I really don't believe any country is sincere towards climate change. Every country puts their economy before others. So expecting another economy to help you is a foolish assumption.
However, India is not asking another economy to help them. India can develop its solar energy sector by itself.
The west accuses the developing countries to be big polluters since they use less environmentally-friendly means of energy production. Then when countries like India try to subsidize the domestic solar energy market, WTO accuses them of illegally supporting domestic over international solar producers. Its like you are called a drug-addict first and when you try to wean off it on your own, you are accused of cheating the rehab centres. Excellent example of double standards.
Until the US sues them and the WTO rules against them. http://in.reuters.com/article/usa-india-solar-idINKCN0QV2FD2...
IMHO Free trade of commodities (food, solar cells etc.) is a good thing.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Agreement_on_Tariffs_a... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguay_Round / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Agriculture [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round
Don't get me wrong though, I'd prefer a world without the need for nation states and borders - but as long as we do have them IMO some of these international organisations are overstepping, and WTO is near the top of that list.
Of course having to protect this very wide range of domestic industries to maintain true independence will result in a huge loss of economic efficiency; so even if it is done right (without an "oops, we forgot the bit about the fertilizer" issue), not only do you have to be a rather large country with a lot of resources, you also have to accept a significantly lower standard of living and a degree of backwardness.
How much it helps I'm not sure; Britain for instance managed to feed itself during WWII even though it relied on its navy for food shipments and of course its cargo ships were constantly attacked. Certainly it did better than it would without a strong navy but with an independent domestic agriculture, since it would have been invaded.
On the other hand, presumably importing vitally important things without exporting vitally important things in return might put you in a bad bargaining position in international politics in times of peace, and maybe then domestic industries making sure that you can survive without imports are helpful; though even that doesn't seem like a huge problem unless you're importing from a cartel (and even very powerful cartels sometimes break down, the way OPEC did recently.)
As to agriculture - I sincerely think it's protected because producers simply bribe the people in the government; there was even research that the more concentrated and bigger ag producers are in a country, the more protected they are (even though a lot of the nominal arguments for protection are much stronger with many small producers than with few large ones typically employing fewer people), though I didn't look deeply into it and perhaps the researcher was biased by expecting this conclusion.
Few countries have been damaged as much by protectionism as has India, and fewer have had such great gains by its gradual elimination.
Doesn't EU do the same (i.e. tax Chinese solar panels to support local producers)?!
Don't expect logic, empiricism, or any kind of sanity to hold in international trade policies.
Subsidizing markets is different to favouring local suppliers. For instance, Germany's feed in tariffs subsidized solar, but it didn't distinguish between German, American and Chinese manufacturers, and that policy is a major reason why solar prices have come down so much - Germany almost single-handedly supported the scaling up of capacity, and scaling down of cost of the global solar industry, from about $20/W down to $2/W.
Instead they try to develop inhouse production that they own and have to cover the initial capital costs.
There was a theory in ~19th century that Portugal/Spain trading wine for machinery from Great Britain mean it was equal to growing said machinery on fields - Britain shot away technologically and that was that. (I can't find the name of the theory though :/)
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/free-trade-us-unemployment_b_...
Then provide tax credits and advantageous financing. A local content minimum insures that the local industry faces no incentive to become competitive and is simply a sinecure for well connected and politically powerful industrialists.
The countries generally don't own, operate or even develop the technology. The countries don't charge for it.
Individual companies, people, innovators make new technology, and they charge as much as they can, as much as the technology is worth to buyers.
If "rich countries" mess things up, it's through subsidies to solar, wind etc. which is suposedly bringing the price down, not up (though this may be inefficient).
Many countries in the so-called "developing" world, particularly those with oil-based economies such as Malaysia, Saudi-Arabia or Venezuela, are subsidising oil and coal based fuels to their population.
Wealthy nations have been helping poorer ones for generations. Major institutions are devoted to it, such as the World Bank, World Health Organization, UNICEF, PEPFAR, and many, many more.
The world isn't entirely altruistic, of course, but there's a trendy notion these days, a sort of Ayn Randian (or Objectivist) idea, that it's entirely, unavoidably selfish, which is just as unrealistic.
Also, note that India is offering to help poorer nations with solar power, for free.
He's not requesting other countries help them, he's requesting other countries help themselves. Dependence on coal and being a last major country to replace coal with solar is foolish. Engery defines economies, and solar is the future.
I've been tracking prices for solar for the last couple of years, and I've only seen them go down. Pulled the trigger and purchased our own install because they went down yet again this year.
Although I do agree government policy as a whole can be sorely lacking in some areas. The gentle, incremental approach has led us to fall behind almost all EU members in meeting renewable goals.
Look who is talking: http://visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2007/12/09/comparing-po...
Until countries like India do not take steps towards sustainable human population, these are all pointless games.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2016/coalition-wants-to-build-1-2...