today, president obama will roll out the final version of the epa<u+2019>s<u+00a0>clean power plan, an ambitious effort to reduce carbon emissions from power plants by nearly one-third from 2005 levels by 2030. this seems likely to set in motion an ideological death struggle that will rival the one over obamacare <u+2014> but with arguably even higher stakes.









that<u+2019>s because the long-term success of the new epa rule <u+2014> presuming it survives legal challenges <u+2014> will depend to no small degree<u+00a0>on the actions of the next president. the states don<u+2019>t have to tell the federal government how they will seek to meet the rule<u+2019>s carbon emissions targets <u+2014> many gop states may not comply <u+2014><u+00a0>until around the time obama<u+2019>s presidency is ending and beyond. with implementation set to stretch out over many years, a republican president could seek to relax or undo the plan, as jason plautz notes.









what<u+2019>s more, the stakes are extremely high here because the success of this plan could help determine the viability of long-term<u+00a0>international efforts to combat climate change. with an international climate accord expected soon, the fate of obama<u+2019>s plan will help determine whether the u.s. can keep its end of the carbon-emission-reducing bargain. as the new york times puts it:









climate scientists warn that rising greenhouse gas emissions are rapidly moving the planet toward a global atmospheric temperature increase of 3.6 degrees fahrenheit, the point past which the world will be locked into a future of rising sea levels, more devastating storms and droughts, and shortages of food and water. mr. obama<u+2019>s new rules alone will not be enough to stave off that future. but experts say that if the rules are combined with similar action from the world<u+2019>s other major economies, as well as additional action by the next american president, emissions could level off enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change.









ben adler adds that obama<u+2019>s plan is <u+201c>the centerpiece of any realistic program to meet<u+2026>the intended targets we have outlined ahead of the paris climate talks that will take place later this year.<u+201d> (indeed, congressional republicans are encouraging gop governors to resist the new rule with the explicit purpose of undermining the chances of getting an international climate deal by sowing doubts as to whether the u.s. can meet its own pledges.)









thus, the next president may well determine whether<u+00a0>this plan helps lay the foundation for future international cooperation designed to avert an outcome that many scientists think could be irreversible. that will thrust the issue into the presidential race, making it perhaps more important than in previous cycles.









hillary clinton issued a strong statement pledging to defend obama<u+2019>s plan against <u+201c>republican doubters and defeatists,<u+201d> a sign her campaign sees this issue as a good point of contrast with which to cast the gop as the party of the past.<u+00a0>and indeed, the major republican presidential candidates have already come out against the plan. but this is only the beginning. an international climate accord could be reached at the end of the year <u+2014> just when the gop presidential primaries are (sorry, i can<u+2019>t resist this) heating up in a big way.









given that this would combine obummer mandates with a new<u+00a0>effort at<u+00a0>international engagement that many gop primary voters will likely oppose, it could perhaps make obama<u+2019>s climate push even more ideologically toxic to republicans, requiring the gop candidates to outdo one another in their zeal to oppose it.









* key dem congressman backs iran deal: dem rep. adam schiff,<u+00a0>a pro-israel moderate who is respected on foreign policy by many democrats,<u+00a0>comes out in favor of the iran deal in an interview with jeffrey goldberg:









as goldberg notes, this could influence<u+00a0>undecided jewish dems. proponents are increasingly pushing back on the notion that opposing the deal is the only <u+201c>pro-israel<u+201d> position.









* schumer leaning against iran deal? politico reports on the intense pressure from both sides on senator chuck schumer as he makes up his mind on whether to support the iran deal. politico suggests he<u+2019>s leaning against it. but:









keep an eye on that: if schumer does oppose the deal, he may not do so all that loudly, and enough dems could still support it to prevent obama<u+2019>s veto of disapproval measure from being overridden. the white house can<u+2019>t lose more than a dozen dems.









* warren comes out for iran deal: senator elizabeth warren has just come out in favor of it. that isn<u+2019>t surprising, but it<u+2019>s a reminder that if schumer opposes it, he<u+2019>ll antagonize the left in a big way <u+2014> and he<u+2019>s set to become next senate dem leader.









* poll finds broad opposition to iran deal: a new quinnipiac poll finds that americans oppose the <u+201c>nuclear deal with iran<u+201d> by 57-28. the poll doesn<u+2019>t define the deal, and<u+00a0>a recent washington post poll that did define it found<u+00a0>majority support. but this does suggest that proponents may have a great deal of work to do if americans are broadly inclined against it out of distrust of iran.









meanwhile, a new yougov poll that does define the deal found support for the deal has dropped from 51 percent to 36 percent, though only 38 percent oppose it.









* republicans oppose hiking taxes on rich: another interesting tidbit from the new quinnipiac poll: 61 percent of americans think the federal government should<u+00a0>try to reduce the gap between well off and less well off americans, and 60 percent support increasing taxes on higher income earners to reduce middle class taxes.









but republicans oppose both those things by 57-35 and 65-31.









* hillary goes up on the air: the clinton campaign is airing two ads in iowa and new hampshire with strong biographical emphasis: one discusses her mother<u+2019>s influence on her, and the other talks about her work for children. <u+201c>we<u+2019>re going to make sure everyone knows who hillary clinton really is,<u+201d> the clinton camp says. <u+201c>we<u+2019>ve planned for a competitive primary with hillary herself working to earn every vote.<u+201d>









the beltway pundit consensus appears to be that clinton<u+2019>s favorability ratings are in free fall, so perhaps this is also part of an effort to <u+201c>get her positives up,<u+201d> as the jargon has it.









* what really matters at gop debate: e.j. dionne has a nice column arguing that what really matters at this week<u+2019>s gop debate isn<u+2019>t donald trump<u+2019>s antics; it<u+2019>s the question of whether the gop candidates will deviate even a tiny bit from stale gop economic doctrine:









nope. all signs are that the gop candidates all believe the answer to stagnating wages and the failure of the recovery to achieve widespread distribution is to get government out of the way.









* and trump-mentum rages across the land: a new nbc news poll finds donald trump continues to surge among republican voters nationally: he<u+2019>s first with 19 percent; scott walker has 14; and jeb bush has 13. breakdown:









so trump is winning lots of gop-leaning independents while also cutting into the conservative support of walker and cruz.
morning plum: get ready for another ideological death struggle, this time over climate
noauthor