For years, protecting our environment hasn’t been a top priority in the budget planning process. Finance Ministers often treat natural resources as tools for growth, overlooking their value as living entities that need care and sustainable management.
Back in 2014, I wrote about this issue in a blog titled “Budget 2014 — Shortchanging the Environment.” Fast forward to today, and the problem still exists, now compounded by the urgency of climate change. We need funding not just for climate adaptation and mitigation, but also to help those affected by these changes—like small farmers and fishermen.
This year’s budget seems to miss these points entirely. The Economic Survey presents a simplistic view, prioritizing growth over environmental health. The Chief Economic Adviser claims that reducing carbon emissions isn’t our most pressing issue, suggesting that a world that’s three degrees warmer could still be livable. This goes against what scientists have long warned us about climate impacts.
While growth can bolster resilience, it must be sustainable. Economists like Gita Gopinath highlight the need for a balanced approach that considers ecological impacts. Yet, our government favors rapid infrastructure development at any cost. According to estimates from the World Bank and IMF, the environmental toll of such expansion could reach up to 5% of our GDP—about $200 billion.
This year’s budget includes ambitious plans for mineral corridors and high-speed rail, but it fails to address environmental concerns. The construction projects may lead to significant land loss and affect countless communities, adding to the millions already displaced since Independence. Additionally, crucial ecosystems like mangroves will suffer as we prioritize development over nature.
These projects are often approved with little regard for existing environmental laws. Regulations meant to provide safeguards, such as the Environmental Protection Act, have been weakened, which leaves much of the oversight to chance. It’s estimated that mitigating the damage from these projects could cost thousands of crores, yet the Finance Minister hasn’t mentioned how these costs will be covered.
Unfortunately, it looks like the Finance Commission is siding with central priorities rather than recognizing the rights of Himalayan states, which offer vital ecological services. These states have requested a Green Bonus to aid in sustainable development, but their pleas have gone unheard. Instead, the focus seems to be on altering definitions of forests without making meaningful changes.
Our environment continues to be sidelined in budget discussions. This lack of attention not only threatens ecological stability but also endangers the financial health of states that rely on these natural resources. As more projects move forward unchecked, we could be heading toward an environmental and financial disaster.
