Which of the following statements best explains why a binding international treaty for decreasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere might be more effective than passing a law with the same goal in the United States? (2 points) The atmosphere is a global commons. Violation of a law has fewer penalties than violation of a treaty. The international community has more money for enforcement. Developing countries emit more carbon dioxide than the United States does. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are less of a concern in the United States.

answer:

i would rather know how i would die so i would know how to prevent it.

explanation:

answer:

b 2 +3

explanation:

cause

answer:

2

explanation:

1+1 = 2

the reason this is so is because of basic addition. we can double check this without using addition if you really want. if you take 1+1=x, subtract 1 from both sides than you get 1 = x - 1. subtract x from both sides and you get 1 - x = -1. subtract 1 from both sides again and you get -x = -2. finally, multiply both sides by -1 to get x = 2. subtraction is still technically addition you say? fine, have it your way. 1 + 1 = x. by definition, adding something to itself is the same thing as multiplying it by 2. this means we can technically rewrite the equation as

1 * 2 = x. now all we have to do is solve it. 1 * 2 = x when simplified results in 2 = x, or x = 2. this shows 1 + 1 = x. you say you want a real answer. you want me to start you from the ground up? well i would, but that would practically just be stealing from what was written on this website: go check it out if you really need to.