On the political front, the legal obligations that China and Japan have concerning the idea of global warming have been the subject of debate and as a matter of fact the origin of the rampant second thoughts on its actual ratification. The fact that China has had a considerable amount of development implies a great degree of environmental degradation. This has been the source of controversy with the popular argument being that they are being held with baby’s gloves when they are actually huge emitters of pollutant gases. According to the Kyoto protocol, all the countries labeled as developed have a binding duty to reduce their greenhouse emissions to the levels they had in the year 1990 when the sun rises in 2012. However, China being a developing country is not bound to these reductions but rather to monitor and report their progress to the UNCCC. According to critics of the Chinese Republic, they superseded the overall emissions by the United States way back in the year 2006 to become the leading global pollutants. In this respect, the global focus should shift to China if any meaningful gains are to be realized in the levels of global emissions. (Oreskes and Conway, 2010)
The security threat posed by widespread exploitation of nuclear energy has been a major hindrance to its adoption. The fact that the technologies used in nuclear energy are so related to those applied in the area of nuclear weaponry has raised eyebrows as to just how secure the world would be under nuclear energy. Besides this, nuclear accidents as well as the proper disposal of the radioactive elements have become major concerns. For instance, after the tragic nuclear disaster in Fukushima, the government of Germany locked up eight of their nuclear plants and pledged to shut down the rest by the year 2022. In addition, the legislators of Italy have recently voted quite overwhelmingly to stop the adoption of the nuclear technology. Moreover, Switzerland and Spain have made it illegal to construct any new plants for nuclear generation. Essentially, this lack of cost is effective as well as safe alternative which has hindered a complete move away from the pollutant energy forms. (Selin, Henrik, 2011)
The steps towards resolving the stand-off between the United States and the Republic of China and ensuring their co-operation will greatly enhance the advancements on climate change. The two countries should seek to understand the situations on the ground of the other country and the reasons for the said suspicion. This should serve as the best platform to critically evaluate the urgency that the world attaches to their mutual understanding. As a matter of fact, a year delay in finding an amicable solution puts both countries as well as the entire world in a greater risk than is believed. Negotiators must keep reminding them that they have risen above their differences in the past and the whole world smiled in relief. For instance, the visit to Beijing in the year 1972 by President Nixon was a global sigh of relief besides being an improvement on their bilateral ties. They can revert to this era by engaging in constant consultations and honest co-operations for the good of the world. (Pooley, 2010)
Meanwhile, the drafters of the Kyoto protocol as well as other agreements must consider certain changes to make it more acceptable to all the players in the field. For instance, the clause that excludes China from the group of implementers of the green agenda must be deleted and replaced with provisions that require all the states in the world to do as much as they can to limit the global warming. For instance, the third world makes a considerable amount of contributions due to their relatively weak laws on environmental conservation. As a result, corrupt cartels engage in practices like logging that directly or indirectly destroy the environment thereby leading to global warming. If they would seal these loopholes the world would be a better place and they will feel proud of their contributions. Further, the developed world must put aside their economic considerations because the global continuity is clearly more important than the said economic gains (Hansen, 2009).