On 1 February, India’s finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman unveiled the government’s budget for 2026, which included a new $2.2bn funding push for carbon capture technologies.
In the absence of its new international climate pledge under the Paris Agreement, the budget offers a glimpse into the key climate and energy security priorities of the world’s third-largest emitter, amid increasing geopolitical tensions and trade challenges.
While Sitharaman’s budget speech did not mention climate change directly, she said: “Today, we face an external environment in which trade and multilateralism are imperilled and access to resources and supply chains are disrupted.”
Sitharaman emphasised that “new technologies are transforming production systems while sharply increasing demands on water, energy and critical minerals”.
The budget sets out: support for the mining and processing of critical minerals and rare earths; import duty exemptions for nuclear power equipment; and support for renewables, particularly rooftop solar.
However, unlike in some previous years, the 2026 budget does not include specific climate adaptation measures.
Below, Carbon Brief runs through five key climate- and energy-focused announcements from the budget.
- Carbon capture, utilisation and storage
- Critical minerals and rare earth ‘corridors’
- Nuclear energy
- Renewables
- Adaptation
Carbon capture, utilisation and storage
The biggest climate-related budget announcement was $2.2bn to support carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) technologies in India over the next 5 years.
These are technologies that capture carbon dioxide (CO2) as it is released, then use or store it underground or under the sea.
This funding is aimed at decarbonising five of India’s high-emitting industrial sectors – power, steel, cement, refineries and chemicals. These sectors are “staring at the risk” of coming under the EU’s carbon adjustment mechanism (CBAM), even after a recent EU-India trade deal, according to Sitharaman.
The funding is meant to align with a roadmap released last year that sees CCUS as a “core technological pillar” of India’s 2070 net-zero strategy, particularly for “decarbonising sectors where viable alternatives are limited”, notes the government’s roadmap.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) sixth assessment report, however, the need for CCUS to mitigate industrial emissions “may be overestimated”, compared to measures such as energy and material efficiency and electrification.
Speaking to Carbon Brief, Dr Vikram Vishal, a professor of earth sciences at the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (IIT-B),, describes the budget move as a “big welcome step for industrial decarbonisation and India’s net-zero ambitions as a whole”.
Vishal says that the funding could go towards getting “big demonstration plants to near-commercial plants” that could entail even bigger investments in the future.
He tells Carbon Brief:
“India is blessed with both onshore and offshore availability for carbon storage. But while utilisation exists, storage has not happened, per se, even at a decent scale. We [would] need to build transportation infrastructure from the point source of capture at scale, on land and offshore. While offshore storage is very low risk, onshore presents a closer proximity to emission sources.”
However, that could also mean closer proximity to densely populated or protected areas.
Vishal adds that India has a very large theoretical storage potential, even a quarter of which would allow for up to 150bn tonnes of CO2 to be stored. This could sustain CCUS for hundreds of years, Vishal says, adding: “And by that time, the energy transition would have happened, right?”
Critical minerals and rare-earth ‘corridors’
Mining, sourcing and processing “critical minerals” and rare earths is another key area of India’s 2026 budget.
It proposes establishing “dedicated rare-earth corridors” in the “mineral-rich” coastal states of Odisha, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu to “promote mining, processing, research and manufacturing”. These corridors are intended to complement a $815m rare-earth permanent-magnet scheme announced in November.
In addition, the budget supports “incentivising prospecting and exploration” for rare-earth minerals, such as monazite, as well as others that the government wants to include in its list of “critical minerals”.
Last week, for instance, India classified coking coal – which is predominantly used in making steel – as a “critical and strategic mineral”, removing regulatory measures such as the need to consult affected communities before developing new mines.
Sehr Raheja, programme officer at New Delhi thinktank Centre for Science Environment, tells Carbon Brief that “moving up the critical-minerals value chain” is “increasingly essential” for the energy transition in developing countries.
She adds that some of the measures announced in India’s budget “point in that direction”, explaining:
“Globally, developing countries often stay stuck in the extraction stages of value chains and capture the least value. While duty exemptions for critical mineral processing and battery manufacturing signal intent to build domestic manufacturing capacity, the extent to which these new efforts deliver sustained value will only become apparent over time.”
Rahul Basu, research director at the Goa Foundation, which advocates for “intergenerational equity” in mining, tells Carbon Brief:
“Rare earths are not particularly rare. What is difficult is separating and refining them. China imports ore from around the world, including [the] US. Their competitive advantage lies in processing, including the ability to tolerate high pollution levels.
“India should perfect the processing technology with imported ores first. It is the critical piece. Not mining. We seem to want to mine the same beaches that are already seeing sea-level rise.”
Nuclear energy
The Indian government has also lifted customs duties on imports of nuclear power equipment within the 2026 budget.
Under the changes, equipment for all nuclear power plants will not be subject to customs duties until 2035, irrespective of capacity.
The announcement follows India enacting a landmark new nuclear act, dubbed the “Shanti” act, in December 2025. This seeks to privatise and invite foreign participation in the country’s nuclear energy sector, which has been largely state-run for decades and has a long history of public protests over safety and land-acquisition concerns.
The Shanti act – which is an acronym for “sustainable harnessing and advancement of nuclear energy for transforming India” – aims to help India increase its nuclear capacity tenfold to 100 gigawatts (GW) by 2047.
This coincides with 100 years since India’s independence and is “the year India aims to attain developed-nation status”, according to prime minister Narendra Modi.
Renewables
Support for renewables in India’s budget this year is significant, but “uneven”, experts tell Carbon Brief.
Allocations to India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) grew by 24% to a “record high” in the 2026 budget, with the bulk going to the prime minister’s flagship rooftop solar scheme. The government also cut import duties on lithium-ion cells for battery storage systems, as well as on inputs for solar-panel glass manufacturing.
However, Vibhuti Garg, South Asia director for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, tells Carbon Brief that spending on wind energy and – “more critically” – on transmission and energy storage has either “stagnated or declined” this year.
Garg says grid infrastructure is “fundamental” to renewable expansion. She explains:
“Transmission infrastructure and storage are fundamental to integrating higher shares of renewable energy into the grid. As renewable penetration rises, these elements become not optional but indispensable, and the current level of support falls short of what is required.”
Adaptation
The budget does not announce any specific adaptation measures or schemes, although it does mention a plan to develop and rejuvenate reservoirs and water bodies and to “strengthen” fisheries value chains in coastal areas.
The budget does not mention or include measures related to heat stress or its impact on productivity and workers in sectors such as agriculture.
According to India’s national economic survey tabled ahead of the budget, adaptation and “resilience-related” domestic spending “surged” from 3.7% of the country’s GDP in 2016-17 to 5.6% in 2022-23.
Yet, unlike earlier budgets, allocations to and expenditure from India’s National Adaptation Fund for Climate Change are not separately visible in the 2026 document.
Harjeet Singh, climate adaptation expert and founding director at the Satat Sampada Climate Foundation, tells Carbon Brief that this budget was a “missed opportunity” and a response “not commensurate to the needs [for adaptation] on [the] ground or investment at the scale of crisis that we are facing”.
Singh adds that it fails to recognise the “huge” economic impacts already being felt in India. He says:
“If a budget doesn’t recognise how climate change is already eroding India’s development – causing huge economic losses – and is going to affect our GDP growth, it means that you aren’t really acting, or nudging states to do more.
“It was a missed opportunity to tell the world that we do see adaptation as a problem and we are acting on it, but we also need international cooperation.”
The post Five key climate and energy announcements in India’s budget for 2026 appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Five key climate and energy announcements in India’s budget for 2026
One of the key expected outcomes from the upcoming COP31 climate summit in Antalya, Turkey, is the launch of a “just transition mechanism”.
This follows years of calls from civil society to support a “just transition” as countries shift towards low-emissions energy systems and away from fossil fuels.
At the COP30 UN climate talks last year in the Brazilian city of Belém parties agreed to establish a “mechanism” to support this goal, called the “Belém-Antalya mechanism” (BAM).
Groups that have championed the BAM want it to act as a central hub on just transitions, providing support for workers and communities around the world.
However, the details of exactly what the much-touted BAM will consist of remain vague, with developed and developing countries disagreeing about its functions and purpose.
Disagreements continued at the UN climate talks in Bonn in June 2026, including on the crucial question of how the BAM will be financed.
Here, Carbon Brief looks at where the idea for the BAM came from, how it could support just transitions and what to expect from COP31.
How has a ‘just transition’ featured in UN climate talks?
A “just transition” is the idea that workers and communities should be supported in the shift to a low-carbon economy. It is a central principle behind the idea of climate justice.
Often, the term refers to those linked to the fossil-fuel industry, but it can also refer to transitions taking place in agriculture, heavy industry and various other sectors.
The concept originated in the 1980s, when US labour unions forged alliances with environmental justice groups. It has since become a key part of international climate discussions.
The preamble to the 2015 Paris Agreement includes a commitment to “tak[e] into account the imperatives of a just transition of the workforce and the creation of decent work and quality jobs in accordance with nationally defined development priorities”.
Bert De Wel, policy officer at the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), tells Carbon Brief:
“The labour movement is very happy with the wide audience and broad political support that the concept has received since its inception in the 1980s. The inclusion in the Paris Agreement, with the reference to the creation of decent work and quality jobs was a milestone for the movement. While other demands have been added…we continue to stress the labour dimension as being central to the concept.”
Three years after the creation of the Paris Agreement, at COP24 in the former coal-mining city of Katowice, the Polish presidency highlighted the issue of just transitions.
The need for carbon-cutting policies to ensure “a just transition of the workforce” that creates “decent work and quality jobs” was included in the “Silesia declaration”, issued by the presidency during the first week of COP24.
While the declaration was only signed by 50 countries – roughly a quarter of the parties at the summit – it was still “noted” in the final COP text.
This helped to drive momentum behind the idea, culminating in formal agreement at COP27 in Egypt to launch a “work programme on just transition” (JTWP).
De Wel says the establishment of the JTWP was a “major step forward” that allowed parties to “speak about just transition in more concrete terms”.
In the years since, negotiators have worked to flesh out the JTWP, with disagreements between parties about what its purpose should be.
Broadly, developed countries would like it to focus on domestic workforces, while some nations want a more global outlook, including support for transitions in developing countries.
The JTWP has proved a challenging negotiating space, with talks at the COP29 summit in 2024 closing without an agreement, in what one observer dubbed a “betrayal”.
However, despite these frustrations, parties at COP30 in Brazil agreed to establish a new institutional mechanism on just transitions, which has become widely known as the BAM. The move was hailed as a “victory” by civil society.
Where did the ‘just transition mechanism’ come from?
In the run-up to COP30, civil society began to push for the establishment of an “institutional arrangement” that would move work under the JTWP from talk into action.
(This was originally called the “Belém action mechanism” by civil society groups, who subsequently updated this to the “Belém-Antalya mechanism” following the outcome at COP30. However, in the JTWP text agreed at COP30 it is only described as a “mechanism”, sometimes also referred to as the “just transition mechanism”.)
Anabella Rosemberg, senior advisor on just transition at NGO umbrella group Climate Action Network (CAN) International, tells Carbon Brief:
“The idea of the mechanism emerged from the collaboration of civil society, trade unions, feminist groups, youth and Indigenous peoples in the UNFCCC.
“It was clear that the kind of activities being run under the JTWP – two dialogues a year and one ministerial – would not support the delivery of just-transition strategies on the ground, so a new approach was developed to get words into action.”
Following the inception of the idea, civil society did “tonnes of stuff to boost it up the agenda”, Dr Leon Sealey-Huggins, a senior campaigner at the charity War on Want, tells Carbon Brief.
This ranged from presenting demands and proposals to different constituents, organising joint letters and writing policy papers, all the way through to designing logos, creating memes and even a song.
These efforts ultimately paid off: during the Bonn climate negotiations in June 2025, one draft text included the idea for a new institutional arrangement. One of the options in the