‘Environment treated as secondary concern, not survival infrastructure’: Experts say Union Budget fails to prioritise clean air for Delhi

Dutta pointed out that allocation for the Coal Ministry has increased sharply this year, reversing a declining trend seen over the past few years. He also criticised the continued push for carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS), calling it “a clear anti-climate action, anti-people and anti-clean air action”. According to Dutta, CCUS allows coal and oil use to continue indefinitely while addressing only carbon dioxide, and not toxic co-pollutants. “Coal burning and oil burning is also the biggest source of air pollution in the country. Studies now show around 2.1 million premature deaths every year because of air pollution, and India loses between 8 to 10 per cent of its GDP because of it,” he said.

Prof Raj said that while the Budget speaks of aligning economic and environmental policies under sustainable development goals, “the gap between economic and environmental policies is increasing”. He flagged inadequate allocations to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), noting that only Rs 123 crore has been earmarked for the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB). “Most of the ministry’s budget goes towards salaries and routine expenditure rather than conservation and pollution control,” he added.

Borah said industrial growth is being aggressively supported in the Budget, but without parallel investments to ensure cleaner production. Citing emissions inventories, she said 21-35 per cent of India’s air pollution can be attributed to industry, yet direct budgetary support for air pollution control remains modest.

“Air pollution control allocations have increased only slightly, from about Rs 850 crore to Rs 1,091 crore. On the Commission for Air Quality Management and the CPCB, increases are very minuscule. So in terms of direct interventions, it’s going to be disappointing,” she said.

Borah argued that while large funds have been announced for MSME growth, self-reliant industry and technology upgradation, the budget does not mandate that this growth be tied to clean energy transitions or pollution-reduction outcomes. She also flagged cuts in urban environmental programmes, including a 50 per cent reduction in Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) and sharp cuts in public transport schemes such as the PM E-Bus Sewa.

“These cuts show a complete anomaly between what is actually happening in the country and what we see in the Budget. Instead of strengthening urban climate resilience and pollution control, they have made cities more vulnerable,” she said.

Kothari also said the Budget reflects a mindset where the environment is treated as a secondary concern, rather than “survival infrastructure”. “If we keep increasing energy demand, especially luxury and wasteful demand, then nothing is sustainable,” he said.

Without a substantial scale-up in allocations to the environment ministry, pollution control agencies and city-level infrastructure, India’s worsening air quality crisis is unlikely to see meaningful improvement, despite growing rhetoric around green growth and sustainability, the panel concluded.