a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing infrared radiation, e.g., carbon dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons.
hello there
Andrea's point is probably the answer you're looking for, however, you should keep in mind that many (most?) environmental laws are driven more by politics than by the available data. Scientists do research on any number of topics (environmental or not) that have implications for our society. We (scientists) like to think that policy makers take our data and results into consideration when drafting legislation, but I would say that in my experience this rarely happens. For one, there have rarely been any federal legislators who understand science. Even the few physicians who've gone into politics seem largely to fail to understand very basic tenets of science, or at least they don't often demonstrate it with their political actions. Leaving environmental issues, for example, if politicians took science into account, there would be no discussion in any school district in the country about whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, as there are simply *NO* scientists who are qualified to have an opinion who would suggest it shouldn't. Environmental issues are not really any different.
hope that helped bye
In World War I, Japan entered on the side of the Allied Powers and picked off Germany's colonial empire in the Pacific Ocean.
This was probably the high-water mark of Japan's acceptance by the Western powers prior to 1945.
And to this point, Japan had really acted exactly as the various European colonial powers had.
