change will only be one such remedy but global climate change and global warming a “requires global While all sides agree with this, the method of agreement is going to differ from solution.” group to group. And even though many agree that a U.S. response to a global problem can only be of limited effectiveness, others feel that U.S. leadership is absolutely essential to any effective global remedy. These persons feel that if the U.S. exerts leadership toward global environmental concerns, other countries will follow the U.S. lead. When the U.S. fails to exert that leadership, the resolution of global concerns becomes problematic. For instance, two months into his presidency, George W. Bush renounced the Kyoto Protocol that 191 other countries had accepted. Instead, the U.S. acted virtually alone adopting an approach based on voluntary goals and time tables, supportive of industrial preferences regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Few other countries subscribed to the U.S. policy of refusing support the Kyoto Protocol. By contrast, President Barack Obama has offered some support to climate change legislation at home and has encouraged international allies to support a post-Kyoto global environmental agreement making more visible U.S. leadership. The need for U.S. leadership, many feel, becomes even more important since for years the U.S. was the major emitter of greenhouse gases contributing to global warming and climate change. Consequently, the extent to which the U.S.—still a major producer of greenhouse - cooperates with other countries in an effort to reduce the production of greenhouse gases will have a profound impact on the future resolution of this global environmental problem. This is why Steven R. Brechin contended, in his review of Harrison and book, that Sundstrom’s an international “domestic politics matter within context.”
change will only be one such remedy but global climate change and global warming “requires a global solution.” While all sides agree with this, the method of agreement is going to differ from group to group. And even though many agree that a U.S. response to a global problem can only be of limited effectiveness, others feel that U.S. leadership is absolutely essential to any effective global remedy. These persons feel that if the U.S. exerts leadership toward global environmental concerns, other countries will follow the U.S. lead. When the U.S. fails to exert that leadership, the resolution of global concerns becomes problematic. For instance, two months into his presidency, George W. Bush renounced the Kyoto Protocol that 191 other countries had accepted. Instead, the U.S. acted virtually alone adopting an approach based on voluntary goals and time tables, supportive of industrial preferences regarding greenhouse gas emissions. Few other countries subscribed to the U.S. policy of refusing support the Kyoto Protocol. By contrast, President Barack Obama has offered some support to climate change legislation at home and has encouraged international allies to support a post-Kyoto global environmental agreement making more visible U.S. leadership. The need for U.S. leadership, many feel, becomes even more important since for years the U.S. was the major emitter of greenhouse gases contributing to global warming and climate change. Consequently, the extent to which the U.S.—still a major producer of greenhouse cooperates with other countries in an effort to reduce the production of greenhouse gases will have a profound impact on the future resolution of this global environmental problem. This is why Steven R. Brechin contended, in his review of Harrison and Sundstrom’s book, that “domestic politics matter within an international context.” -
WESTERN%20PAPER%20REVISION%202%20GLOBAL%20CLIMATE%20CHANGE%20AND%20PRESIDENTIAL%20LEADERSHIP%20(with%20tables).docx