Question
Consider the following statements with reference to India’s response to climate change:
Which of the following relationships among the above statements is/are correct?
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.
Relationships to Evaluate
1
Statement I is empirically supported by Statement II.
2
Statement III contradicts the approach implicit in Statement I.
3
Statement I and Statement III together establish the premise of long-term sustainability.
A1 only
B1 and 2
C2 and 3
D3 only
⚠️ Important — This Is a Contested Question in UPSC 2026
Multiple answer keys disagree on this question. The majority view → (B) 1 and 2. A stricter analytical view → 2 only (Relationship 1 fails because the COVID-induced GHG drop cannot empirically validate LT-LEDS, which was submitted two years later). The official UPSC key — once released — is the final authority. This block presents both positions so your students can engage with the reasoning, not just memorise an answer. The deeper skill here is logical relationship analysis — which this question tests at an advanced level.
Step 1 — Verify Each Base Statement (I, II, III)
I
✓ Factually True
LT-LEDS is a crucial tool for achieving net-zero emissions by 2070
India announced its net-zero by 2070 target at COP26 (November 2021). India submitted its Long-Term Low Greenhouse Gas Emission Development Strategy (LT-LEDS) to the UNFCCC at COP27 (November 2022). The LT-LEDS outlines seven strategic sectoral transitions — in energy, transport, industry, buildings, forests, etc. — necessary to reach net-zero by 2070. Statement I is factually correct.
II
⚠️ True in Fact — But Caused by COVID, Not LT-LEDS
BUR-4 recorded ~8% decrease in GHG emissions in 2020 over 2019
India’s BUR-4, submitted on 30 December 2024 to the UNFCCC, reports a 7.93% reduction in GHG emissions in 2020 compared to 2019 — approximately 8%. So the factual content is correct (rounding ~7.93% to “around 8%”). However: This drop was caused by COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns — not by any strategic climate action under LT-LEDS. The LT-LEDS was not even submitted until November 2022. Statement II is factually true but contextually misleading as a support for Statement I.
III
✗ Factually Incorrect as Framed
Climate-resilient development “necessarily” depends on quick and short-term emission reduction targets
This statement is factually wrong per the IPCC AR6 framework and UNFCCC’s framing of Climate-Resilient Development Pathways (CRDPs). Climate-resilient development is inherently a long-term, adaptive, equity-centred process. The word “necessarily” is the killer — it makes an absolute claim that is false. Short-term actions matter, but CRD does NOT necessarily depend on quick short-term targets alone. Statement III is factually incorrect.
Step 2 — Analyse Each Logical Relationship
1
⚠️ Contested — Most Keys say: Valid
Relationship 1: “Statement I is empirically supported by Statement II”
The case FOR (majority view — coaches say valid): BUR-4 records a measurable GHG drop (~7.93% ≈ 8%) — this provides empirical evidence that India is on a trajectory of emissions reduction, which loosely supports Statement I’s claim that the LT-LEDS framework is “crucial” for the 2070 pathway.The case AGAINST (rigorous analytical view):
• COVID caused the drop — not strategic LT-LEDS actions
• LT-LEDS was submitted in Nov 2022 — the 2020 data predates the strategy entirely
• You cannot use pre-strategy data as empirical support for the strategy itself
• An “empirical support” must show the strategy’s actions caused the result — COVID lockdowns do not demonstrate LT-LEDS effectiveness
Verdict: Most coaching institute keys say Relationship 1 is valid (majority answer). The rigorous analytical view says it is weak/invalid. The official UPSC key determines this.
2
✓ Valid — All Keys Agree
Relationship 2: “Statement III contradicts the approach implicit in Statement I” ✓
Why Relationship 2 is clearly correct:Statement I’s implicit approach: LT-LEDS is a long-term, multi-decade, phased strategy — it targets net-zero by 2070. It involves gradual sectoral transitions over 47+ years. The approach is inherently patient, structural, and long-horizon.
Statement III’s claim: Climate-resilient development necessarily depends on quick and short-term emission reduction targets.
The contradiction: “Quick and short-term” (III) is in direct tension with “long-term pathway to 2070” (I). If you accept III’s logic — that climate resilience requires quick short-term targets — then the LT-LEDS approach of gradual 47-year transition would be insufficient. The two statements are logically at odds. Relationship 2 is clearly correct.
3
✗ Invalid — All Keys Agree
Relationship 3: “Statement I and Statement III together establish the premise of long-term sustainability” ✗
Why Relationship 3 fails — two reasons:Reason 1 — III is factually wrong: Statement III makes a factually incorrect claim (climate resilience does NOT “necessarily” depend on quick short-term targets). A false statement cannot contribute to establishing any valid premise.
Reason 2 — I and III contradict each other: Statement I is about a long-term (2070) strategy; Statement III insists on quick short-term priorities. They pull in opposite directions. Two contradictory statements cannot together establish a coherent premise of long-term sustainability. If anything, their combination creates contradiction, not coherence.
Relationship 3 is clearly invalid — and all coaching institute keys agree on this.
📊 Summary — Which Relationships Are Valid?
If Relationship 1 is valid: Answer = (B) 1 and 2 · If Relationship 1 is invalid: Answer = 2 only (option not available — closest is B). Most coaching institutes mark (B) 1 and 2.
| Relationship | Claim | Verdict |
| Relationship 1 | I empirically supported by II | ⚠️ Contested |
| Relationship 2 | III contradicts I | ✓ Valid — All Agree |
| Relationship 3 | I + III together establish long-term sustainability | ✗ Invalid — All Agree |
Key Facts — India’s Climate Policy Instruments
| Instrument | Key Details |
| LT-LEDS | Long-Term Low Greenhouse Gas Emission Development Strategy · Submitted at COP27 (November 2022) · Outlines 7 strategic transitions · Target: Net-zero by 2070 |
| 7 Transitions in LT-LEDS | Low-carbon electricity · Low-carbon transport · Urban design + buildings · Decoupling growth from emissions · CO₂ removal · Forest/vegetation cover · Economic-financial transition |
| BUR-4 | 4th Biennial Update Report · Submitted to UNFCCC on 30 December 2024 · Contains 2020 GHG inventory data |
| BUR-4 key finding | 7.93% reduction in GHG emissions in 2020 vs 2019 · Cause: COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns (not strategic climate action) |
| Net-zero pledge | Announced at COP26, Glasgow (November 2021) · Target year: 2070 · Also committed to: 50% non-fossil electricity by 2030, reduce emissions intensity by 45% by 2030 |
| Climate-resilient development | Per IPCC AR6: a long-term, adaptive, equity-centred approach — NOT necessarily dependent on quick short-term targets (Statement III is false) |
| The “necessary” trap | Statement III uses “necessarily” — making it an absolute claim. Climate resilience does involve near-term actions, but does NOT necessarily depend exclusively on quick short-term targets. The absolute claim is false. |
How to Approach This Type of Question
🧠 Strategy for Logical Relationship Questions
Step 1 — Check each base statement’s factual truth: I = True. II = True in fact (COVID caused it). III = False (“necessarily” + “quick short-term” contradicts CRD’s nature.
Step 2 — Eliminate Relationship 3 immediately: I (long-term) + III (short-term) contradict each other — they cannot “together establish” anything. Eliminate option C and D.
Step 3 — Relationship 2 is clearly valid: Statement III’s “quick short-term” obviously contradicts Statement I’s “long-term pathway to 2070.” This is the safest, most defensible relationship. Relationship 2 ✓.
Step 4 — Relationship 1 is the contested one: Majority answer (B) says valid — BUR-4 data supports I. Rigorous view says invalid — COVID drop doesn’t validate LT-LEDS. The most widely accepted exam answer is (B) 1 and 2.
The key word to flag in III: “necessarily” — whenever a statement uses “necessarily,” “always,” “only,” it is making an absolute claim. Absolute claims about complex systems (like climate resilience) are almost always false on UPSC. Statement III’s “necessarily” is the giveaway that it’s wrong.
