Try the political quiz

13k Replies

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs

@ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...8yrs

@5DVLBZWfrom Indiana  answered…2yrs

This question is wrong, as the real problem has always been corruption/cronyism and failure to enforce property rights. Regulations are written by cronies more to the benefit of polluters than to our environment or property owners. Regulations have actually made it harder to sue those who harm our shared/un-owned resources, stealing property value, health and life.

@4YRY8PGfrom Nevada  answered…2yrs

government needs to regulate the pollution of the planet, not just for climate change; saving the planet is unnecessary, the planet will save itself. However, humans are capable of making the earth inhabitable for themselves.

@58T9LTQfrom Michigan  answered…2yrs

Shame on us all if we do not!! Religion and politics talks about God. I can't believe this is how we show our gradituid for all the beauty bestowed to us on this planet. We are the Caretakers. Religiously this is an abomination to God to treat this world and all living creatures and each other so badly. Doing the right thing is to at least make an effort in thanks to Grace. For all

@4YTBLYBfrom Texas  answered…2yrs

Yes, but not for climate change. I think that is unfounded for several contradicting reasons from both sides of the issue. However, the human toll through cancer causing agents is alarming and should have been addressed with more importance years ago.

@8QRY9YRGreen from North Carolina agreed…2yrs

Yes, and provide more incentives for alternative energy production

Our views are very unaligned but I agree that cancer causing factors are also a big deal when it comes to regulations.

@58T9633from Montana  answered…2yrs

I view global warming as a consequence for our actions because of my religion. We have done it to our earth. We spend pointless money on it, but the government never says how we are going to solve it because there isn't an answer.

@58CYBXXfrom California  answered…2yrs

There have been five ice ages and warming periods within the 60 million years. It is a very complex problem.

@4YXF23Xfrom New Jersey  answered…2yrs

Climate change is the single most impressive issue today. Govt measures should include education of youth and climate change deniers. Furthermore govt. should stop subsidizing animal agriculture which is responsible for serious greenhouse gas emissions

@4YW99PVfrom Indiana  answered…2yrs

No evidence that CO2 is the dominant factor. Climate has changed relatively little in the past several decades. Almost all predictions for the amount of change have been wrong.

@984B6QD from Maryland answered…11mins

Yes, and tax carbon emissions, provide more incentives for the development of clean energy, fund climate resilience projects, and phase out fossil fuel usage in energy and transportation as quickly as possible.

@9849RVHIndependent from Utah answered…1hr

No, it should be a state by state decision. Each state, and even city, has different issues.

@984945L from Kansas answered…2hrs

Yes, increase tax incentives for clean energy development and use, implement a carbon tax then gradually deregulate

@9847BHX from South Carolina answered…5hrs

Yes, but we need to make alternative energy viable before we promote it.

@9844ZCZ from Indiana answered…7hrs

No, because humans are too arrogant and think that we can prevent global climate changes.

@984378N from Wisconsin answered…8hrs

Create regulations for the countries giving the greatest contribution to the issue and enhance alternative assimilation practices.

@9842VDK from Wisconsin answered…8hrs

Regulate the carbon footprint and sustainability of how cars are made and not just the impact of the individual vehicles. Make sure that the vehicles are made of recyclable materials and are potential to last more than 5 years without large component changes that also hurt the environment. I.E; electric cars and their batteries.

@9842STCConstitution from Wisconsin answered…8hrs

The places they should focus on is India and China, where the majority of the CO2 emissions come from.

@9842SFM from Missouri answered…8hrs

@9842RF9 from Missouri answered…8hrs

@9842JW6Democrat from Michigan answered…8hrs

we can't really prevent climate change but we can do somethings to help climate change not be as bad.

@983Z9B3 from Pennsylvania answered…9hrs

no, climate change will forever be an issue in our current society.

@983YZXJ from Virginia answered…9hrs

They should do small subtle thing's that won't change anyone lives just making the earth a little bit greener little by little.

@983YV2Y from Ohio answered…9hrs

No, we're one of the leading countries in burning green. We're carbon negative unlike other countries. We should put efforts into helping other countries with this issue.

@983VLYV from North Carolina answered…10hrs

@983PR4FIndependent from North Carolina answered…13hrs

@983PNYZ from Massachusetts answered…13hrs

I think there is a reason to help it but it is already going to happen so there isn't really a point to increase

@983LQS7Independent from Maryland answered…23hrs

Stop subsiding Fossil fuels and add Nuclear as a viable short term alternative, while opening up all alternatives to equally compete on the open market.

@983L9K9 from New York answered…24hrs

@983J47X from North Carolina answered…1 day

@983HHG5 from Texas answered…1 day

@983BXFK from Kansas answered…1 day

@983BQ4D from Georgia answered…1 day

The government should come up with a strategy to implement cleaner energy along with the current energy systems we have. Over time innovation will help with the transition to cleaner energy sources while also keeping the process efficient.

@9839GYM from Texas answered…1 day

Yes, but wait for a more efficient and clean way to produce energy instead of going head first into it and not looking at the future of energy costs.

@9835V88 from California answered…1 day

Yes, but slowly enough to where the oil industry gets less used slowly over a period of time.

@9835HZL from California answered…1 day

@9834SQLIndependent from Maine answered…1 day

No, it takes more resources and harms the environment more by going through the green deal


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 


Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...