it the money would only be going back towards the guarantee of a future for the world.I understand that these claims are easier said than done Mr. President, but the entire process would lead to a chain reaction that would continue for generations to come. The first step in a process for you to achieve these goals would be to get an environmentalist in your administration, do away with people like Don Evans, and Gale Norton who head positions delegated to them directly concerning the future of our environment – and oddly enough none of these people seem that have done much concerning a clean future for the environment. While doing that, re-think the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Any step, no matter how small, towards solving the predicament we are in concerning the state of our environment is one large enough to make a difference. Being a leading nation means that we, as a nation, need to especially show leadership in areas such as global warming. The decision to not support the protocol was based on two main factors. Leading the decision was a claim that not enough evidence exists that there is really global warming; however, such people as Edwin Feulner oppose this saying we need to take the same approach to everything, including missile defense: “Despite eight successful intercepts since 1999 (versus two highly publicized flops), we’re told missile defense won’t work, so why waste the money?” (TheHeritage.com). The other deciding factor was that it would only harm our economy, as stated previously adopting new technologies only seem to boost the economy and create jobs. In short, it is time for the United States to jump on the bandwagon. We need to show other nations, and ourselves, that we care about the state of our environment and will not allow it to deteriorate as it has been doing. Mr. President, the only plausible way to move concerning these issues is forward – yet we seem to be moving ba...
