Union Budget 2026-27 was all about building assets but ignoring climate and ecological ground realities

The Union Budget, an annual financial statement of the government, is more than just an accounting exercise; it's a critical policy document reflecting national priorities and future direction. The critique of the Union Budget 2026-27 by downtoearth.org.in, highlighting its focus on 'building assets' while allegedly 'ignoring climate and ecological ground realities' and treating 'ecosystems and livelihoods as afterthoughts,' brings to the forefront a persistent tension in India's development trajectory: the balance between economic growth and environmental sustainability. Historically, India's economic planning, particularly post-independence, has largely prioritized rapid industrialization and infrastructure development to alleviate poverty and achieve self-reliance. This approach, while delivering significant economic gains, often came at a considerable environmental cost. The late 20th century saw a growing global and national awareness of environmental degradation, leading to the enactment of landmark legislations like the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981; and the comprehensive Environment Protection Act, 1986. These acts laid the legal framework for environmental governance. However, integrating environmental concerns into core economic policy, especially budgetary allocations, has remained a gradual and often challenging process. The 12th Five Year Plan (2012-2017) notably emphasized 'Faster, More Inclusive and Sustainable Growth,' marking a significant policy shift towards sustainability. The criticism against the 2026-27 Budget suggests a potential regression or at least a lack of sufficient progress in embedding environmental considerations deeply into fiscal policy. 'Building assets' typically refers to capital expenditure in infrastructure projects like roads, railways, ports, and industrial corridors. While crucial for economic growth and job creation, such projects, if not designed and executed with robust environmental safeguards, can lead to deforestation, biodiversity loss, increased pollution, and displacement of communities, thereby impacting local livelihoods and ecosystems. The article's point about 'livelihoods as afterthoughts' is particularly pertinent, as many rural and tribal communities in India are directly dependent on natural resources for their sustenance. Key stakeholders in this debate include the **Ministry of Finance**, responsible for preparing and presenting the budget, whose primary mandate often leans towards economic growth metrics. The **NITI Aayog** plays a crucial role in shaping policy discourse, including sustainable development goals (SDGs), which India is committed to achieving. The **Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC)** is the nodal agency for environmental protection but often struggles to secure adequate budgetary allocations for its priorities. **Civil society organizations and environmental advocacy groups**, like Down to Earth, act as critical watchdogs, bringing public and scientific scrutiny to government policies. The **industry and private sector** are significant beneficiaries and implementers of asset-building projects, and their adherence to environmental norms is crucial. Finally, the **general public**, particularly vulnerable communities, are directly impacted by both the benefits of development and the costs of environmental degradation. This matters immensely for India. Economically, ignoring climate and ecological realities can lead to significant long-term costs, including increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters, health crises due to pollution, and potential 'stranded assets' in a global economy transitioning to green alternatives. Socially, it exacerbates inequalities, as marginalized communities disproportionately bear the brunt of environmental damage. Environmentally, India, already vulnerable to climate change, risks further biodiversity loss, water scarcity, and air pollution, impacting food security and public health. Furthermore, neglecting these aspects could jeopardize India's international commitments under the Paris Agreement (Nationally Determined Contributions – NDCs) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), potentially affecting its access to international climate finance and its global standing. Several constitutional provisions underscore the state's and citizens' responsibility towards the environment. **Article 48A** of the Directive Principles of State Policy mandates that 'The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.' Similarly, **Article 51A(g)**, a Fundamental Duty, states that 'It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.' These articles provide a constitutional basis for integrating environmental protection into governance, including budgetary decisions. Looking ahead, the future implications are significant. A continued focus on 'asset building' without adequate environmental integration could lock India into a high-carbon, resource-intensive development path, making the transition to a sustainable economy more difficult and costly. There is a growing need for 'green budgeting' or 'climate budgeting,' where every budgetary allocation is assessed for its environmental impact and contribution to climate goals. This would involve a shift from viewing environmental protection as an 'afterthought' to a foundational principle of economic policy. The concept of 'Just Transition' also becomes crucial, ensuring that the shift to a green economy does not leave behind workers and communities dependent on traditional industries. The debate around the 2026-27 Budget serves as a crucial reminder that India's long-term prosperity is inextricably linked to the health of its environment and the well-being of its people, demanding a more holistic and integrated approach to fiscal planning.