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.” -
climate change in at least two State of the Union Messages. In his 2007 State of the Union Message, he talked about the need to increase alternative fuels, and reduce gasoline usage and setting up oil production in an “environmentally sensitive way.” In his 2008 State of the Union Message he was more specific suggesting that we needed to develop new “technologies that [could] generate coal power while capturing carbon emissions;” further, that there was a need to develop “emissions-free nuclear power,” and advance “battery technology and renewable fuels to power the cars and trucks of the future.” He then encouraged developing an “international clean technology fund” to help such nations as India and China to make greater use of clean energy. He went on to state that “The United States is committed to. . . confronting global climate change and the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy efficient technology.” Indeed, George W. Bush spent extended time in an attempt to win adherence to his approach to climate change—without much success. After eight years of Republican control of the White House, the environmental community was encouraged when Democrat Barack Obama won the 2008 presidential election. In the election campaign, both Republican Senator John McCain and Democratic Senator Barack Obama agreed that climate change was a critical issue. The two candidates recognized the urgency of the issue, and both supported strategies to encourage clean energy and reduce U.S. emissions. The 2008 election of Barack Obama was highly anticipated by environmentalists looking for someone to fill the president’s chair who was willing to advocate policies to limit climate change, and it was Obama who had promised “a new chapter in America’s leadership on climate change.”