In the Union Budget 2026, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a Rs 20,000 crore allocation for Carbon Capture, Utilisation and Storage (CCUS) technologies to curb industrial carbon dioxide emissions and support India’s 2070 net-zero target. The announcement comes amid worsening pollution levels, especially in north India and the Indo-Gangetic plains, where toxic winter smog regularly pushes air quality into “severe” and “hazardous” categories.
CCUS works by capturing CO2 emissions at the source, mainly from hard-to-abate industries such as steel, cement, and power generation. The captured carbon is either reused in products like fuels and plastics or stored deep underground in geological formations. While the government says the funding aligns with India’s CCUS R&D roadmap launched in December 2025, experts remain unconvinced about the technology’s real-world impact.
Climate researchers argue that CCUS is capital-intensive, energy-heavy, and has yet to demonstrate effectiveness at scale. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has described it as one of the most expensive and least efficient ways to cut emissions, while studies warn that over-reliance on carbon removal technologies could delay meaningful climate action.
Critics also stress that CCUS does little to solve India’s immediate air pollution crisis, which is driven largely by particulate matter from vehicles, coal power, and stubble burning. Capturing CO2 does not significantly reduce harmful pollutants like PM2.5, sulphur dioxide, or nitrogen oxides — and in some cases, CCUS could even worsen local pollution by extending the life of fossil fuel infrastructure.
Supporters of the investment argue that CCUS may still play a limited role in helping legacy industries meet global trade and climate requirements, particularly with mechanisms like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. However, experts broadly agree that CCUS should only complement — not replace — proven emission-reduction strategies, warning that excessive reliance on the technology could be costly and ineffective.
