John S. Moolakkattu
1. Introduction: Reframing the Climate Crisis
The contemporary environmental crisis is often framed in scientific and policy discourse as a problem of excessive emissions, technological inefficiency, and inadequate regulation. However, from the perspective of Mahatma Gandhi and J. C. Kumarappa, the crisis is far more profound: it is fundamentally a moral and civilizational crisis. It reflects not merely the failure of environmental governance but the deeper ethical failure of modern civilization, characterised by unrestrained consumption, extractive economic systems, and a disordered relationship between human beings and nature.
The Paris Agreement of 2015 represents the most significant global effort to address climate change. It commits nations to limiting global warming to well below 2°C, ideally 1.5°C, through mechanisms such as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), climate finance, and technology transfer. However, despite its ambition, the framework remains embedded in a paradigm that prioritises technological solutions and market-based instruments. It assumes that environmental sustainability can be achieved without fundamentally questioning the logic of growth, consumption, and accumulation that underpins modern economies.
This essay argues that such an approach is inherently limited. A Gandhian–Kumarappan perspective invites a deeper interrogation of the ethical foundations of climate change, shifting the focus from technical mitigation to moral transformation.
2. The Technocratic Limits of the Paris Framework
The Paris Agreement reflects a technocratic mode of reasoning in which climate change is primarily treated as a management problem. It relies on nationally determined targets, carbon markets, and innovations in clean technology to reduce emissions while allowing economic growth to continue. The underlying assumption is that efficiency gains and technological advances will enable a decoupling of growth from environmental harm.
However, this framework leaves several critical questions unaddressed. It does not interrogate why consumption levels continue to rise, why resource extraction intensifies even in the face of ecological limits, or why affluent societies maintain inherently unsustainable lifestyles. By focusing on emissions rather than the social drivers of those emissions, the Paris framework risks treating symptoms rather than causes.
Moreover, reliance on market mechanisms, such as carbon trading, raises new ethical concerns. By commodifying carbon, nature itself becomes an object of exchange, subject to the logic of profit rather than stewardship. Similarly, voluntary commitments under NDCs allow powerful nations to avoid binding obligations, thereby weakening the moral basis of global climate cooperation. Technology transfer, while essential, often reinforces asymmetries between developed and developing countries, creating dependencies rather than enabling genuine autonomy.
In this sense, the Paris Agreement operates within a paradigm of “green growth,” which seeks to reconcile ecological sustainability with continued economic expansion. The Gandhian–Kumarappan critique begins precisely at this point, questioning whether such reconciliation is either possible or desirable.
3. Gandhian Moral Ecology: Ethics at the Core of Sustainability
Gandhi’s approach to environmental questions is rooted in a broader ethical framework that emphasises restraint, responsibility, and harmony. Central to this framework is the principle of aparigraha, or non-possession, which calls for the voluntary reduction of wants. Gandhi’s critique of modern civilization was not directed merely at industrial technology but at the culture of excess that accompanies it. In this sense, carbon emissions are not simply technical outputs; they are indicators of moral imbalance, reflecting the extent to which human desires have exceeded the limits of necessity.
This perspective radically reframes the problem of climate change. Instead of asking how emissions can be reduced through better technologies, Gandhi compels us to ask why societies generate such emissions in the first place. The focus shifts from external regulation to internal transformation, from controlling carbon to controlling desire.
Closely related to this is Gandhi’s concept of trusteeship, which offers an alternative to both capitalism and socialism. Wealth, in this view, is not an absolute possession but a trust held for the benefit of society. Applied to the global environmental context, this implies that natural resources, including the atmospheric carbon budget, should not be treated as commodities to be traded but as shared responsibilities to be managed ethically. The principle of trusteeship thus introduces a moral dimension to climate governance, emphasising obligation rather than entitlement.
Gandhi’s notion of ahimsa further extends this ethical framework to the natural world. Nonviolence, traditionally understood as a principle governing human relations, is broadened to include ecological relations. Practices such as deforestation, pollution, and extractivism can therefore be understood as forms of violence against nature. This insight anticipates contemporary ecological thinking, which recognises the interconnectedness of all forms of life and the systemic consequences of environmental harm.
4. Kumarappa and the Economy of Permanence
While Gandhi articulated the ethical foundations of a sustainable society, Kumarappa developed these ideas into a coherent economic framework. In his seminal work Economy of Permanence, he distinguishes between what he calls the “temporary economy” and the “permanent economy.” The former is characterised by extraction, profit maximisation, and short-term gains, while the latter is grounded in renewal, balance, and long-term sustainability.
From Kumarappa’s perspective, modern industrial economies, and by extension, the Paris framework, operate primarily within the logic of the temporary economy. Even when environmental concerns are acknowledged, they are addressed through technological fixes that do not fundamentally alter the underlying system. The pursuit of green growth, therefore, remains embedded in the same paradigm that generated the crisis.
Kumarappa’s alternative emphasises decentralisation and local self-sufficiency. He argues that sustainable economies must be rooted in local production systems that meet local needs, thereby reducing dependence on global supply chains and minimising ecological footprints. This vision anticipates contemporary discussions on localisation, circular economies, and community-based resource management.
Equally important is Kumarappa’s insistence that economics is fundamentally a branch of ethics. Economic decisions cannot be divorced from moral considerations, as they shape the relationship between human beings and the natural world. Climate solutions, therefore, must involve not only technological innovation but also a transformation in values and social practices.
5. Reinterpreting the Paris Agreement through a Moral Lens
When viewed through a Gandhian–Kumarappan lens, key elements of the Paris Agreement acquire new meanings. The principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” for instance, can be reinterpreted as an expression of trusteeship, in which affluent nations bear a greater moral responsibility for their historical contributions to environmental degradation. This responsibility is not merely technical or financial but ethical, requiring restraint in consumption and a commitment to justice.
Similarly, NDCs can be expanded beyond quantitative targets to include qualitative commitments to lifestyle transformation, community resilience, and reductions in luxury consumption. Climate finance, rather than reinforcing dependency, should empower local communities and support decentralised, sustainable production systems. Technology transfer should prioritise appropriate technologies that meet basic needs rather than perpetuate consumerist models of development.
Perhaps most significantly, the concept of “net zero” must be deepened to include what might be called “inner zero”, a reduction not only of emissions but of greed, waste, and exploitation. Without such an inner transformation, external targets risk remaining superficial.
6. Convergences with Degrowth and Ecological Thought
These insights resonate strongly with contemporary degrowth scholarship, which challenges the assumption that economic growth can be indefinitely sustained without ecological consequences. Degrowth theorists argue that efficiency gains often lead to increased consumption—a phenomenon known as the rebound effect—and that absolute decoupling of growth from resource use has not been achieved at the necessary scale.
Both Gandhian thought and degrowth critique the commodification of nature, the reliance on speculative technologies, and the inadequacy of voluntary commitments. They call instead for structural transformations that prioritise sufficiency over accumulation and equity over expansion.
Similar themes are echoed in the works of thinkers such as E. F. Schumacher, who advocates for appropriate technology and human-scale development; Aldo Leopold, who articulates an ethical relationship with the land; and Arne Naess, who emphasises the intrinsic value of all forms of life. These perspectives collectively reinforce the argument that ecological sustainability requires a reorientation of values rather than merely a refinement of techniques.
7. Conclusion: Towards a Moral Climate Order
The climate crisis cannot be adequately addressed within a framework that seeks to preserve the very system that has produced it. Technological innovation and policy reform, while necessary, are insufficient without a deeper transformation of values. Gandhi and Kumarappa remind us that sustainability is ultimately a moral question, rooted in how we define progress, wealth, and human flourishing.
Their vision calls for a shift from carbon control to self-control, from green growth to sufficiency, and from domination of nature to harmony with it. Reimagining the Paris Agreement along these lines would transform it from a technocratic instrument into a moral covenant—one that recognises the interconnectedness of humanity and the planet and places ethical responsibility at the centre of climate action.
In this sense, the path forward lies not merely in better technologies or stricter regulations, but in cultivating a new moral imagination, one capable of sustaining both human life and the natural world.
Acknowledgment
This text is an edited version of an address originally delivered by the author during an online session of the International Dialogue of IFPNP IV, organized by the Sevagram Ashram Pratishthan on November 1, 2025. The International Fellowship Programme on Nonviolence and Peace (IFPNP) was conducted in collaboration with an esteemed network of global partners, including Gandhi International (France), the Academic University College for Non-Violence and Human Rights (AUNOHR) (Lebanon), the International Centre of Nonviolence (ICON) at the Durban University of Technology (South Africa), and Portland Community College (USA). The text was transcribed by Dr. Siby K. Joseph, Director of the IFPNP.
About the Author
John S. Moolakkattu is an ICSSR Senior Fellow at the School of International Relations and Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University, and the Chief Editor of Gandhi Marg Quarterly. He has previously served as a Senior Professor (HAG) at the Central University of Kerala, Professor and Director of Gandhian Studies at M.G. University, and Professor of Development Studies at IIT Madras. Internationally, he held the Gandhi-Luthuli Professorial Chair in Peace Studies at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban. He can be contacted at moolakkattu@gmail.com.
