Those opposing U.S. intervention often argue that no action marine mom all i want for christmas is my son home christmas ugly sweater should be taken on climate change until scientific uncertainties about the impact of climate change are resolved.
marine mom all i want for christmas is my son home christmas ugly sweater
They argue that those who have caused most of the existing problem and have the resources to finance reduction strategies have a special duty to reduce emissions immediately. marine mom all i want for christmas is my son home christmas ugly sweater Do the developed nations have special responsibilities to act before the poorer nations? Another standard objection to American action on climate change is the argument that the United States should take no action until the developing world agrees to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This argument rests on the fact that the United States cannot solve the problem of climate change by itself, and some nations in the developing world continue to contribute to the problem.
If the United States acts and the developing world does not, so goes this argument, climate change will still happen and American industry will put itself at a competitive disadvantage. For this reason, there has been strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol provisionally signed by the Clinton administration in December of 1997. In response, the Clinton administration announced it would not seek Senate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol until it obtained firmer commitments to reduce emissions from the developing world. In the meantime, the U.S. Congress would not approve any government action to reduce greenhouse gases, arguing that such action would amount to a back-door ratification of Kyoto. Although the George W. Bush administration has recently announced that it will reject the Kyoto Protocol, on several occasions it has stated that developing-world commitments will be a cornerstone of its approach to an international regime created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Is the absence of scientific certainty about the consequences of human-induced climate change a valid excuse for not taking protective action?