Vláda by měla zvýšit ochranu životního prostředí, aby se zabránilo změně klimatu?

Jak byste se cítili, kdyby vaše oblíbené venkovní místo postihlo extrémní počasí, a jaké kroky by tomu podle vás mohly zabránit?

Představte si svět, kde některá zvířata vyhynula kvůli ztrátě přirozeného prostředí; jak vás to nutí přemýšlet o našich současných environmentálních politikách?

Jaké změny jste pozorovali ve svém místním počasí a jak by podle vás měla společnost reagovat?

Kdybyste se museli vzdát jedné vymoženosti pro snížení emisí, co by to bylo a proč?

Vzpomeňte si na okamžik, kdy jste cítili osobní spojení s přírodou; jak by zachování tohoto pocitu ovlivnilo váš postoj k ekologickým předpisům?

Jak podle vás budou budoucí generace posuzovat naše současné úsilí v boji proti změně klimatu?

Zaznamenali jste nějaké dopady změny klimatu ve vaší komunitě a jaká opatření by podle vás mohla být přijata na místní úrovni?

Jak možnost zvýšeného počtu přírodních katastrof v důsledku změny klimatu ovlivňuje vaše názory na vládní zásahy?

Představte si svět s čistším vzduchem, ale vyššími životními náklady kvůli přísným ekologickým předpisům; jak tento kompromis ovlivní váš názor?

Když přemýšlíte o rovnováze mezi ekonomickým růstem a ochranou životního prostředí, čemu dáváte přednost a proč?

Government should increase environmental regulations when bad actors are harming the environment. Same type of question back to you: Should government increase financial regulations to prevent global financial problems?

Halt production of chemicals, GMO's, insist of a zero discharge technology as an interim to a space-based manufacturing technology. Obviously the surface of the earth is not suitable to the evolution of an industrial technology. Best savings are from conservation first then develop decentralized energy production, mostly solar. Stop all coal, nukes, etc. Clean up the mess!

Global Warming is a scam.

Yes. Especially become aggressive in activism pertaining to regulations for the countries that are the greatest threats to our environment.

Yes, the government should always be looking to increase environmental regulations not because of Global Warming but because it is the best thing for the earth, but in balance with economics, technologies and incentives for American companies to grow. And truly for the environment and not to win votes or make friends wealthy.

Global warming is more natural than the ideologues would have you believe. I am for alternate energy but not before it is an economically viable solution. I do not approve of the govt forcing policies and technology before they are efficient and affordable. Pushing policies before affordable efficient alternatives exist push more people into poverty and dependence on the govt

Global warming is a natural occurrence however we should still do what ever we can to protect the environment. The incentives need to be enough to warrant the business implementing them. I know a City who dumps sewage into a river and pays the fines because it is less than the cost to handle the sewage properly. That's messed up.

Change it to global pollution instead of global warming and you'll get more bi partisan support to curb any root causes.

I believe in the free market if the government instead of forcing people to go green makes their non greenness know people can choose to go with other companies costing the less green company money thus making them want to go green to beat the other companies.

Penalties should be higher and stricter to keep environmental damage in check

government should stop the politics of environmental regulation; no funding for AGW; no Kyoto; no carbon tax; no secret treaties; no wealth transfer to UN or foreign despots

No, the government should increase environmental regulations to prevent the destruction of our environment. Do not politicize protecting the environment by tying regulations to global warming.

If it can be proven that global warming exists, and is caused by the emission of greenhouse gasses, the biggest cause of global warming must be the government. Early automobiles were a novelty, only afforded by the wealthiest Americans. It was not until our government poured trillions into building new and improving existing roads did the auto industry flourish. Then, with the government creating housing projects and government subsidized housing, criminals found it affordable to live in our nation's wealthiest zip codes, which caused a fleeing to the suburbs to avoid the government caus…  Přečtěte si víceed criminal element. The thousands of pork barrel highway projects helped to facilitate the largest migration out of cities in the history of the world. Now the average commute to work is exponentially longer, because of our government. If the government really wants to slow the emission of greenhouse gasses, it should stop building and maintaining roads, stop paying the rent of criminals in our wealthiest zip codes, approve the building of nuclear power plants, and allow private citizens to continue making city life more enjoyable. Currently we have the big causer of emissions trying to regulate emissions? Don't make me laugh.

Environmental regulations to control pollution are fine, but not in the name of "global warming" or "climate change." While I believe these are natural climate cycles, there is no harm in seeking to prevent egregious pollution.

No. Environmental regulations will not prevent global warming.

Petroleum companies should not be allowed billions in corporate wellfare. The rest should take care of itself.

No EPA should not increase regulations to prevent global warming. The U.S. does plenty to reduce carbon emissions to the detriment of jobs and the economy. Pressure counties like China, India, and Brazil to reduce their carbon emissions. Never hear liberals complain about these countires.

Truthful studies are needed and only then should regulations be implemented, but not just based on theory, and proof has not been confirmed in the last 50 years, they should go back 200 years to determine if the earth is heating up or just a 100 year cycle.

This issue is based on politically motivated science. I don't think there is enough information to accurately make a decision.

Climate change is natural phenomenon and has and continues to change regardless of man's activities. Government policies should be based on science (not consensus) aimed at mitigating the effects of climate changes.

No, tax carbon emissions instead. But also tax other emissions so that activities show their true environmental cost. Then use the collected money for environmental restoration and preservation.

Non-profits should be encouraged to spearhead this campaign through private donations

Anthropogenic global warming is a scam perpetrated by the United Nations.

This is a way to kill jobs. Businesses should do all they can to preserve the environment while creating jobs.

Not convinced there is global warming. That said, everyone should be good stewards of the earth God gave us to live on rather than be after that almighty dollar.

No because no matter what the United States does to help the environment, there are many countries who abuse the environment just like we do today. The United States could be the cleanest most environmentally friendly nation in the world but we would be the only one. If you are going to put more regulations do it for the whole world. The environment is more than just the U.S.

Some regulation is needed but we also need to ensure we don't make it so complicated that businesses cannot compete in the US. or make it a requirement that goods shipped to the Us have to have the same standards as they would here. This will ensure more jobs stay here

No, it is far more efficient to adapt to changing conditions, regardless of cause. Additionally, there are benefits to global warming including food production, reduced mortality due to cold weather, etc.

More unilateral action by our govt. while countries like China build things like huge canals through the rainforests and use the proceeds for a historic record peacetime military buildup is stupid.

global warming cycles are normal, but adding incentives for alternate forms of energy should be consider to reduce any man made impact.

Emissions are a problem, but many of the alternative energy solutions are worse. We fool ourselves into believing that an electric car is better for the environment because we don't see the emissions...but much of the power for electrics comes from coal. Furthermore, the batteries are often made with unrecyclable materials that are quite toxic. Fund the research, but never be satisfied with the results.

There is no Global warming! It's the natural cycle of the Earth. Right now, we're in a cooling phase, not warming.

No, government regulations risk becoming corrupt and harming the people and things they are supposed to protect.

No, global warming is a natural occurrence. But it is good for businesses to be ethical. Provide fees for unethical environmental practices.

Provide incentives for alternative energy production, stop subsidizing oil and gas and coal.

No, they need to reevaluate the thousands of laws and restrictions they already have and apply some common sense regulations.