How are Czechia and India prioritizing climate action by fitting the policy and technology puzzle

By the opening decades of the 21st century, climate change had stopped being a distant scientific idea and had become a set of legal, political, and practical problems that governments must manage at once.

This is especially clear in the recent judicial and policy developments in the Czech Republic, and in India’s move at the same time to large-scale planning and litigation. Both stories—a court’s decision to dismiss a landmark climate claim in Prague, and a young plaintiff’s effort to hold New Delhi accountable—tell us less about final court decisions than about the limits and possibilities of public policy in an era of growing extremes.

The Czech story is notable for its legal framing. On 26 November 2024, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed Klimatická žaloba ČR, a strategic suit by Czech citizens seeking steps enforceable by courts to keep national emissions within a scientifically calculated budget. The Court’s reasoning focused on how obligations are shared: the EU’s 2030 emissions target, it held, is a collective obligation shared across Member States rather than an individual legal duty that a single state can be forced to meet by domestic courts. The dismissal closes the path to immediate domestic remedy but keeps two others open—procedural and political—which remain active in public debate.

That procedural result matters because the legal route was being used to make up for what critics describe as slow policy action. Recent assessments for Czechia describe a country warming faster than the world average over the past two decades, with summers projected to become much hotter by the end of the century and with a clear increase in both heavy rainfall events and prolonged dry spells.

The Czech government has produced a Strategy and a National Action Plan on Adaptation to Climate Change, documents that identify energy and industry among the priority sectors and that set out measures such as smart grids, more varied fuel supply routes, and stronger infrastructure. Yet many of the energy-related tasks remain lower priority in the plan; in practice, resilience measures tied to climate hazards have been unevenly implemented, and national energy planning has often prioritized supply security over climate risk. In short: the plans exist on paper, but implementation lags.

Those gaps are not hypothetical. This year, monitoring networks reported a rapid intensification of drought conditions across large parts of Czechia; national indexes and satellite imagery show vegetation stress and shrinking soil moisture in regions already prone to dryness. Reports and satellite data described large areas of the country moving toward severe soil drought, with immediate consequences for agriculture, water supply, and the performance of hydropower and waterways. In a country where floods and storms have recently demonstrated the vulnerability of electricity and transport infrastructure, the new threat of recurring droughts challenges any assumption that adaptation can be deferred further.

India’s story takes a different route but asks similar questions about duty, capacity, and policy design. New Delhi has shaped climate action through a set of national instruments and commitments: the National Action Plan on Climate Change and sector programs that push renewable energy deployment, urban resilience, and agricultural measures.

At the political level, India’s position, affirmed in recent diplomatic statements and joint declarations, emphasizes both ambition and an insistence on equity and finance from wealthier nations. India has also pledged a long-term net zero target for 2070 while continuing to expand domestic clean-energy capacity and adaptation programs described in national accounts and economic reports. Recent economic and policy analyses give adaptation a prominent place in macroeconomic policy debate, documenting government programs and underlining the importance of adaptation to development planning.

Yet India’s strong policy toolkit has been matched, in the courts, by another important story: public-interest lawsuits initiated by young plaintiffs seeking stronger state action. The most visible of these is a case associated with Ridhima Pandey, which appears in international databases as a notable youth challenge to government inaction on climate. Such litigation in India and elsewhere is both a symptom and a signal: a symptom of gaps between policy pledges and perceived implementation; a signal that plaintiffs, often young and politically marginalized, will use the courts to turn scientific budgets and human rights ideas into legal duties. Whether these suits succeed or not, they sharpen public attention and force governments to place climate policy under a different kind of scrutiny.

If Prague’s courtroom told a story about the limits of national courts confronted with collective EU commitments, and if New Delhi’s courtrooms have become arenas for youth claims and accountability, the practical link between plans and action is often found in ministries and in multilateral forums. Statements at international climate forums underlined a cautious, practical stance, one that calls for higher ambition but also for measures that balance competitiveness and social standards, while bilateral engagements have been used to turn public pledges into technical cooperation.

Leaders of India and Czechia also announced a strategic partnership on innovation that highlights areas such as defense innovation and green energy cooperation, signaling mutual interest in research, technology exchange, and project-level collaboration. Those diplomatic ties suggest a practical channel for knowledge transfer: Czech expertise in certain industrial and energy systems, paired with India’s scale and program experience, can translate into joint projects on grid resilience, decentralized renewable systems, and climate-smart urban planning.

What then can be learned from putting these national stories beside each other? First, law and policy are complementary but not interchangeable instruments: litigation can catalyze urgency and public debate but cannot substitute for detailed implementation plans and budget commitment. Second, extreme events, whether floods or droughts, expose weak points in policy design; they demand that national plans move from lower-priority checklists to funded, monitored programs. Third, bilateral cooperation focused on innovation and green technologies is a pragmatic response: it moves the conversation from blame to capability, helping states build resilient grids, diversify energy supplies, and invest in adaptation that is locally relevant.

Taken together, the Czech and Indian experiences highlight an uncomfortable truth: whether in Central Europe or South Asia, modern states have the documents and the diplomatic language to declare their intentions; what they still need is the detailed, financed, stable systems to turn words into resilience. If postcards once carried images of far-off cities to collectors, today’s instruments, court filings, national plans, satellite maps, and joint government statements carry images of risk and the early outlines of solutions. They remind us that climate action is both a legal puzzle, a policy challenge, and a set of engineering tasks. Only by aligning courts, ministries, and international partnerships, and by treating adaptation as an urgent, funded priority, will the promises on paper begin to match the reality in the field.

Sources:
https://tinyurl.com/2meftxo2 
https://tinyurl.com/24sltacf 
https://tinyurl.com/2d6t8gno 
https://tinyurl.com/23h7ttr7 
https://tinyurl.com/23qzjtvp 
https://tinyurl.com/2c7zukq6 
https://tinyurl.com/2bglbh74 
https://tinyurl.com/247q3h2s 
https://tinyurl.com/22vm5e67 
https://tinyurl.com/2797ya7e