&w=3840&q=100)
Africa News Live Updates: Bill to create federal science university in Gombe passes second reading in Nigerian senate
Bill to create federal science university in Gombe passes second reading in Nigerian senate
A bill aimed at establishing a Federal University of Science in Gombe State, Nigeria, has successfully passed its second reading in the Senate, Premium Times said in a report. The legislation, which had its first reading on July 2, involves debating the general principles of the proposed institution. Following the approval of its second reading, the bill will now be referred to the relevant Senate committee for detailed scrutiny and clause-by-clause consideration before it can proceed further in the legislative process.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Print
4 hours ago
- The Print
Modi govt has learned from past FTAs. Its priority now is building a manufacturing powerhouse
India and the US are currently holding talks over a trade agreement, with the sixth round expected to be held in August, when American trade officials will visit India. This shows India's importance as a trading partner for the US. Trump had announced a 90-day window for tariff negotiations, which ended on 9 July. He later extended the deadline to 1 August and sent letters to 14 countries informing them about new tariff rates. With the emergence of new geopolitical realities arising out of the unilateral announcement of reciprocal tariffs by President Donald Trump, the US cannot be considered a very reliable trade partner. And, even if a bilateral trade agreement with the US is concluded, uncertainty about the country's future actions remains. There are other ambiguities around Trump's administrative actions, and no one is sure of the outcome of US courts' and the Senate's interventions. Therefore, prudence demands that we go slow and wait for countries such as China, Japan, and Vietnam to negotiate with the US. India, meanwhile, can build strategic partnerships with other countries and blocs to prevent overdependence on the US market. The EU is expected to be stable and predictable in its approach, but India has to deftly negotiate the bloc's impulse to impose non-tariff barriers under the garb of human and labour rights, environment, climate change etc. The World Trade Organization is virtually defunct and rule–based trading order looks like a thing of the past. Every country, including India, is negotiating Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with multiple other nations to protect its export market. In May, India concluded FTA negotiations with the United Kingdom, while talks with the EU and the US are in advanced stages. However, our approach to FTAs cannot be a simple replication of the old template and must be influenced by outcomes of the not-so-successful past trade agreements, such as the ASEAN-India FTA and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) negotiations. Past mistakes The global trade and financial architecture that emerged in the post-World War 2 period supported a rule-based trading system. It allowed several poor countries to overcome the limitations of a small economy and tap into the export market. As a result, these countries — like South Korea, Taiwan, and China — were able to experience above–average growth rates for a long period of time. We missed riding the bus of free trade due to earlier policy misadventures like quota, license raj of Congress–led governments. Now our government is committed to make India a manufacturing powerhouse, but the bus of free trade has hit major road bumps. India is focusing on ensuring competitiveness of domestic industry right now, as there is absolutely no substitute for building the manufacturing sector. Past FTAs failed to yield much benefit because they exposed domestic industries to global competition without strengthening the manufacturing ecosystem through infrastructure development, availability of land and power, and ease of compliances. India needs structural reforms to reduce input costs. The Modi government's focus is on slashing costs of land, power, logistics, compliances, and raw material to enhance global competitiveness of our manufacturers. Several steps have been taken in the last 11 years by the Centre, but a lot remains to be done at the state–level, as most of these areas are basically dependent on state policies. Micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSME) is an important sector for employment generation and integrating our manufacturing into global and regional supply chains. Therefore, before entering into any agreement, the government is ensuring full support to MSMEs. The MSMEs also have a lot to do at their end, since they face difficulty meeting international standards, which limits their competitiveness. It is important for this sector to build institutional capacity and technical know-how to follow global trade standards. Quality Control Order (QCO) was brought with this intention, but it has emerged as another challenge for Indian industries. QCOs hinder the import of raw materials and intermediate products required for manufacturing, creating a negative impact on the domestic production of goods, and reducing India's export competitiveness. Therefore, there is a need for a more sector-specific approach to QCOs. Our recent experiences with custom duties have shown that there is a conflict between imposition of countervailing duties and the interests of MSMEs. Such duties tend to favour big domestic producer industries at the cost of MSMEs which are the users of products that are subject to countervailing duties. So FTAs provide an opportunity for strategic tariff reduction on intermediate goods for the betterment of Indian industries. India will take a data-driven approach in determining tariffs to ensure that they don't disrupt supply chains or discourage innovation and investment. Agriculture sector protection, intellectual property rights, and public procurement are critical and form an important part of tariff negotiation. Hence, their interest is non-negotiable. Any concession given in these areas will be carefully evaluated and bargain precisely measured. We know that if India gives concession to one country or region, others would demand similar treatment and privileges. India should not bend over backward to seek concessions for movement of its citizens across borders as service providers. The negotiating countries use this demand to get concessions from India. Indian talent is in huge demand globally and other countries would anyway need Indian expertise. Otherwise, India can harness its human resources and potential to its own advantage. Also read: India's infrastructure revolution is powering its rise in manufacturing An opportunity Major economic decisions are not made in the fog of uncertainty. Global economic uncertainties are not fully comprehensible and controllable, therefore India's focus is on reducing domestic policy uncertainties. It will surely boost private capital formation. India also has to attract massive foreign capital in export-oriented sectors. But this is easier said than done. The country's image as a destination for foreign capital faces challenges due to certain decisions of the past government, especially the Vodafone tax dispute. India still has significant work to do in areas like judicial reforms for contract enforcement. Trade considerations cannot be fully separated from strategic considerations. The China+1 and risk diversion strategy of global manufacturers are an opportunity for India to benefit from current geopolitical challenges, and therefore the country's focus in FTA negotiations is to counter China. Since China is a major challenge for India in multiple spheres, teaming up with countries at the receiving end of China's irredentist and mercantilist policies is a viable option. This also means that India should still work for multilateral trade deals because third-world countries get a level playing field as well as some preferential treatment under multilateral trade platforms such as WTO. Gopal Krishna Agarwal is the National Spokesperson of BJP. Views are personal. (Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
Mint
6 hours ago
- Mint
What happens if the Inflation Reduction Act goes away?
'IT'LL BE somewhere between a scalpel and a sledgehammer," was how Mike Johnson, speaker of the House, described the emerging Republican approach to the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Joe Biden's signature climate law. Pressure from companies and congressmen with clean-energy projects benefiting from its subsidies in their districts (most are found in Republican counties) suggested surgical precision would prevail. But relentless pressure to abolish the IRA from the president, who is a fan of drilling, baby, drilling and denounced the law as the 'Green New Scam", pointed instead to brute force. The president reinforced this by dropping in on a private party caucus on May 20th to strong-arm waverers and threaten dissenters with a MAGA primary challenge. 'They won't be Republicans much longer…they'd be knocked out so fast," he declared. The House has already approved a draft law that, when it comes to the IRA, looks more like a sledgehammer. Next the Senate will get to work on its proposal. The two versions will then be reconciled by committee. The White House wants the compromise deal ready by July 4th, though August seems more realistic (a collapse of the whole effort remains possible, too). All this sausage-making raises two questions for energy policy. Is the IRA dead? And if it is, will that end America's clean-energy boom and herald a sooty recarbonisation of the economy? At first glance the bill seems more scalpel-like. The House proposal phases out renewable subsidies between 2029 and 2032, in line with the IRA's original timeline. It includes seemingly innocuous rules on which institutions are eligible for tax credits and keeping China out of the energy supply chain. The original law aimed to make clean energy politically popular in America by subsidising domestic manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines and other components. Voters might not prioritise reducing carbon emissions, the theory went, but they do like domestic manufacturing. There ought to be some overlap with the new orthodoxy on economics. Because the cost of tax credits depends on private investment plans, estimates of the bill's effect come in a range rather than a dollar amount. The American Action Forum, a conservative think-tank, reckons the bill would trim about 60% of the IRA's tax credits, saving $515bn by 2034. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank which previously warned that the IRA's uncapped provisions could cost $4.7trn by 2050, has called the Republican effort too timid. That makes it sound as if it falls short of the president's aim to kill the IRA. Look closer, though, and the proposal brims with rules designed to stifle clean energy. 'It is a sledgehammer masquerading as a scalpel," says Abigail Ross Hopper, head of the Solar Energy Industries Association, a lobby group. Wood Mackenzie, an energy consultancy, argues that the details will undermine the business case for 'the vast majority of clean energy projects in the United States". Three provisions in particular stand out. First, the bill kills 'transferability". The IRA incentivised companies with a wide range of tax liabilities to invest in clean energy. The new bill eliminates this sweetener, even for technologies like nuclear power and carbon capture that are generally favoured by Republicans. Second, provisions regarding 'foreign entities of concern" (read: China) are written with calculated vagueness. While Biden-era rules narrowly restricted imports of Chinese battery cells, the new legislation is at once sweeping and impenetrable. Credits appear denied if 'any component, subcomponent, or applicable critical mineral" is 'extracted, processed, recycled, manufactured, or assembled" with forbidden foreign connections. Various such provisions guarantee years of regulatory confusion. Higher tariffs on Chinese-made components would come on top of that. The third change is the timing of payments. Currently, projects qualify for tax credits from when construction begins but earn them only when operational. The new proposal awards credits only after operations begin. Given the vagaries of permit-granting, it can take years to start generating power. That will make it harder for new projects to earn credits. Together, these provisions make the House proposal 'unworkable", says Rich Powell, head of the Clean Energy Buyers' Association (CEBA), a trade group representing large electricity users (which include America's big tech companies). Studies commissioned by CEBA predict that the repeal effort will lead to sharp increases in electricity prices, by roughly 10% in 2026 for industrial and commercial customers. Mr Powell warns that it 'will make it harder to stand-up US manufacturing in clean energy," which ought to bother a president obsessed with factory jobs. If the outlook for the IRA seems bleak, what does that mean for energy and carbon emissions in America? Analysis by the Rhodium Group, a research firm, suggests that, under the IRA, America was on track to slash its greenhouse gases by 40% from their 2005 level by 2035. With a de facto repeal it will slow down, but may still manage a reduction of nearly 30% below the same benchmark (see chart 1). Even taking account of oil-friendly provisions in the current budget bill, such as the end of credits for purchasing electric vehicles and a repeal of more stringent fuel-economy standards for petrol vehicles introduced by the Biden administration, America will continue to decarbonise. Clean energy supply will continue to grow, but at a slower pace than it would have with the IRA. The reason, explains Kevin Book of ClearView Energy Partners, a research firm, is that tax credits are only one factor. State-level regulations like 'renewable portfolio standards" play an important role. Not only will these not be abandoned with the IRA, they may be strengthened in Democratic states. Such a 'rollback rebound" took place in response to the first Trump administration's attempted assault on green energy. Price helps, too. The International Energy Agency, an official body, estimates that unsubsidised renewables already compete with, or beat, new fossil-fuel plants in many parts of America. Rhodium projects 342GW of renewable capacity will still be added by 2035, producing as much electricity (after accounting for intermittency) as roughly 100 nuclear plants. John Ketchum, the CEO of NextEra Energy, a big utility, recently offered investors this dose of what he called energy pragmatism. 'Renewables are here today. You can build a wind project in 12 months, a storage facility in 15, and a solar project in 18 months." Gas turbines, by contrast, require four years or more to build, obtain permits and connect to the grid. Last year, 90% of new power capacity in America came from carbon-free sources. Fresh data from the early days of Mr Trump's second term confirm that over half of all electricity in March came from non-fossil sources for the first month on record. These may be dark days for green energy on Capitol Hill. Slowing the rate of decarbonisation is bad news. But sunlit uplands do still beckon. Editor's note: This story was updated after the House passed Republicans' draft budget bill. Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.
NDTV
7 hours ago
- NDTV
Tariff Blitz: Is India Becoming Collateral Damage In Someone Else's War?
In today's fractured world, great power rivalry is rewriting the rules of economic engagement. As the European Union (EU) and the United States tighten the screws on Russia, the knock-on effects land squarely on India. A slew of unilateral coercive measures is shrinking New Delhi's freedom to calibrate its foreign policy. The situation warrants discreet diplomacy and sober calculation, not slogans. Escalating Ultimatums The EU's eighteenth sanctions package, unveiled on July 18, slashes the price cap on Russian crude and bars the import of petroleum products refined from that crude in third countries. Indian refineries that bought discounted Russian oil and sold petroleum products to Europe now face exclusion and the loss of European finance, insurance and shipping cover if they continue handling Russian barrels. Across the Atlantic, the proposed 'Sanctioning Russia Act' threatens secondary tariffs of up to 500% on goods from any country trading with Russia should a Ukraine peace deal remain elusive. US President Donald Trump warned of "very severe tariffs" of 100% on any state "feeding Russia's war machine". Senator Lindsey Graham, the prime mover of the bill in the Senate, admonished Brazil, China and India, and said, "We're going to tear the hell out of you and crush your economy, because what you are doing is blood money." The EU foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has previously voiced similar sentiments, accusing buyers of Russian energy of "sharing responsibility" for prolonging the conflict. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has also warned that India, China and Brazil "might be hit very hard" if they continue to lean on Putin. The message from transatlantic capitals is unmistakable. They are not only closing ranks against Russia but are also closing doors on those who refuse to fall in line. Compliance is no longer voluntary. It is being engineered. New Delhi has pushed back, accusing the EU of "double standards", alluding to European purchases of Russian energy. The Helsinki-based Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air calculated that Russia has earned 913 billion euros from fossil fuel exports since February 2022. The EU accounts for 212 billion euros of that. Policy Peril Moral arguments aside, the economic risks are serious. Cheap Russian oil has helped India moderate inflation, and, paradoxically, the EU's lower price cap sweetens those discounts. Yet, a supply disruption triggered by the loss of shipping, insurance or tanker cover, or by high US duties on Indian imports, would flip the equation. Each $10 rise in crude prices adds an estimated $14 billion to India's annual import bill. Refineries geared to EU markets may have to abandon Russian feedstock or surrender premium customers. Punitive US duties would bruise Indian exports of pharmaceuticals, apparel, and machinery, sap investor confidence, and threaten jobs. The sanctions debate is not academic. It touches the factory floor and the balance sheet. India Has Been Here Before As a diplomatic trench warrior, I have seen India weather such situations before. Western sanctions followed our 1998 nuclear tests. India held its nerve through restraint and engagement. During the US-Iran standoff in the Obama administration, India devised a rupee payment mechanism to keep Iranian oil flowing. In 2022, it secured a CAATSA waiver to import Russia's S-400 air defence system. What is new now is the intensity of India's links with sanctioning partners. The EU is a vital source of trade, investment and technology. Prime Minister Modi and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pledged to clinch a free trade agreement in 2025. The United States is India's largest export destination and key to its Indo-Pacific strategy. PM Modi and President Trump have set a $500 billion trade target for 2030 and aim to sign the first tranche of a trade agreement this autumn. Also, negotiations are underway on reciprocal tariffs scheduled to take effect on August 1. Meanwhile, India values its defence and diplomatic ties with Russia. The escalating sanctions are stress-testing India's three-cornered strategy. Walking a tightrope is hard enough. Juggling three flaming torches on that rope is quite another level of difficulty. Engagement Strategy Rhetoric won't ease tensions; deliberate diplomacy might. The EU financial measures bite only when buyers rely on European services. Moreover, tracing the origin of molecules in diesel or aviation fuel is technically fraught. It makes enforcement tricky, save at the Nayara refinery, where Rosneft holds a stake. India should quietly pursue regulatory clarity and carve-outs that offer compliance flexibility, without surrendering principle. With Washington, the priority is to preserve strategic trust. India can signal, discreetly, its intent to avoid dependence on any single supplier. Petroleum Minister Hardeep Puri has pointed out that India now imports from 40 nations, as against 27 before the start of the Ukraine conflict. Diversification is not optics. It is a strategy, and it undercuts the claim that India is "feeding Russia's war machine". Geo-economic interdependence also favours dialogue. The American Action Forum estimates that imposing 100% tariffs on the top five buyers of Russian exports, including India, would hit roughly 40% of total US imports, accounting for more than $1.3 trillion in goods. This could trigger supply shocks unseen since the pandemic. New Delhi can press this argument and, if necessary, seek a CAATSA-style waiver. A tariff war, it can convincingly show, would be a lose-lose outcome. Holding the Centre There is no virtue in grandstanding, nor wisdom in surrender. India's challenge is to retain economic and diplomatic space without becoming collateral damage in somebody else's contest. In an era where sanctions are the new missiles and tariffs the new trenches, India's credibility will rest on holding the centre calmly, clearly and on its own terms.
