As governments across the world push for cleaner energy, the competition between India and China for cleantech dominance intensifies. China’s early investment in clean energy technology and manufacturing has given it a significant lead. However, India is rapidly building its capacity, aiming to grab the spotlight in the global market.
This analysis explores the current landscape, identifying strengths, weaknesses, and what lies ahead for both nations in the cleantech race.
China’s Technological Edge and Cost Advantage
China remains a global leader in clean energy manufacturing. The country’s investments in solar PV, battery technology, and wind energy have solidified its dominance. China’s advantage stems from its ability to manufacture at a lower cost while maintaining high technological sophistication.
For instance, in solar PV manufacturing, China controls key parts of the supply chain, including wafers and polysilicon, both essential for solar panel production.
S&P Global highlighted that while countries like India are taking big steps, China’s manufacturing output and efficiency continue to overshadow most nations. Its cleantech products are not only produced at a lower cost but have also overcome previous concerns about quality. This quality and competitive pricing have allowed Chinese manufacturers to grow their market share, even in sectors like wind energy, where they face strong competition.
According to a Wood Mackenzie report, China now commands the manufacturing landscape across major clean technologies.
- It holds 60% of the wind foundation market and an impressive 97% share of solar PV wafer production.
- China’s dominance extends beyond manufacturing, with booming electric vehicle (EV) sales further highlighting its leadership in the sector.
India’s Growing Investment in Cleantech Market
India is starting to invest more in its global cleantech market. This is getting a push with its low-cost manufacturing base and government support.
For example, the Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme, has helped reduce solar PV manufacturing costs by up to 24%, making India competitive in the global market. This program aims to establish domestic manufacturing for critical clean energy components like solar modules and batteries.
Additionally, India’s energy efficiency program has been in place for years, and the country recently introduced a hydrogen policy focused on producing low-carbon hydrogen through domestic electrolyzer manufacturing.
India’s clean energy sector has seen a massive uptick in investment. In 2023, the country invested $68 billion in clean energy projects, a 40% increase compared to the 2016-2020 average. Almost 50% of this spending was directed toward low-emissions power generation, particularly solar PV.
Conversely, India’s fossil fuel investments also grew by 6% to $33 billion in 2023, as the country continued to grapple with rising fuel demand.
Image: Past and future energy investment in India in the Announced Pledges Scenario and the Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario, 2016-2030
Source: IEA
After evaluating the current scenario, we can say that India is on the brink of a clean energy revolution. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s commitment to add 500 gigawatts (GW) of clean energy by 2030 will certainly help India to be a global leader in renewable energy. But the question remains how is the country planning to meet this ambitious target?
2024 Looks Rosy for India…
After years of slow progress, 2024 has marked a turning point for India’s renewable energy sector. Solar panels and wind turbines are being installed at a commendable pace. Media reports reveal that 18.8 GW of new renewable energy capacity was added till August this year. This way more than the total capacity of last year.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), India is on track to add 34 GW by the end of the year, with projections showing growth will nearly double to 62 GW annually by 2030.
On October 14, India’s power ministry announced a plan to upgrade its power grid to support renewable energy expansion through 2032. The project involves a $109 billion investment and aims to bolster Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s vision for clean India.
India is also benefiting from Western countries’ efforts to diversify supply chains and reduce reliance on China. The US and the EU have enacted tariffs and trade restrictions on Chinese products, giving Indian manufacturers an opening to supply premium-priced markets, particularly in solar PV. By 2028, S&P Global predicts that India could become the second-largest solar PV manufacturing region after China.
Industry experts predict that this rapid expansion might outpace China’s growth rate in the second half of the decade, positioning India as the world’s fastest-growing clean energy market.
But is it as rosy as it seems to be? The answer is probably no. We unlock the challenges below.
- READ MORE: Tata’s $11 Billion Leap: India’s First Semiconductor Fab in Partnership with Taiwan’s PSMC
A Lingering Challenge for India’s Clean Tech Future
However, India still faces several challenges. Despite the progress and one of the fastest growing economies, Indian manufacturers remain dependent on China for inputs like wafers and polysilicon. Thus, India is not yet 100% self-sufficient in these areas.
Furthermore, as the country is growing so does its energy demand. By 2050, energy demand in India is expected to outpace every other region in the world. This growing demand could put enormous pressure on its energy system, which still heavily relies on imported fossil fuels like crude oil and natural gas.
And with this rising demand comes the risk of increased carbon emissions, particularly if fossil fuel consumption continues to grow for transportation, power generation, and industrial use.
S&P Global analyzed that India is also moving slower than China in wind energy and battery manufacturing, While the country is scaling up battery production, it’s unclear whether it can meet its goal of self-sufficiency by 2030. In wind energy, India’s infrastructure is better suited for onshore projects, and it may struggle to compete with China in the growing offshore wind market.
Risks of Trade Barriers and Global Oversupply
One of the major risks facing India’s cleantech expansion is potential trade barriers. As the US and EU focus on domestic reindustrialization, Indian cleantech exports could become targets for new tariffs, especially in sectors like solar PV and batteries. There’s a delicate balance between encouraging global supply chain diversification and protecting domestic industries.
Additionally, in some cleantech sectors like electrolyzers, global oversupply could make it difficult for Indian manufacturers to remain competitive. Although India is expected to produce more electrolyzers than it needs by 2030, stiff competition from established players could drive prices down, potentially limiting India’s growth in this space.
Can India Compete Without China?
China dominates global supply chains, making it unrealistic for India to fully take over its manufacturing space, according to the Economic Survey 2023-24. The survey, presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, emphasized that India may need Chinese investment and technology to boost its manufacturing sector. Instead of distancing from China, partnering with its expertise could be key to driving India’s cleantech growth.
The Survey pointed out that,
“It may not be the most prudent approach to think that India can take up the slack from China vacating certain spaces in manufacturing. Indeed, recent data cast doubt on whether China is even vacating light manufacturing.”
This is self-explanatory.
China’s dominance in the cleantech sector is undeniable, but India is making strides to close the gap. With strategic government support and lower production costs, India has the potential to become a key supplier of cleantech products to the US and Europe.
According to the Australian research group Climate Energy Finance (CEF), Chinese companies have invested over $100 billion in overseas clean energy projects since early 2023 to avoid U.S. and other tariffs.
Source: Climate Energy Finance
This shows that China’s lead in technology and cost efficiency will secure its position as a global leader for the foreseeable future. On the contrary, India’s future success will depend on overcoming its reliance on Chinese inputs. Some viable options are accelerating technological advancements and avoiding trade barriers that could hinder its growth.
From reliable economic surveys and reports, we can conclude that while India may not surpass China anytime soon, its role in the global cleantech supply chain is expanding, and the competition has just begun…
The post India’s Cleantech Boom: Can It Challenge China’s Reign? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Nature-based carbon investments deserve consideration when they address a specific business dependency and produce outcomes you can measure. Imagine Moonbucks, a global coffee roaster planning next season’s espresso blend. It is considering natural Grade 4 coffee from Jimma, in southwestern Oromia, Ethiopia. Its sourcing decisions affect the roasting schedule and the cash tied up in coffee purchases. Moonbucks needs to understand which measures could protect that supply, what they would cost and how it would judge the results.
1. Define the sourcing problem before choosing a project
Moonbucks needs a dependable component for its espresso blend. Its procurement team wants continuity of volume and an agreed cup profile. Replacing a shipment at short notice could require new sample approval and changes to the blend, and given the schedules for cultivation, processing, and freight delivery, is practically impossible. Moonbucks needs to get this right, and its initial concern is inconsistent deliveries. It commissions an assessment of the supplying farms and post-harvest chain. The questions cover land condition, harvest availability and whether drying or storage problems are affecting saleable lots.
This distinction changes the investment brief. A tree-planting proposal cannot be assumed to fix drying problems. Better storage cannot restore eroded land. The team must establish which problem exists before selecting the response.
CCC’s guide to finding nature-based solutions in your supply chain explains where to look. Here, the next task is to turn a broad concern into a testable proposal.
2. Develop nature-based carbon investments around the actual supply chain
The assessment would trace Moonbucks’ purchases back through the exporter and supplying producer groups. Which farms supply the contracted lots? Who controls land-management decisions? How long does the buyer expect to maintain the purchasing relationship?
Furthermore, Jimma natural Grade 4 cannot be treated as interchangeable with every Ethiopian coffee. Moonbucks would need to test any substitute against its own blend and quality requirements.
Suppose Moonbucks’ assessment identifies an opportunity to maintain shade trees and restore vegetation along exposed streambanks. The IPCC describes agroforestry as a way to store carbon in vegetation and soil, with potential benefits for erosion control and water quality.1 Moonbucks would need local advice on species, growing conditions and maintenance before deciding how these measures fit its sourcing plan.
The proposal now has a defined sourcing connection and a candidate intervention. The next steps are to test its effect on production, assess carbon eligibility and build the financial case.
3. Compare the proposal with other ways to protect supply
WBCSD’s Nature-based Solutions Blueprint recommends comparing nature-based options with other responses across their benefits and costs.2 For Moonbucks, that means evaluating the landscape proposal alongside drying improvements, storage controls and alternative sourcing arrangements.
The product’s natural-process designation matters. Moonbucks should examine the drying and dry-milling chain alongside land conditions. Its team would check storage practices, contamination risks and incoming-lot quality to see whether problems arise before or after the coffee leaves the farms.
The revised proposal might combine land stewardship with separate post-harvest controls. Each component needs its own purpose and budget. A sustainability label should not obscure which activity is expected to solve which problem.
The project develops as the evidence improves. Its scope should follow the diagnosis rather than preserve the first idea unchanged.
4. Establish what the carbon outcome could count toward
Moonbucks’ sustainability team now tests the proposed carbon case separately from the sourcing case. Is the objective a measurable change in Moonbucks’ value-chain emissions, verified credits for separate voluntary use, or distinct outcomes under carefully defined arrangements?
Scope 3 covers value-chain emissions. A purchasing relationship alone does not prove that a farm intervention can be included in Moonbucks’ inventory. The team needs an applicable accounting method, defensible boundaries and evidence supporting attribution.
SBTi’s FLAG Guidance (forest, land and agriculture), version 1.2, says purchased credits used as offsets cannot meet near-term FLAG or energy and industry targets. Eligible land-based removals are subject to accounting requirements.3 Moonbucks needs to test its proposal against those rules before including an outcome in its targets.
For Moonbucks’ Jimma proposal, maintaining existing trees and establishing new vegetation could involve different carbon questions. Specialists must examine the baseline and additionality, meaning what changes because the project proceeds. They must also assess measurement and the risk that stored carbon is lost. CCC’s MRV and additionality article introduces those tests.
Until that work is complete, Moonbucks should not budget an assumed Scope 3 reduction or credit-sale receipt. Direct emissions reductions remain the priority.
5. Build a financial case that survives weaker assumptions
Moonbucks’ finance team would now build a multi-year budget. UNEP’s State of Finance for Nature 2023 compares current finance with the investment needed to meet climate, biodiversity and land-restoration goals.4 The company would cost its proposed activities, farmer participation and ongoing monitoring. Verification, where required, is a separate expense. Maintenance and responsibility for replacing failed plantings must remain visible after the initial establishment budget ends.
Operational benefits need equally careful treatment. If fewer rejected lots reduce emergency purchasing, count that saving once. Do not add “supply resilience” as another financial benefit when it represents the same avoided cost.
Moonbucks should compare a base case with slower benefits, higher implementation costs and no carbon revenue. It should also distinguish production outcomes from quality and shipment outcomes. A single good harvest would not prove that the landscape intervention caused better delivery performance.
A project can remain worth funding even when its carbon case needs more work. That decision must rest on the operational evidence and the company’s objectives, without unsupported environmental claims.
6. Fund a pilot with a clear expansion decision
Moonbucks’ first approval would fund a bounded pilot, rather than commit the entire sourcing program. Before spending, Moonbucks would agree on participating farms, responsibilities and the evidence needed at review.
Its scorecard could track farmer participation, implementation costs and plant survival, alongside accepted coffee volumes and lot-quality results. Carbon measurements would follow the selected method. Farm-level traceability must connect the intervention to the actual sourcing relationship.
Suppose Moonbucks’ review later finds that storage changes explain most quality improvements, while the land measures need longer observation. Those findings would shape the next decision: expand the proven component, adjust the landscape work or pause further spending. They would not justify crediting all improvements to tree planting.
This gives nature-based carbon investments a practical place in a multi-year strategy. Funding increases as the evidence supports it, and the project can change direction before a larger commitment.
Discuss a sourcing opportunity with CCC
Carbon Credit Capital’s nature-based supply-chain investment service uses its Dual-Value Model to examine supply-chain economics alongside potential sustainability outcomes.
Schedule a consultation to discuss your sourcing exposure and the questions to resolve before allocating capital.
Sources
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, Chapter 7, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Uses, section 7.4.3.3 (Agroforestry).
- World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), Nature-based Solutions Blueprint, 5 June 2024.
- Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi), Forest, Land and Agriculture Science-Based Target-Setting Guidance, version 1.2, March 2026, section 3.1.4, pp. 37–38.
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), State of Finance for Nature 2023, 2023.
A plastic credit funds the collection of plastic waste in places where no formal system exists to collect it. Each credit represents a measured, independently audited quantity of plastic taken out of the environment or returned to use, tracked on a public registry.
EU carbon credit claims changed on 27 September 2026, the day the Directive (EU) 2024/825 began to apply across the European Union. The change is narrow. It changes how a company can talk about the credits it buys. A product can no longer be called neutral on the strength of compensation alone; however, every specific, evidenced statement about what a company measured, reduced, and funded stays fully available.
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
