US President Obama’s climate change plan

As the world looks towards striking a much-needed climate deal at the Paris summit this December, the contributions of top polluters like the United States, China and India come under close scrutiny. The United States took a tentative step in this direction by signing a bilateral climate deal with China in December 2014 to restrict carbon emissions and ahead of Paris has announced a target of 26-28 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 compared to 2005 levels.

Now, US President Barack Obama has announced new curbs on carbon emissions from power plants under the Clean Power Plan, a set of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that if followed through, could be path breaking. States have time until September 2016 to submit plans based on targets set for them by the EPA, but must comply by 2022. Here are five things you ought to know about this new plan and what it means for climate change.

1. Does Obama have the authority to put this in place?

Yes he does. Those opposed to it will try and find loopholes but the American president has used the power of the Clean Air Act of 1970 to push this new plan through. Under this, any pollutant that poses a serious health threat can be regulated by the US Environment Protection Agency. The president hence has the legal authority to make a decision on pollutants from power plants that are endangering public health across the country.

2. How will the plan help tackle climate change?

The power plants in the United States are one of the biggest sources of CO2 emissions, making up 32 per cent of total greenhouse gas emissions. The Clean Power Plan aims to put standards in place that will in the long run help reduce CO2 emissions by 32 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. This is by far the most ambitious step taken by America to tackle climate change. Climate change experts are also hopeful that other big pollutants will be inspired by this and come on board and sign on to achieve big targets in Paris this December.

3. Is it a one-plan-for-all proposition?

No. The president has given each state the flexibility to decide on its energy mix on its own. What this means is that each state can decide on which renewable it wants to invest in and also look at upgrading its coal plants to produce more electricity but with lesser emissions. States have a fair bit of flexibility in deciding what works for them and what does not.

4. In the long run will this mean cheaper or more expensive power for people?

With a smart and ambitious renewables plan in place and a lowered reliance on fossil fuel, electricity bills will also be impacted. While initial electricity costs may escalate, the EPA estimates consumers will save $8 per month in the long run while The White House on its part estimates the average American will save $85 on their utility bill by 2030.

5. Why is the plan being opposed in so many states?

Many states, like Wyoming, West Virginia and Kentucky, that are heavily reliant on coal mining fear their economies would suffer and people would lose jobs. In fact as many as 14 states have decided to legally challenge this plan as they feel the implications threaten economic security in these states. In addition, Republican presidential hopefuls are also opposing the economics of this plan and feel that it will be disastrous and cost too much to implement.

Why PM Modi needs to lose his ego and learn from Former PM Manmohan Singh

3 things you must know about 

After allegations over #LalitForSushma and Vyapam scam came to light in June and early July this year, it was clear that Parliament's monsoon session would be a stormy one, and the Congress will leave no stone unturned to corner the BJP. However, one had expected the ruling party to devise some strategy to ensure that a minimum and essential business was transacted. The hope was generated because of the more than 100 per cent work record performed by both Houses of Parliament in the previous budget session. But the hopes dashed from day one of the monsoon session. The Opposition, led by the Congress, may be faulted for creating ruckus, but the BJP-led NDA government was no less responsible for a complete washout of the session so far. It is up to the PM and no one else to reach out to the Opposition, and who better than his predecessors to seek the light. 

1. Floor management: Compared with UPA-2, the floor management of the Modi government leaves much to be desired. One also needs to look at the parliamentary affairs minister of the two regimes for this. Compared with the present Modi government, UPA-2 was much more constrained. First, it was a minority government running with outside support of parties like the Samajwadi Party and Bahujan Samaj Party. Second, it was rocked by much bigger scams like the 2G spectrum, coal block allocation, Commonwealth Games and Adarsh Cooperative Housing Society cases, and controversies involving ministers like Pawan Bansal and Ashwani Kumar. Third, the UPA-2 had to contend with a formidable Opposition in the BJP which had 116 MPs in the Lok Sabha as compared with just 44 of the Congress in the present 16th Lok Sabha. 

Despite all these hurdles, the productivity of the Lok Sabha was decent if not enviable, as it passed 165 of the 222 Bills introduced in five years. Being the senior-most MP in the lower house (his predecessor Bansal was also a Lok Sabha MP), the then parliamentary affairs minister Kamal Nath enjoyed cordial equations with other members cutting across party lines. Depending upon the situations, he would be aggressive and accommodative. Nath managed to get the Opposition members on board on key Bills and ensured their smooth passage. On the other hand, Venkaiah Naidu lacks these qualities - he is a Rajya Sabha MP, is aggressive in his approach towards the Opposition on most of the occasions, and lacks the qualities of Nath.

Besides, the UPA also had the advantage of veteran politician and strategist Pranab Mukherjee's vast experience till he became president of India. On the other hand, BJP's tallest figure in the Lok Sabha, LK Advani, is not very indulgent in party affairs as he himself has been sidelined.

2. Losing friends and allies: UPA-2 was often accused of having two power centres - Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who was also the chairperson of UPA. This worked to their advantage when it came to dealing with the allies and the Opposition. Both of them reached out to the alliance partners like Sharad Pawar's NCP and Lalu Prasad's RJD besides Mulayam Singh Yadav's SP and Mayawati's BSP. As far as NDA government is concerned, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's undisputed leadership and centralised power is not working much to its advantage. 

Neither he, nor senior members of his cabinet are seen to be making sincere efforts to reach out to the Opposition. Even the BJP's oldest allies like the Shiv Sena and Shiromani Akali Dal have embarrassed the government by opposing the Land Acquisition Bill. The two alliance partners have not come to the rescue of the government when the latter needed them the most. Modi needs to learn from Singh the art of winning support by reaching out to either alliance partners or rivals.

3. Breaking bad: Modi also lacks Atal Bihari Vajpayee's charisma. Vajpayee was a unifying force which saw even National Conference from Jammu & Kashmir join his government at the centre. He would leave much of the strategy to be planned and executed by his two closest aides - national security advisor Brajesh Mishra and then parliamentary affairs minister Pramod Mahajan. The three together saw successful running of the coalition government for six years from 1998 to 2004. In the present dispensation, Modi's polarising figure and dominant persona are going against the smooth running of the government. The bitter enmity between him and Sonia-Rahul Gandhi combine since the 2002 Gujarat riots comes in the way of a rapprochement and, subsequently, a smooth functioning of Parliament. Modi's aggressive posture might work at the national level but it is not helping the government inside Parliament. 

The constant blame-game and volley of accusations between PM and the Gandhis outside Parliament have been too vitriolic, it leaves no scope for cordiality. One would have expected finance minister Arun Jaitley, considered close to Modi, and Sushma Swaraj, former leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, to take the lead in neutralising the Opposition's attacks. However, Swaraj herself is embroiled in the Lalit Modi controversy and, hence, is the target of the Opposition. Jaitley, on the other hand, who was earlier appreciated as the leader of Opposition in the Rajya Sabha during UPA-2, isn't doing any better. His proximity to SAD leaders is also well-known, despite these factors, the BJP has failed to get the desired support of the allies and numb the Opposition's attack in Parliament on crucial occasions.

The key to a functioning Parliament lies in coordination rather than confrontation as in suspending 25 Congess Lok Sabha MPs on August 4. Modi needs to drastically change the government's strategy and tweak his approach towards dealing with allies and the Opposition to ensure a smooth functioning of Parliament. The future looks tough if it loses the upcoming Bihar elections, as the Opposition will get emboldened and harden their stand.