronics, control systems, structures, and thermal loops—often dominate performance degradation. Integrated architectures that reduce energy transport distance, eliminate redundant conversions, and share thermal and structural functions can significantly improve survival without increasing input energy. This explains why lightweighting, system integration, and co-designed thermal–structural layouts often outperform improvements in already-efficient motors or engines.

Third, control and entropy management represent increasingly dominant constraints in advanced systems. Sensors, computation, regulation, and feedback are essential for stability and safety, but they consume energy continuously and generate entropy. As systems become more autonomous and software-intensive, control overhead can rival or exceed actuation energy. Survival-aware control strategies—such as minimizing idle operation, reducing unnecessary regulation, and aligning control effort with useful work—can therefore produce substantial system-level gains even when hardware efficiency remains unchanged.

Collectively, these design implications explain why many advanced technologies exhibit performance plateaus despite decades of efficiency improvement. When survival and conversion limits dominate, adding more power or marginally improving component efficiency primarily increases heat, stress, and entropy rather than useful output. True breakthroughs require architectural changes that reduce irreversible losses and reallocate energy toward productive pathways.

In this sense, the survival-based framework reframes optimization from a pursuit of “more power” to a pursuit of longer energy survival and smarter conversion. Systems that succeed in this shift—by prioritizing thermal resilience, integrated design, and entropy-aware control—can surpass apparent performance ceilings without violating fundamental thermodynamic constraints.

5. Conclusions

This paper establishes energy survival as the governing physical constraint on useful output in real-world systems. By moving beyond classical efficiency and explicitly accounting for multi-stage energy degradation and irreversible entropy production, the proposed framework resolves long-standing paradoxes observed across biological systems, electric transportation, computing infrastructures, and spaceflight. The Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law provides a thermodynamically complete and experimentally testable description of why advanced technologies plateau in performance despite continually improving component efficiencies.

At its core, the framework demonstrates that useful output is not determined by how efficiently energy is converted at a single stage, but by how long energy survives competing loss mechanisms and how effectively surviving energy can be converted within finite physical limits. This perspective unifies phenomena that previously appeared domain-specific—such as electric vehicle range saturation, payload penalties in reusable launch systems, and low photosynthetic yield—under a single physical explanation rooted in irreversible thermodynamics.

The principal contributions of this work can be summarized as follows. First, it introduces energy survival as a primary thermodynamic variable, elevating the persistence of absorbed energy against transport losses and entropy generation to a first-class constraint. This concept captures aspects of system behavior that are invisible to scalar efficiency metrics while remaining fully consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. Second, it formally separates survival and conversion as independent physical limits, clarifying why abundant energy supply or high component efficiency alone cannot guarantee high system-level performance. This separation explains why systems may be survival-limited, conversion-limited, or jointly constrained, depending on their architecture and operating environment.

Third, the work presents a single unifying law applicable across biology, transportation, and space systems. The expression

captures energy availability, persistence, and convertibility in a unified, dimensionally consistent form. Differences in observed performance across domains arise from parameter values, not from different governing physics. Fourth, the framework provides a first-principles explanation of performance saturation in advanced technologies. Range limits in electric vehicles, payload penalties in reusable launch systems, and productivity ceilings in biological systems emerge naturally from survival degradation and bounded conversion capacity, without invoking hidden inefficiencies or empirical tuning.

Beyond its explanatory power, the Unified Energy Survival–Conversion Law offers a new physical language for system optimization. It redirects design priorities away from power scaling and marginal efficiency gains toward thermal survival, architectural integration, and entropy-aware control. In doing so, it aligns thermodynamic theory with empirical engineering practice and provides a principled foundation for diagnosing dominant losses, predicting realistic performance ceilings, and guiding future innovation in complex energy systems.

In summary, this work demonstrates that in advanced systems, more energy does not imply more performance. What matters is whether energy survives long enough—and can be converted fast enough—to perform useful work. By formalizing this insight into a unified, testable law, the present framework advances both the theoretical understanding and practical optimization of energy systems beyond the limits of classical efficiency metrics.

References

Carnot, S. (1824). Réflexions sur la puissance motrice du feu.
Clausius, R. (1865). The mechanical theory of heat. Philosophical Magazine, 30, 513–531.
Prigogine, I. (1967). Introduction to Thermodynamics of Irreversible Processes. Wiley.
Bejan, A. (2016). Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics (4th ed.). Wiley.
Field, C. B., et al. (1998). Primary production of the biosphere. Science, 281, 237–240.
Shockley, W., & Queisser, H. J. (1961). Detailed balance limit of solar cells. Journal of Applied Physics, 32, 510–519.
Larminie, J., & Lowry, J. (2012). Electric Vehicle Technology Explained. Wiley.
Wertz, J. R., et al. (2011). Space Mission Engineering: The New SMAD. Microcosm Press.
Landauer, R. (1961). Irreversibility and heat generation in computing. IBM Journal, 5, 183–191.
Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Harvard University Press.

Biocontrol mechanism of fungal pathogen through P. fluorescens ATCC 9028

Dr. Vishal Narayan Shinde*

Department of Botany, Late Annasaheb R D Deore Arts and Science college, Mhasadi,

Tal. Sakri, Dist:Dhule- 424304 (MS) India.

                       * Author for Correspondence: vishalshinde1001@gmail.com       

Abstract:

Biological control of plant pathogen by microorganism has been considered more natural and environmentally acceptable alternative to the existing chemical methods^[1]. Biological control has been developed as an alternative to synthetic fungicide treatment and considerable success had been achieved upon utilizing antagonistic microorganism to control both pre harvested and post harvested diseases^[2]. A variety of microbial antagonistic has ability to control several pathogens of various fruit and vegetables^[3].

            Antifungal assay using bacterial isolates such as P. fluorescens ATCC 9028 was tested against ten fungal pathogens of leafy vegetables. P. fluorescens ATCC 9028 was most effective with 58.19% fungitoxic activity against all tested fungal pathogens. Among the tested pathogen, F. moniliforme was highly susceptible with 65.78% inhibition and P. pullulans was highly resistant with 44.02% inhibition against all three antagonistic bacteria.

Keywords: Biological control, antagonistic bacteria., P. fluorescens etc.

Introduction:

On an average each crop plant can be affected by hundred or more than hundred diseases. The development of new physiological race pathogens to many of the systemic fungicides is gradually becoming ineffective. The biological control agents have enormous antimicrobial potential. They are effective in treatment of infectious diseases, simultaneously mitigating many of the side effects which are associated with pesticides. Therefore, there is growing realization in the people that biological control can be successfully exploited as an agricultural method for soil borne pathogens^[4].

            Beside this, Biological control of numerous crops by application of antagonistic bacterial isolates from suppressive soils has been accomplished during last two decades all over the world^[5]. The bacterium has been reported to be effective in controlling Phytopthora and Pythium amongseveral soil borne plant pathogens^[6]. Several studies have been demonstrated reduced incidence of disease in different crops after supplementing the soil with bacterial antagonists^[7]. Rhizosphere bacteria are excellent agents to control soil borne plant pathogens. Bacterial species like Bacillus, Pseudomanas, Serratia and Anthrobacter have been proved in controlling the fungal diseases^[14,15]. More recently an increasing number of reports have been focused on the potential of Bacillus subtilis as a biocontrol agent^[8]. A successful biocontrol agent efficiently suppresses the pathogen and reduces disease incidence. Biocontrol agent acts against pathogens by antagonism- competition, antibiosis and parasitism therefore in recent years a new biocontrol agent, Pseudomans flouresence have drawn attention due to the ability to produce secondary metabolites such as siderophore, antibiotic, volatile metabolites, HCN, enzyme and phytochrome which were highly antagonistc component to various phytopathogens^[9]. Pseudomonas flourescence is effective candidate for biological control of soil borne plant pathogens owing to their versatile nature, rhizophere competition and multiple mode of action^[10,11,12].

Material and method:

            Biological control of numerous crop diseases by application of antagonistic bacterial isolates from the soil has been accomplished during last two decades all over the world^[13,14,15]. Hence for the assessment of antifungal activity, the three bacterial isolates which has high antagonistic activity were procured from the Department of Microbiology, Government Institute of Science, Aurangabad as fallows,

            1)         Pseudomonas fluorescens ATCC 9028

            There after this bacterial cultures were transferred to fresh Nutrient agar slants in triplicates and were kept at 4⁰C in refrigerator for further studies.

Antifungal activity by antagonistic bacteria:

            The antifungal activity of three bacterial isolates was tested against ten pathogenic fungi of leafy vegetable by dual culture method^[16]. The antagonistic bacteria and targeted fungal pathogen were inoculated dually on PDA medium in sterile Petri dish 2-2.5 cm apart from each other. Whereas Petri plate without bacterial inoculation served as control and incubated at 37 ± 1 ^oC for 7 days. The inhibition of growing fungi by tested bacteria was quantified as distance of radial towards and away from bacteria in relation to control. The percent inhibition of mycelial growth of the fungi was calculated using formula,

                                             100 (R₁-R₂)

                               I  =

     R₁  

                                    Where              I           =          Inhibition of mycelial growth.

                                                            R₁        =          Mycelial growth in control

                                                            R₂        =          Mycelial growth in treated.

Result:

            The antagonistic effect of bacterial isolates was screened by dual culture method^[16]. The bacterial cultures, Pseudomonas fluorescens ATCC 9028 was tested against ten fungal pathogens of leafy vegetables. After a week of incubation, the growth of targeted fungal pathogens towards and away from the bacterial antagonistic isolate was recorded. The percent inhibition of mycelial growth over control was tabulated.

The bacterial antagonistic, P. fluorescens ATCC 9028 had significantly inhibited the radial growth of all tested fungal pathogen of leafy vegetables. Among tested pathogens, F.moniliforme and F. oxysporum were most sensitive and revealed 68.42% and 66.66% inhibition of mycelial over control (Table 1). On contrary, A. carthami and P. pullulans were most resistant and showed 50.90% and 49.18% inhibition respectively. While remaining pathogens namely C. lindemuthianum, F. roseum, A. brassicae, A. humicola, S. verruculosum and H. sativum showed 62.31%, 60%, 59.45%, 57.81%, 54.23% and 53.01% respectively inhibition (Table 1; fig. 1).

On average, F. moniliforme was found to be most sensitive with 65.78%  and P. pullulans as most resistant with 44.02% against all three bacterial antagonistic when compared to other tested fungal pathogens (Table 1).

Among the three tested antagonistic bacterial cultures, P. fluorescens ATCC 9028 was most effective and showed 58.19% fungitoxic activity (Fig 1).

Table No. 1: Antagonistic effect of P. fluorescens ATCC 9028 against ten fungal  pathogens of leafy vegetables.             

Pathogen	Mycelial growth in control (mm)	Mycelial growth of pathogen in presence P. fluorescens (mm)	% inhibition of  mycelial growth over control
A. brassicae	74	30	59.45 + 1.88
A. carthami	55	27	50.90 + 1.33
A. humicola	64	27	57.81 + 1.24
C. lindemuthianum	69	26	62.31 + 0.47
F. moniliforme	76	24	68.42 + 1.41
F. oxysporum	84	28	66.66 + 0.94
F. roseum	70	28	60.00 + 1.41
H. sativum	83	39	53.01 + 0.81
P. pullulans	61	31	49.18 + 1.63
S. verruculosum	59	27	54.23 + 1.88
C.V.			7.96%

Values expressed in mean + S.E.M. of triplicates.

Fig 1. Antagonistic effect of bacteria against ten fungal pathogens of leafy vegetables.

Discussion :

Antifungal activity of three bacterial isolates namely Pseudomonas fluorescens ATCC 9028 was tested against ten fungal pathogens of leafy vegetables by dual culture method. Similar work previously carried out by many workers and reported that bacterial isolates like Bacillus sp., Pseudomonas sp., Serratia sp. and Anthrobacter sp. have been proved their efficacy against many fungal diseases^[17,18]. In the present study among three tested antagonistic bacterial isolates, P.  fluorescens ATCC 9028 was most effective one and revealed 58.19% inhibition of mycelial growth all ten targeted fungal pathogens. Similar finding were reported by Moataza and Saad^[19] and mentioned that five isolates P.  fluorescens were effective and showed 56% inhibition of Phythopthora capsici and 58.08% inhibition of Rhizoctonia solani.  

Among the tested pathogens, F. moniliforme was most susceptible with 65.78% inhibition on contrary P. pullulans was most resistant with 44.02% inhibition against all three bacterial isolates. Antagonistic activity may be due to the production of secondary metabolites such as siderophore, antibiotic, volatile compounds, HCN, enzymes or may be due to phytochromes which were inhibitors of various phytopathogens^[18].

References:

1. Baker, R. and T. C. Paulitz. 1996. Theoretical basis for microbial interaction leading to biological control of soil borne plant pathogen In : Hall R., (ed). Principles and practice of managing soil borne plant pathogen. Am. Phytopathol. Soc. St. Paul. MN. pp. 50-79.
2. Janisiewicz, W. J. and L. Korsten. 2002. Biological control of post harvested diseases of fruits. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 40 : 411-441.
3. Mari, M. and M. Guizzardi. 1998. The post harvested phase: emerging technology for fungal disease. Phytoparacitica. 23 : 97-127.
4. Papavizas, G. C. and R. D. Lumsden. 1980. Biological control of soil borne fungal propogules. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 18 : 389-413.
5. Park, C. S., T. C. Paulitz and R. Baker. 1988. Biocontrol of fusarium wilt of cucumber resulting from interaction between Pseudomonas putida and non pathogenic isolates, Fusarium oxysporum. Phytopathol. 78 : 190-194
6. Shen, S. S., J. M. Kim and C. S. Park. 2002. Serratia plymuthica strain A21-4 : A potential biocontrol agent against phytopthora blight of pepper. Kor. J. Plant Pathol. 18 : 138-141.
7. Mukhopadhyay, A. N. 1987. Biological control of soil borne plant pathogen by Trichoderma spp. and Bacterium isolates. Indian J. Mycol. Plant Pathol. 17 : 1-9.
8. Weller, D. M., B. X. Zhang and R. J. Cook. 1985. Bacterial species and biopesticides in controlling fungal diseases. Plant Diseases. 69 : 710-713.
9. Ferreira, J. H.S., F. N. Mathee and A. C. Thomas. 1991. Biological control of Eutypa lata on grapevine by antagonistic strain of Bacillus subtilis. Phytopathol. 81 : 283-287.
10. Okigbo, R. N. and M. I. Osuinde. 2003. Fungal leaf spot disease of Mango (Mangifera indica L.) in Southeastern Nigeria and biological control with Bacillus subtilis. J. Plant Peotect. Sci. 39(2): 70-77.
11. Gupta, C. D., R. C. Dubey, S. C. Kang and D. K. Maheshwari. 2001. Antibiotic mediated necrophic effect on Pseudomonas GRC2 against two fungal plants pathogens. Current Sci.  81 : 91-94.
12. Kloepper, J. and M. Schroth. 1981. Relationship of in vitro antibiosis of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and the displacement of root microflora. Phytopathol. 71 : 1020.
13. Waller, D., W. Howie and R. Cook. 1988. Relationship between in vitro inhibition of Gaenmannomyces graminis var. tritici and suppression of take all of wheat by Fluorescent psudomonads. Phytopathol. 78 : 1100.
14. Diby, P., K. Saju, Y. Jisha, A. Kumar, Y. Sharma and M. Anandaraj. 2005. Mycolytic enzyme produced by Pseudomonans fluorescens and Trichoderma spp. against Phytopthora capsici, (Pepper nigrum L.). Ind. Phytopathol. 58 : 10.
15. Park, C. S., T. C. Paulitz and R. Baker. 1988. Biocontrol of fusarium wilt of cucumber resulting from interaction between Pseudomonas putida and non pathogenic isolates, Fusarium oxysporum. Phytopathol. 78 : 190-194.
16. Leeman, M., F. M. De Quden, T. A. Van Pelt, C. Cornelissen, G. Matamala, P. A. H. M.  Bakker and B. Schippers. 1995. Suppersion of Fusarium wilt of raddish by co inoculation of Fluorescent pseudomonas spp. and root colonizing fungi. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 102 : 21-31.
17. Larkin, R. P., D. L. Hopkins and F. N. Martin . 1996. Suppression of Fusarium wilt of watermelon by non pathogenic F. oxysporum and other microorganism recovered from a disease suppressive soil. Phytopathol. 86 : 812-286.
18. Skidmore, A. M. and C. H. Dickinson. 1976. Colony interaction of hypal interference between Septoria nodorum and Phylloplanefungi. Trans. Brit. Mycol. Soc. 66 : 57-64.
19. Moataza and M. Saad. 2006. Destruction of Rhizoctonia solani and Phytopthora capsici causing tomato root rot by Pseudomonas fluorescens lytic enzyme. Res. J. Agri. Bio. Sci. 2(6) : 274-281.

**********

Citation

Papparaya, & Yatanoor, C. M. (2026). India and the Conference of the Parties: Navigating the Nexus of National Development and Global Environmental Stewardship. International Journal for Social Studies, 11(12), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.26643/ijss/2025/v11i1-1

Papparaya

Research Scholar

Department of Political Science

Gulbarga University, Kalaburagi, 585 106

Karnataka

papparaya123@gmail.com

Prof. Chandrakant. M. Yatanoor

Senior Professor & Chairman

Department of Political Science

Gulbarga University, Kalaburagi, 585 106

Karnataka

cmyatanoor@rediffmail.com

Abstract: 

The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its associated protocols like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, represents the preeminent global forum for addressing the existential threat of climate change. As a rapidly developing nation with a monumental population and significant energy demands, India occupies a significant position within these negotiations. This paper examines India’s multifaceted engagement with the COP process, analysing its evolving policy stances, contributions, challenges, and the inherent tensions between its developmental aspirations and its commitment to international environmental protection. It is described India’s historical participation, its key negotiating positions on issues such as emissions reduction, climate finance, technology transfer, and adaptation, and its domestic policy responses that underpin its international commitments. It also scrutinizes the complexities of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) in the context of India’s unique circumstances, alongside the pressures exerted by developed nations and the opportunities presented by renewable energy transitions. By exploring these dynamics, this research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of India’s crucial role in shaping the trajectory of global climate action.

Keywords: India, Conference of the Parties (COP), UNFCCC, Paris Agreement, Climate Change, Environmental Protection, Climate Finance, Technology Transfer, Common but Differentiated Responsibilities, Renewable Energy, Sustainable Development.

Introduction:

      The escalating severity of climate change, manifesting in extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and biodiversity loss, has propelled environmental protection to the forefront of the international agenda. At the heart of global efforts to address this challenge lies the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). UNFCCC has been established in 1992 and it provides the overarching framework for international cooperation on climate change, with the COP serving as its supreme decision-making body. Over the decades, the COP has evolved from a forum for initial discussions to a crucial platform for negotiating legally binding agreements and setting ambitious climate targets.

          India, a nation characterized by its vast population, burgeoning economy and significant energy requirements, is an indispensable actor in the global climate regime. Its historical trajectory, developmental imperatives, and growing influence on the world stage position it at a critical juncture between national progress and international environmental responsibility. Understanding India’s intricate relationship with the COP process is therefore paramount to comprehending the future of global climate action. This paper undertakes a detailed academic exploration of this relationship, dissecting India’s contributions, its negotiation strategies, the challenges it faces, and the delicate balance it strives to maintain between economic growth and environmental sustainability.

Historical Context: India’s Entry into the Global Climate Arena

          India ratified the UNFCCC in 1994, signifying its initial commitment to the global endeavour of mitigating climate change. Early interventions at COPs were largely characterized by the assertion of the principle of “Common But Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities” (CBDR-RC). This principle, enshrined in the UNFCCC, acknowledges that while all nations share a common responsibility to address climate change, their Historical Contributions to Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions and their capacities to respond vary significantly. For India, this meant advocating for developed nations, responsible for the bulk of historical emissions, to take the lead in emission reductions and provide financial and technological support to developing countries.

            The Kyoto Protocol, adopted in 1997, presented a significant challenge for India. As a non-Annex I country, India was not subject to binding emission reduction targets. However, the debate around the future of the Protocol and the inclusion of developing countries in emission mitigation efforts was a recurring theme in early COPs. India’s stance was consistent: to prioritize its development agenda, including poverty alleviation and energy access for its vast population, while participating constructively in global efforts to combat climate change. This often translated into a cautious approach, emphasizing adaptation and resilience while advocating for technological and financial assistance.

India’s Evolving Negotiating Positions and Key Contributions at the COP

            India’s engagement at the COP has evolved significantly, reflecting its growing economic power, technological advancements, and increasing awareness of climate change impacts. Its negotiating positions are characterized by a pragmatic approach that prioritizes national development while acknowledging global responsibilities.

(i) Emissions Reduction and the Paris Agreement:

          The Paris Agreement, adopted at COP21 in 2015, marked a paradigm shift in global climate governance, moving towards a more universal and inclusive framework. India played a crucial role in its negotiation, submitting an ambitious Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) that aimed to:

• Reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33-35 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.
• Achieve about 40 percent cumulative electric power capacity from non-fossil fuel-based sources by 2030.
• Create an additional carbon sink of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent through additional forest and tree cover by 2030¹.

          These targets, while ambitious, were framed within the context of India’s developmental needs and its right to pursue economic growth. India consistently advocated for the recognition of its developmental challenges, arguing that its per capita emissions remained significantly lower than those of developed nations.

(ii) Climate Finance: A Persistent Demand

           A cornerstone of India’s participation in the COP has been its persistent demand for adequate and accessible climate finance from developed countries. India has consistently argued that the historical responsibility for climate change lies with industrialized nations, and therefore, they must provide financial assistance to developing countries to support mitigation and adaptation efforts. This demand is rooted in the understanding that transitioning to a low-carbon economy and building resilience against climate impacts requires substantial investments that developing countries often cannot afford on their own.

            At various COPs, India has actively participated in discussions on mobilizing climate finance, advocating for the fulfilment of the USD 100 billion per year goal set in Copenhagen and pushing for more predictable and scaled-up financial flows. It has also highlighted the need for simplified access mechanisms and the provision of grants rather than loans, particularly for adaptation projects².

(iii)  Technology Transfer: Bridging the Innovation Gap

            India has consistently stressed the importance of developed countries facilitating the transfer of clean and sustainable technologies to developing nations on concessional terms. This includes technologies for renewable energy generation, energy efficiency, carbon capture, and adaptation measures.

            India’s engagement in technology transfer discussions at the COP aims to accelerate its own transition to a low-carbon pathway, reduce its reliance on fossil fuels, and enhance its competitiveness in the global green technology market. It has often pointed out the need for effective mechanisms to overcome intellectual property rights barriers and foster collaborative research and development³.

(iv) Adaptation and Resilience Building

           While mitigation remains a central focus, India has also placed significant emphasis on adaptation and building resilience to the impacts of climate change at the COP. Given India’s vulnerability to climate-related disasters such as floods, droughts, cyclones, and heatwaves, adaptation is a matter of national security and survival. India has actively shared its experiences and sought international cooperation in developing climate-resilient infrastructure, sustainable agriculture practices, and early warning systems⁴.

            The COP process provides a platform for India to advocate for greater international support for adaptation, including dedicated funding streams and capacity-building initiatives. Its participation in the Global Adaptation Network (GAN) and its efforts to mainstream climate resilience into national planning underscore this commitment.

4. Domestic Policy Responses: Underpinning International Commitments

          India’s engagement at the COP is not merely a diplomatic exercise; it is increasingly backed by robust domestic policy initiatives aimed at addressing climate change and promoting sustainable development.

(i) Renewable Energy Revolution

         India has emerged as a global leader in renewable energy deployment, particularly in solar power. The National Solar Mission, launched in 2010, and subsequent targets have propelled the country to become one of the largest renewable energy markets globally. The ambitious goal of achieving 500 GW of non-fossil fuel-based energy capacity by 2030, announced at COP26, signifies a profound commitment to decarbonizing its energy sector. Initiatives like the International Solar Alliance (ISA), co-founded by India, exemplify its proactive role in fostering global renewable energy adoption⁵.

(ii)  Energy Efficiency and Conservation

          Beyond renewable energy, India has also focused on improving energy efficiency across various sectors, including industry, buildings, and transportation. Programs like the Perform, Achieve, and Trade (PAT) scheme aim to incentivize energy savings in large industrial consumers⁶.  Energy-efficient appliances and building codes are also being promoted to reduce overall energy demand.

India’s extensive forest cover plays a crucial role in carbon sequestration. The government has prioritized afforestation and reforestation efforts, coupled with initiatives aimed at sustainable forest management and the protection of biodiversity. These efforts are not only aimed at meeting climate mitigation targets but also at safeguarding ecosystems and supporting the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities.

(iii) Climate Action Plans and National Policies

           India has developed various national policies and action plans to address climate change. The National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), launched in 2008, provides a strategic framework for climate mitigation and adaptation. Specific missions under NAPCC focus on areas like solar energy, energy efficiency, sustainable habitats, water resources, and Himalayan ecosystems⁷. Even States have also been encouraged to develop their own climate action plans, fostering a decentralized approach to climate governance.

Challenges and Criticisms: Navigating the Complexities

           Despite its proactive stance and growing commitments, India faces several challenges and criticisms in its engagement with the COP process.

1. The Dilemma of Development vs. Decarbonization

             The most significant challenge for India is the inherent tension between its developmental aspirations and the imperative to decarbonize its economy. With a large segment of its population still living in poverty and requiring access to affordable energy for economic upliftment, a rapid and drastic reduction in fossil fuel consumption presents a formidable hurdle. Critics often point to India’s continued reliance on coal for energy generation as a major concern, arguing that it undermines its climate commitments. India, however, maintains that a just transition requires a phased approach, balancing energy security with climate action⁸.

2. Per Capita Emissions and Historical Responsibility

          While India’s total GHG emissions are significant due to its large population, its per capita emissions remain considerably lower than those of developed nations. India has consistently used this argument at the COP to advocate for differentiated responsibilities, asserting that developed countries, with their higher historical emissions and greater capacity, should bear a larger burden. This has sometimes led to friction with developed nations seeking more ambitious emission reduction commitments from all major emitters.

3. Climate Finance: Unmet Expectations

           Despite the commitments made by developed countries, the flow of climate finance has often fallen short of expectations. India, along with other developing nations, has frequently expressed disappointment over the pace and scale of financial assistance. This perceived inadequacy complicates India’s ability to implement its climate action plans and transition to a low-carbon economy.

4. Technology Transfer Hurdles

          While India seeks accelerated technology transfer, practical implementation faces obstacles related to intellectual property rights, cost, and the capacity of developing countries to absorb and adapt new technologies. Ensuring that technology transfer is not merely a one-way flow but fosters genuine partnership and capacity building remains a key challenge.

Concluding Remarks:

           India’s engagement with the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC represents a complex and dynamic interplay between national developmental imperatives and global environmental stewardship. Historically, India has championed the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, advocating for developed nations to take the lead in emission reductions and provide financial and technological support. As its economy has grown and its awareness of climate change impacts has deepened, India’s commitments and contributions at the COP have become more substantial, particularly evident in its ambitious Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement and its remarkable strides in renewable energy deployment.

          However, the inherent tension between its developmental aspirations and the demands of rapid decarbonization remains a significant challenge, as does the ongoing need for adequate and predictable climate finance and effective technology transfer. India’s consistent stance on these issues has not only shaped the global climate discourse but has also highlighted the inequities and complexities of international climate governance.

             Ultimately, India’s success in navigating this nexus has far-reaching implications for the global fight against climate change. Its ability to achieve a balanced pathway towards sustainable development, coupled with its continued advocacy for a just and equitable global climate regime, will be crucial in determining the effectiveness of international efforts to secure a livable planet for future generations. As the COP process continues to evolve, India’s role as a major emerging economy and a responsible global citizen will undoubtedly remain central to its success.

References:

1. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India. (2015). India’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC).
2. P. D. Sharma, “Climate Finance in India: Challenges and Opportunities,” Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 258, 109989, 2020.
3. S. S. S. Singh, “Technology Transfer under the UNFCCC: India’s Perspective,” International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 373-390, 2018.
4. A. K. Singh and R. K. Singh, “Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in India: A Review,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 2477-2491, 2020.
5. International Solar Alliance. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from https://www.isolaralliance.org/
6. Bureau of Energy Efficiency, Government of India. (n.d.). Perform, Achieve and Trade (PAT) Scheme. Retrieved from https://beeindia.gov.in/pat-scheme.
7. Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change. (2008). National Action Plan on Climate Change. Government of India.
8. S. K. S. N. Kumar and S. M. C. Reddy, “India’s Energy Transition: Balancing Development and Decarbonization,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 150, 111457, 2021.