Sign up now! United States off to an awful start in Costa Rica Travel Deals Kevin McCauley, SBNation Posted: Friday, September 6, 2013, 10:26 PM Michael Bradley , the United States ‘ star central midfielder and arguably their best player, went down in warmups. His replacement was Geoff Cameron , who is not a full-time central midfielder. This resulted in multiple giveaways early for the United States, which eventually led to a Costa Rica corner and go-ahead goal for the Ticos. Johnny Acosta was the scorer, nodding in a brilliant header. He was poorly marked and DaMarcus Beasley could have done a lot more to clear it off the line, but the blame for the goal probably lies more on the unsettled midfield who put the U.S. under early pressure. And then it got worse. Celso Borges made it 2-0 just eight minutes later with another brilliant header, this one coming from open play. The United States looked incredibly unsettled before the first goal, looked worse after going down and now look even worse than that down 2-0. Welcome to San Jose, Jurgen Klinsmann.
United States Is Enabler of Global Irresponsibility
We emphasize the importance of the Montreal Protocol, including as a next step through the establishment of an open-ended contact group to consider all relevant issues, including financial and technology support to Article 5 developing countries, cost effectiveness, safety of substitutes, environmental benefits and an amendment. We reiterate our firm commitment to work together and with other countries to agree on a multilateral solution. Background: HFCs are potent greenhouse gases used in refrigerators, air conditioners, and industrial applications. While they do not deplete the ozone layer, many are highly potent greenhouse gases whose use is growing rapidly as replacements for ozone-depleting substances being phased out under the Montreal Protocol. Left unabated, HFC emissions could grow to nearly 20 percent of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, a serious climate mitigation concern. The Montreal Protocol was established in 1987 to protect the ozone layer. Every country in the world is a party to the Protocol, and it has successfully phased out or is in the process of phasing out several key classes of chemicals, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), and halons. The transitions out of CFCs and HCFCs provide major ozone layer protection benefits, but the unintended consequence is the rapid current and projected future growth of climate-damaging HFCs. For the past four years, the United States, Canada, and Mexico have proposed an amendment to the Montreal Protocol to phase down the production and consumption of HFCs. The amendment would reduce consumption and production and control byproduct emissions of HFCs in all countries, and includes a financial assistance component for countries that can already access the Protocols Multilateral Fund. The proposal leaves unchanged the reporting and accounting provisions of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol on HFC emissions. Reducing HFCs are an important domestic component of the Presidents Climate Action Plan, as well. For example, the Administration has already acted domestically by including a flexible and powerful incentive in fuel efficiency and carbon pollution standards for cars and trucks to encourage automakers to reduce HFC leakage and transition away from the most potent HFCs in vehicle air conditioning systems. Moving forward, the Environmental Protection Agency will use its authority through the Significant New Alternatives Policy Program to encourage private sector investment in low-emissions technology by identifying and approving climate-friendly chemicals while prohibiting certain uses of the most harmful chemical alternatives.
United States, China, and Leaders of G-20 Countries Announce Historic Progress Toward a Global Phase Down of HFCs
Syria brazenly crossed a red line that he mistakenly established. Senator John McCain believes our nations credibility is on the line, as well. But American voters dont believe its our fight. They dont believe that vital national security interests of the Unite States are at stake. They recognize that other nations, closer to Syria, have much more to lose than we do. Why does the United States have to police the world? Why wont other nations step forward? The reason is simply that our interventionist foreign policy has allowed and encouraged other nations to act irresponsibly. They wont step forward because they know we will. It is time for the United States to end our enabling behavior. The place to start is by staying out of Syria and let other nations respond as they see fit. There is no guarantee as to what will happen next and it will certainly be uncomfortable in the short-term. The same thing happens when a family first stops covering for a drug addict.
The United States Needs to Stay Out of Syria
This shows a lack of consistency in our policy. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said , “Our military objectives in Syria would be to hold the Assad regime accountable, degrade its ability to carry out these kinds of attacks and deter it from further use of chemical weapons.” Even if we were to move forward with an air strike, our limited bombing would not be enough to stop the civil war, and would probably just kill more innocent civilians in the process. Once the United States militarily gets involved in Syria, there is no turning back. President Obama has said if the United States moves forward with the air strike, it won’t turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan, and he said , “We’re not considering any boots-on-the-ground approach.” However, anyone who believes limited strikes will not escalate into larger scale commitment is underestimating the complexity of the conflict. And besides, the United States isn’t even committed to a regime change. If an attack does take place, the state of global relations could become severely impacted. Any military action will stir up an already angry hornet’s nest including Russia and Iran. Russia has strong ties to the Assad regime, and has already lashed out at the United States. Russian president Vladimir Putin rejected the American evidence that Syrian forces used chemical weapons, calling it “utter nonsense.” Iran recently sent 4,000 troops to Syria, and a U.S. air strike could increase tensions and reignite hostility over their nuclear program. Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States today, saying , “We believe that the Americans are committing a folly and mistake in Syria and will, accordingly, take the blow and definitely suffer.” Furthermore, a U.S. invasion in Syria could also have deadly consequences on Israel.