top of page

By:

Abhijit Mulye

21 August 2024 at 11:29:11 am

NDA power matrix reshaped after success

AI generated image Mumbai: A quiet coup in the state has triggered a loud shift in the power dynamics of the nation’s capital. By engineering the defection of six additional MPs, Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde has nearly doubled his parliamentary muscle, transforming his Shiv Sena faction from a junior regional partner into an indispensable pillar of the NDA. Now sitting on a commanding 13 seats, Shinde has dramatically increased his political leverage—leaving a cautious BJP to weigh the...

NDA power matrix reshaped after success

AI generated image Mumbai: A quiet coup in the state has triggered a loud shift in the power dynamics of the nation’s capital. By engineering the defection of six additional MPs, Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde has nearly doubled his parliamentary muscle, transforming his Shiv Sena faction from a junior regional partner into an indispensable pillar of the NDA. Now sitting on a commanding 13 seats, Shinde has dramatically increased his political leverage—leaving a cautious BJP to weigh the cost of an emboldened ally demanding a bigger slice of the pie in both the Union and state cabinets. In a masterstroke of political engineering that has profoundly jolted political landscape, Shinde has once again demonstrated his formidable capacity for disruption. The rebellion of six out of nine Lok Sabha Members of Parliament from the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena (UBT), ostensibly joining Shinde’s ranks under the banner of “Operation Tiger,” is not merely a regional skirmish. It is a calculated power play that reverberates through the highest corridors of power in New Delhi. By nearly doubling his party’s strength in the lower house from seven to thirteen MPs, Shinde has dramatically altered his own political trajectory, elevating his faction from a helpful regional ally to an indispensable pillar of the National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Shinde’s Stature The immediate consequence of this crossover is a massive surge in Shinde’s stature within the NDA hierarchy. With thirteen parliamentarians, his Shiv Sena is now poised to become the fourth-largest bloc in the ruling national coalition, sitting just behind the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Telugu Desam Party, and the newly formed Nationalist Citizens Party of India. This numerical leap is of immense strategic value to the BJP-led central government. In a parliamentary environment where the ruling coalition possesses only a modest majority, every single seat counts. The central leadership is acutely aware of upcoming legislative hurdles, particularly ambitious constitutional amendments like the proposed delimitation bill, which will require a formidable two-thirds majority. By acting as the architect of this crucial numerical boost, Shinde has cemented his reputation as a reliable and highly effective operator for the NDA, significantly increasing his bargaining power and political leverage. National Relief For the BJP, this development evokes a complex mixture of profound national relief and acute regional anxiety. From the vantage point of PM Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Shinde’s successful poaching operation is a clear windfall. It simultaneously fortifies the NDA’s numerical strength in New Delhi while severely crippling a vocal opposition force in Maharashtra. The central BJP leadership views Shinde as a vital asset capable of bridging the gap between their current numbers and the overwhelming mandates of the past. However, the perspective from the Maharashtra BJP headquarters is noticeably more apprehensive. State BJP leaders openly acknowledge Shinde’s soaring political equity, but they are increasingly wary of his expanding ambitions. They recognize that an emboldened Shinde, eager to fill the political vacuum left by Uddhav Thackeray and a fragmented Nationalist Congress Party, will aggressively attempt to expand his footprint across the state, potentially encroaching upon the BJP’s own traditional support bases. Power Sharing This dramatically enhanced political heft immediately raises pressing questions regarding power-sharing arrangements, both at the Centre and in the state. Armed with thirteen MPs, Shinde’s camp is undoubtedly preparing to seek greater political rewards. In the Union Cabinet, his demand for an additional, high-profile ministerial berth is now backed by solid arithmetic. Given his heightened utility to the national coalition, the BJP high command is highly likely to accommodate this request during the next cabinet reshuffle. However, the power struggle within the Maharashtra state cabinet promises to be far more contentious. Shinde, who had to settle for the Deputy Chief Ministership behind Devendra Fadnavis following the last assembly elections, may now feel emboldened to petition the BJP leadership for the top job. The BJP’s state unit is actively preparing to fiercely resist any such demand. Senior BJP leaders are quick to emphasize that despite his parliamentary gains, Shinde’s legislative strength in the state assembly hovers around 57 MLAs, dwarfed by the BJP’s commanding 132 legislators. Consequently, conceding the Chief Minister’s chair remains highly improbable. Instead, the BJP will be forced into a delicate balancing act, likely appeasing Shinde by granting his faction a larger share of influential, heavyweight portfolios within the state government to keep the alliance stable. Ultimately, through sheer political audacity, Eknath Shinde has ensured that neither New Delhi nor Mumbai can afford to govern without catering to his increasingly formidable political weight.

How plans to Stabilise Earth’s Climate Rely on Carbon Removal

Updated: Jan 2, 2025

Carbon Removal

Global carbon emissions from fossil fuels continue to rise and 2024 is likely to be the world's hottest year on record.


It's becoming increasingly clear that limiting global warming to 1.5°C will require much more than existing efforts to reduce emissions and decarbonise industry. We also need to remove enormous amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, 7-9 billion tonnes a year.


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says carbon dioxide removal technology will be required to achieve global and national net zero targets. In other words, there is no net zero without CO2-removal, because emissions of greenhouse gases are not declining anywhere near fast enough.


There will be trade-offs, as CO2-removal can be costly and often uses up energy, water and land. But Earth is hurtling towards a climate catastrophe, with more than 3°C of warming under current global policies. We must do everything we can to avert disaster, which means slashing emissions as much as we possibly can, and removing what's left.


Within the international scientific community the debate about carbon dioxide removal has moved on from “could we, should we?” to “we must” – recognising the urgency of the situation. So it's worth coming up to speed on the basics of carbon dioxide removal technology, both old and new, and the role we can expect it to play in Australia's net-zero future.


Why do we need carbon dioxide removal?

Carbon dioxide removal accelerates natural processes such as storing carbon in trees, rocks, soil and the ocean. It differs from carbon capture and storage, which seeks to remove carbon before it enters the atmosphere.


As Australia's Climate Change Authority states, reaching the national goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 does not mean all emissions are eliminated across the economy. Some emissions are likely to remain – about 25% of Australia's 2005 emissions under the current plan – and they need to be dealt with.


So how much carbon dioxide are we talking about? Some 133 million tonnes a year by mid-century, according to the authority. This equates to billions of tonnes of additional carbon dioxide removal over the next 25 years.


Ways to remove and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are among the federal government's national science and research priorities. So let's take a look at the technologies we are using now and what we might need.


What technologies do we need?

The international scientific community divides carbon dioxide removal technologies into “conventional” (nature-based) and “novel” (new) approaches.


The conventional technologies rely on biological processes, such as planting trees, boosting soil carbon levels and increasing carbon stores in coastal ecosystems such as mangroves. The carbon is typically stored over shorter timescales, from a decade to a century.


Unfortunately, many of these natural carbon stores or “sinks” are already becoming saturated. They will also become increasingly vulnerable in a changing climate. For example, forest fires are releasing billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere annually.


To reach net zero emissions, the world will need to find more durable ways to remove CO2 at scale from the atmosphere. This is where the new technologies come in.


Examples include adding crushed carbonate or silicate rock to the ocean or farmland. Research suggests waste rock from mining could be used for this purpose.


Concerningly, novel approaches currently comprise less than 0.1% of total global carbon dioxide removal.


Avoiding potential pitfalls

Like all technologies, carbon dioxide removal comes with potential risks and tradeoffs.


In a market worth as much as US$1.1 trillion dollars (A$1.7 trillion) by 2050, there's always a risk of overstating the benefits.


To counter this, the IPCC is developing evidence-based methods to ensure the amounts of carbon removed can be verified and included in national accounts. This should promote transparency and reduce the risk of greenwashing or making misleading claims.


Carbon dioxide removal can also affect the environment. For instance, some approaches such as tree planting may compete with agriculture or biodiversity conservation for water and land. This challenge is compounded by climate change.


Other approaches, such as direct air capture and storage, currently face technical challenges in extracting CO2 from air without consuming high amounts of energy.


The interests and rights of Australia's First Nations communities must also be considered. A global survey of Indigenous people in 30 countries around the world, including Australia, found positive attitudes to climate intervention technologies. However, this is only a starting point. Greater engagement is needed nationally concerning specific carbon dioxide removal approaches.

More work is needed to understand these challenges, including how to manage them and their impacts on Australian communities.


-The Conversation

Comments


bottom of page