Background : The still rising global green house gases emissions (the 2025 global CO2 emissions of an estimated 38.1 billion tons was 1.1% higher than 2024 emissions, which itself was 0.8% higher than 2023 emissions) are driving us towards a serious climate change crisis. An urgent shift of all economies, starting with the rich and developed OECD ones, to non-GHG emitting energy sources is an immediate imperative. The world must transition to zero or near zero emissions of planet heating green house gases by around 2050, as even the conservative IPCC projections show, if we have to avoid planet wide climate catastrophes . Not only a just-transition in our energy systems, but our industrial activities, transport, agriculture, communications……all sections of human societal activities must decarbonize, and fast.
India’s own CO2 emissions have risen much faster in the past few years, than the global rate of rise, from the reported 3.1 billion tons in 2023 to 3.19 bln tons in 2024, a 3% rise. Despite being a stressed economy due to global trade troubles (tariffs +) and other tensions, this again increased to an estimated 3.23 bln tons in 2025 (provisional figure). There is also an anticipation of international climate action pressures, including EUs proposed environmental tariffs like the CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism) if Indian export products continue to have high carbon footprints. (Of course, this scenario is to be reviewed in light of the very recently signed EU-India FTA). On top of that, several Indian corporate houses are looking for making money from the international carbon markets. This has become attractive to corporates as there’s a large international carbon market opening up due to the operationalization of Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the Paris Agreement under UNFCCC. On top of these, Indian government has also publicly announced (in the 2021 CoP-26 held in Glasgow) that India will achieve ‘net-zero’ emissions status by the year 2070.
The Mis-directed Budget Push : All these have been contributing to a government and corporate agreement that any climate actions are not really and primarily for saving the most vulnerable communities in India (and elsewhere) from increasing climatic disasters, but more to be taken financial advantage of (or avoid financial burdens like CBAM etc), by the businesses in India and grow their profits while the overall GDP also grows.. The Government might often use global climate justice rhetoric, but all its actions of increasing coal production and burning, clearing prime forest lands (including rich tropical rain forests in Nicobar, which store huge amounts of carbon, apart from providing many other rich ecological benefits to all life) for large corporate projects, rapidly increasing oil infrastructure and encouragement to high emissions intensity economic pathways like flying…..expose it’s intentions clearly.
The points of Critique : One has to see the Union Budget 2026-27’s allocation of ₹20,000 crore to Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage (CCUS) in that light. This signals a significant, yet highly controversial, bet on a set of questionable technology options supposedly intended to decarbonize hard-to-abate sectors like steel, cement, refineries and ‘power’ (actually, power sector is the easiest to decarbonize, contrary to government announcement ). The proponents of CCUS in the Government and industry (also some NGOs) frame it as a necessary step for India’s Net Zero 2070 goals and a way to avoid imminent EU carbon taxes (CBAM). Doing a critical analysis reveals substantial risks to this approach, suggesting it may be a case of very high-cost, low-yield climate action that prolongs fossil fuel dependency.
- High-Cost Technology with Unproven Scalability resulting in huge financial gamble : The ₹20,000 crore (approx. $2.22 billion in Jan.2026 prices) allocated over five years is substantial, yet industry experts note that CCUS is highly capital-intensive. Even some industry critics argue that this amount is a “paltry” investment compared to the $100–150 billion needed by 2050 for meaningful impact, making it a potentially inefficient use of public funds. Some indicative estimates have shown that many CCS projects in other countries are costing over USD 100 per ton of CO2 “captured & stored”. There’s little likelihood that there will be many buyers of carbon credits at this price, or that Carbon-taxes will reach this high levels. The economic viability of CCUS relies on high carbon prices, which are not currently strong enough in India to make these projects profitable without massive public-funded subsidies.
- The biggest problem and critique of CCS or CCUS is that it takes away scarce resources from already proven-in-scale and economically very competitive Renewable Energy applications, Not only in the electricity or power sector, but also in several industrial heating applications. Focusing heavily on unproven and costly CCUS is also likely to divert the focus on actual physical emissions reduction, which have shown far higher promise .
- Low Maturity in India : India is still in the “infancy stage” of CCUS, with existing pilot projects (like NTPC Vindhyachal) operating at tiny scales (20 tonnes/day) compared to ‘global leaders’ (e.g., 30 Mt/year in the US). Investing heavily in completely unproven technologis have big risks of failure and large financial losses.
- The ‘shady’ crony-capitalist aspect : Prolonging Fossil Fuels – “Greenwashing” Coal : Given the crony capitalists’ interest and increasing stranglehold over private coal mining & trading in India, one of the most valid criticisms is that CCUS allows India (and its ‘most favoured businessman’) to continue mining coal and using coal-based power plants— with 105 GW of new capacity planned by 2035—by promising to make them “green” (sic) ! This is clearly a way to delay the faster, more efficient transition to renewable energy (solar/wind/geothermal/wave…..the whole basket) and keep profiting from planet-threatening coal , putting a billion plus people in greater dangers in the process.
- The “Energy Penalty” : Capturing carbon is very energy-intensive, requiring 15–30% more power, which can lead to higher fuel consumption, increasing overall emissions if not powered by clean energy (which will be counter productive), and sharply increasing the costs of power.
- Logistical and Regulatory Gaps – mismatch of Sources and Sinks: A major technical hurdle is that India’s emission sources (power/steel plants, with the exception of cement & chemicals plants) are largely in central/western/ southern India, while potential geological storage sites (deep saline aquifers) are far away, requiring massive investment in pipeline infrastructure. This also increases the risks of fugitive emissions from the pipelines and processing facilities.
- Lack of Regulatory Framework/ standards and the low reliability/safety /permanence of storage : No one wants a Lake Nyos in their vicinity, surely. (On the 21st of August 1986, Lake Nyos in north-western Cameroon had a ‘limnic eruption’, emitting a large volume of trapped CO2 into the ground level air, quickly killing about 1786 people and over 3500 livestock). With the possibility of “underground CO2 storage facilities” sprouting all across the country, like toxic mushrooms, this government push is increasing CO2 related catastrophic possibilities, rather than decreasing it. There is no dedicated, comprehensive policy to address long-term reliability of storage, liability for catastrophic leaks, ownership of subsurface pore spaces, or environmental standards for likely regular leaks.
- Economic Viability and Questionable “Utilization” – Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) Focus : A large part of “utilization” (CCU) involves using captured CO2 for Enhanced Oil Recovery —injecting it into old oil fields to extract more oil. This is crooked and paradoxical : using climate funding to produce more fossil fuels.
This ₹20,000 crore public tax revenues could be better spent on accelerating renewable energy, grid storage, energy efficiency (or even really ‘green hydrogen’ – for process emissions like steel making ), most of which offer more reliable, proven, and faster decarbonization results. The ₹20,000 crore CCUS push is a high-risk gamble that serves more profit making opportunities for corporates /industry, but it risks becoming a “mirage” that diverts resources, prolongs reliance on coal, and fails to deliver on net-zero goals due to high costs and technical challenges. It appears to be a completely mis-directed “futuristic bet” (as described by the government), but one that currently lacks the solid foundation of proven, cost-effective, and safe implementation.
Soumya Dutta, works with NACEJ / MAUSAM (Movement for Advancing Understanding on Sustainability And Mutuality) (soumyadutta.delhi@gmail.com)
