Global warming, or climate change, is an increase in the earth’s atmospheric temperature since the late nineteenth century. In politics the debate over global warming is centered on whether this increase in temperature is due to greenhouse gas emissions or is the result of a natural pattern in the earth’s temperature. In 2022 Congress passed the Inflation Reduction Act which included hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies for investing in renewable-energy projects and producing energy from renewable sources. The bill also included credits to help factories retool to turn…
Read moreNarrow down which types of responses you would like to see.
Narrow down the conversation to these participants:
Voting for candidate:
These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of Climate Change
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
Yes
@9F9W6Y92yrs2Y
Top Agreement
Due to deforestation less and less c02 is being taken out of the atmosphere. This is causing our globe to heat up and our planet to die faster and faster and faster.
@HelcovichEmireRepublican6mos6MO
yes, deforestation is bad, and leads to less carbon dioxide being taken out of the atmosphere, but as long as we don't keep cutting down so many trees and deforesting land, we don't need to overreact to global warming and sacrifice cheap and efficient energy (fossil fuels and other oils) just to try to reduce global warming.
@B5JRBFD2mos2MO
“we don't need to overreact to global warming and sacrifice cheap and efficient energy (fossil fuels and other oils) just to try to reduce global warming”
Absolutely. Energy and the costs of its extraction definitely plays a huge role in the way we view global warming. However, there are a few misconceptions implied or explicitly mentioned in your comment:
@9F7ZKV22yrs2Y
climate change is scientifically proven to exist, there is no further discussion needed. Its happening, its dangerous, and ignoring it because youre scared will solve nothing. There is no conspiracy, there is no ignoring it, and it must be fixed
@HelcovichEmireRepublican6mos6MO
Do you really believe that the earth will become to hot to be habitable or some crazy disaster will happen like in those natural disaster movies? Those movies are just as fictitious as movies with warp speed or time travel. Don't believe those movies or use them as reasons to be concerned about the environment.
@B5JRBFD2mos2MO
Sure, you may argue that global warming is a natural occurrence. Enter this discussion and throw your political biases aside. I am going to use zero political lingo.
It is largely proven that global warming is fueled by the presence of excess greenhouse gases that trap the Sun's heat in the Earth's atmosphere - this effect drives climate change. It happens because these gases, literally, trap heat; just like an actual greenhouse we use to nurse plants. The more of these gases are present, the more heat they are able to trap.
Why did we start hearing about climate change? Well, year after year, scientists have recorded an increase in the Earth's average temperature. This data seems to be consistent with the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases, which is a consequence of many factors, such as the increase of the number of cattle to the increase of people gaining access to technology - which indirectly causes more of such gases to be emitted through increased demand in production and transportation. The more we produce with the current means of production, the more greenhouse gases we emit as the methods we currently use do produce greenhouse gases, the most common one being carbon dioxide. Now, this is something we should Read more
@9F7Z7JD 2yrs2Y
Renewable energy is energy produced from sources like the sun and wind that are naturally replenished and do not run out. Renewable energy can be used for electricity generation, space and water heating and cooling, and transportation (Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy).
@9F9MKGZRepublican2yrs2Y
Climate change is a natural occurrence and shouldn't be shoved down our throats about how it'll end the world in x amount of years when it still hasn't really done anything.
@9WZXYSY9mos9MO
Certainly, climate change is a occurs naturally as multiple forces contend on the surface of the planet, as well as above and below the surface. The human species has terraformed a majority of the land surface of the planet and measurably altered a significant portion of the water. Our impact is so great that our glowing metropolises can be seen from space. It is impossible that we have not become a powerful force that impacts the planetary climate and thus contributes to climate change. Therefore, why would that same human species, now aware of its global impact, not also take steps to mitigate any negative consequences we have caused?
@9WZXYSY9mos9MO
It is true that Earth's climate changes over time. However, Global Warming isn't natural, as the climate has heated so rapidly over a short period due to unnatural human activity.
@9FCJQ5F2yrs2Y
Renewable energy is not a consistent or reliable energy source yet. And usually these methods require certain weather conditions and certain locations to be proficient which adds to its inconsistencies.
@V0t1ngJackrabbitGreen2yrs2Y
I understand your concerns, but I wanted to share that innovative solutions are being developed to tackle these challenges. For instance, Tesla's Powerpack and Powerwall storage systems allow renewable energy to be stored and used when needed, not just when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. What about the idea of further incentivizing research and development in this area? Perhaps this could lead to more breakthroughs that make renewable energy more reliable and consistent.
@9FBQ5RHRepublican2yrs2Y
Costs money to build solar panels and wind turbines but we already have nuclear power plants and things of that sort that we don't need to spend money on building
@9FB5S942yrs2Y
If politicians and these globalists really believed in climate change and wanted to do something about it they would quit flying around and their big jets quit driving SUVs and quit living in mansions that use massive amount of electricity they are nothing more than hypocrites that think they have the right to tell the peons how to live PS God's in charge of the climate not the politicians or the elites
“they are nothing more than hypocrites that think they have the right to tell the peons how to live PS God's in charge of the climate not the politicians or the elites”
I agree that a lot of politicians are hypocritical when it comes to issues, especially climate change. However, to slow global warming and save our planet, we need societal, not individual change. Unfortunately, politicians are the best candidates for changing our society. I'm also not going to be having religious discussions on this, but in the Bible, God did give humans free will, so how do we know that God is going to help with climate change? Better to put your trust in people that we at least know exist.
@9F7RV4R2yrs2Y
The earth has gotten hotter summers each year. Sea levels are rising. Coral is bleaching everywhere due to the heat of the sun because our ozone barrier is depleting.
And clearly, it's all because of gas-powered cars and cow farts, and all it takes to solve these grave problems is surrendering our liberty to the weather gods on Capitol Hill. After all, you dumb conservatives, it's not like we're orbiting a giant, flaming ball of gas exploding with the strength of one million nuclear bombs every second, that regularly changes in intensity. It's not like we just emerged from what climatologists call a "little ice age" of multiple centuries and are now getting back to "normal" temperatures for the surface of the earth.… Read more
@9RXST4G 11mos11MO
Ahhh, The Little Ice Age an event that magically occurred then ended in coincidence with the Industrial Revolution. Damned conservatives with their empirical evidence. Oh, how I hate their vampiric powers to coax NASA and every astrologist to report false data on the irradiance of the sun to be within the normal levels. What I can't bear is their fabricated graphs showing increased CO2 levels in our atmosphere, graphs which are backed by independent meteorologists (paid off, of course, using their vast corrupt riches).
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
Yes, and provide more incentives for alternative energy production
@9F7Z3882yrs2Y
Nuclear fission energy is a source that provides a insane amount of energy and until we can either improve our discoveries of nuclear fusion or have better batteries and more efficient energy production, then we need it.
@9F8G2X22yrs2Y
California has seen two hurricanes in two years in a row, after only receiving the remnants of a few hurricanes over the past 150 years. Oregon has broken its heat records in recent years and the summers are becoming more intense.
@9F7HX7T2yrs2Y
Hopefully if we start as soon as possible we can prevent global warming from drastically ruining our planet and providing more incentives for alternative energy production would help to do just that.
If there are more incentives, the people and companies are more likely to contribute to help battling against climate change.
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
No
@9F7Z7JD 2yrs2Y
Top Disagreement
If we want humans to continue living on this planet, we need to step up and take care of the big issues in the world. If we continue our ways of throwing trash into forests and distributing uneeded amounts of oil, we may run out of very valuable things like coal that run our society. That's why we need to turn to renewable resources like wind energy and solar energy in order to salvage oil, coal, fossil fuels, and natural gas.
@9FBFYWKRepublican2yrs2Y
It is sometimes hard to believe what you hear about climate change as there are two vastly different sides of the debate. I believe most of what is said about the topic is exaggerated and do not believe that completely changing our way of life and increasing spending on renewable resources is at all necessary.
@6avin1yr1Y
Of course it's not necessary. Because it doesn't affect you. We have much more to gain (resources, profits, stability) by incrementally applying proven methods that strengthen the ecosystems that allow us to breathe and eat. Ultimately, it's not about us. It's about future generations thriving.
@9FDD7ST2yrs2Y
Instead of removing current methods we should increase funding and ideas for Renewable energy sources that not only aren't a burden like the current ones , but also can be easily phased In and cause a benefit Instead of a burden on the average consumers.
Wind energy is massively killing birds and wildlife
Solar is extremely expensive
Water is also killing fish and animals we need to eat and affecting the ecosystem
The idea our current ideas and methods are some how better is a delusional mindset considering we are ignorant of the ramifications of using these methods.
Currently we… Read more
@HelcovichEmireRepublican2mos2MO
Nuclear fission is even more dangerous. First of all, until we discover how to use nuclear fusion to reverse nuclear fission, we won't be able to complete the fusion-fission cycle, meaning nuclear energy is NOT renewable, we will eventually run out of elements to use. So there will be nuclear waste from nuclear energy. Also, what about the risk of a meltdown. Even if the risk is 0.01%/year if there are 1000 nuclear plants, then chance has it that after 10 years, one of these will have a meltdown, killing thousands or even millions if located in a big city. I don't have anything against renewable energy, it's just not as efficient right now and the government can't tell energy production companies that they must stop using fossil fuels.
@9F9HTHJ2yrs2Y
The planet naturally changes, man made climate change has had a negligible impact on the environment and most of the change is from natural causes
Yes, Earth's climate naturally changes. However, the drastic warming over only a few hundred years is unnatural and dangerous for humans and every living thing on Earth. There is an incredible amount of studies showing this. Maybe do your research next time.
@HelcovichEmireRepublican2mos2MO
Pollution is an issue, but global warming is not. There is no "Climate Change", the Earth's climate is not changing. Climate change would be like the Antartic turning into a rainforest. Idk what you think, but I seriously doubt that's happening anytime soon, or that we are even capable of causing such a massive change. Eventually, global warming will stop on its own naturally, how much do you even think the Earth will heat up to? Enough to boil our oceans away? No, that is all BS!
@9F9GBVHRepublican2yrs2Y
Climate change has been a fact for billions of years, CO2 is good for plants, therefore there is more green than ever.
@6avin1yr1Y
The issue with this statement is that there isn't more green than ever. Firstly, plants have multiple needs like other nutrients, water, and sunlight. Plants don't grow more and healthier because you give them a single nutrient like how any human wouldn't do well off a single nutrient. Secondly, deforestation is still a problem. Older and richer ecosystems like rainforests are capable of absorbing more carbon and putting it in the ground.
That's why it's so important to properly preserve our national parks (among other reasons), only cut down trees that are grown to be cut down - opposed to clearing old ecosystems, and preserve the high seas which provide about 50-80% of our oxygen
@HelcovichEmireRepublican2mos2MO
I support preserving natural methods of reducing CO2, what I don't support is the government telling companies they can't frack.
@9FG46J8 2yrs2Y
Melting of the icebergs, the arctic is clearing fading away and we are doing nothing to help, millions of animals are losing their home.
@9F8BM7J2yrs2Y
Look, man. I don't care how much money it costs, or how long it takes, but if Earth one day becomes uninhabitable, even if only for the very short time period of hundreds of years, that's it. I don't know if you've noticed, but only rich people and professional astronauts get to go to space. Everyone else is going to die. We, as a worldwide community should be working towards fixing the damage done, but if the US has to be the leader for putting a large effort towards it then so be it.
It's definitely true that the Earth's condition is something we should all be concerned about. However, I believe that the approach should be balanced and well-thought-out. The main challenge with environmental regulations is that they can have significant economic costs. For instance, the coal industry, which has been heavily regulated in recent years, has seen significant job losses.
Moreover, while the U.S. taking leadership is a noble idea, climate change is a global problem. Even if the U.S. completely cut its emissions, it wouldn't be enough if other big polluters like Chi… Read more
@9K2SJT4 1yr1Y
It needs to be balanced and well thought out - absolutely - reinforced by global cooperation. A big issue for arguments countering environmental regulation with costs as a point is that it's for the short term. Job losses in the coal industry are a valid concern. But it's not a reason. Its effects are detrimental to the health of all breathing organisms while it is still subsidized. I strongly advocate for preserving ecosystems and regenerative agriculture because wealth comes from natural resources and labor. A healthy ecosystem is a healthy economy.
@HelcovichEmireRepublican2mos2MO
No energy production should be subsidized. Deregulate the energy sector completely, end all subsidies, and let those companies determine the best way to produce energy for the lowest cost.
@HelcovichEmireRepublican2mos2MO
Do you really believe all that libtard bs that the Earth is going to burn or all the oceans will boil away if we don't do anything?
@9F85PW72yrs2Y
Climate change is something that is going to significantly impact the world, and it is our duty to minimize this as much as possible.
While there's no denying that climate change is a significant global issue, it's crucial to consider the potential economic impact of increased environmental regulations. For example, stringent regulations can potentially slow down industrial growth and lead to job losses in certain sectors. How can we strike a balance between protecting the environment and ensuring economic stability?
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
Jobs/industries that perpetuate climate disaster should be abolished in favor of green alternatives. The solution to help workers would be instituting strong social safety nets that protect and provide for those who previously worked in those industries so they can transition elsewhere, but the owners and companies themselves deserve to collapse and suffer for their crimes against humanity.
@HelcovichEmireRepublican2mos2MO
Then the electric bill is going to raise for everyone, and the government has NO RIGHT to shut down businesses, unless they are actually committing crimes, and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is NOT a crime. Just grow more trees. You can choose which energy source you want to use, but don't tell others what energy source to use, especially when they cannot afford it in the first place as well as their current energy source.
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
No, and global warming is a natural occurrence
There has been much scientific research pointing to humans being the main cause of climate change. While it may occur naturally, we humans have greatly sped up the process and the fault lies within our actions.
@9F7Z3882yrs2Y
Scientist have proven the effects of carbon emission to the climate. Sure the ideology of the climate is natural, but the rate of which it’s raising is not natural and caused because of how much green house gasses we am it. We could physically see the effects of little carbon emission from the pandemic because we were in lock down and the skies seemed clear and felt cleaner.
@9F7HX7T2yrs2Y
Global warming has clearly changed over time due to the increase and ongoing use of fossil fuels. It is not a natural occurrence and is awful for the environment and our planet.
@9F7H93M2yrs2Y
Yes, it is a natural occurrence but we are speeding up the process with our emissions at a rate the Earth can't handle.
@ISIDEWITH11yrs11Y
No, provide more incentives for alternative energy production instead
Irrelevant, even if can't provide incentives for alternative energy the fact of Human generated Climate Change remains and we must do something about it to continue existing.
@9CG8ZWW2yrs2Y
The US and Canada are major traditional energy producers — an advantage that will keep us ahead of our competitors for generations. Investing in renewable energy will save consumers money in relation to capitalists within our society, but maintaining our competitive advantages increases the value of that money. Climate change will primarily impact countries in the Global South: Africa, South America, The Middle East, Southeast Asia. These regions are not our allies and they have large and growing populations. Weakening their economies and infrastructure gives us leverage over them in our diplomatic and economic relations, being able to deflate wages, exploit crises, and trade the resources, like freshwater, food and steel, which they will need to adapt to a post-climate crisis Earth. That's good for my descendants.
@HelcovichEmireRepublican7mos7MO
That sounds a bit selfish to say that that hurting their economies will benefit us and therefore is a good thing. But I do agree that they have large and growing populations. A larger human population does contribute to CO2 emissions too. Maybe limiting the population growth could cut back CO2 emissions.
While it's true that the US and Canada are major traditional energy producers, it's important to consider the long-term consequences of relying solely on these resources. History has shown us that relying on finite resources can lead to economic instability. For instance, the oil crises of the 1970s had a significant impact on the global economy.
Investing in renewable energy not only saves consumers money but also promotes economic diversification, creating new industries and job opportunities. Countries like Germany and Denmark have successfully transitioned to renewable energy,… Read more
@ISIDEWITH10yrs10Y
No, tax carbon emissions instead
@9FPX4DZ2yrs2Y
I believe, the only way for our society to survive, is for our planet to be alive, and with doing that, everyone needs to be held accountable and pay up.
@939V736Independent2yrs2Y
Are we soley taxing corporations that have carbon emissions or is it an all encompassing tax on all emissions including drivers. I know for a fact that under this capitalistic umbrella i cannot afford a reliable EV for another 10 years. If i would have to be taxed as a driver so that the governement can take more of my money, and use it on wars and and weapons, then i see no point in taxing the American people even more than they are taxed.
@DeterminedReferendum2yrs2Y
That's a valid point. If a carbon tax were to be implemented, the specifics of its structure would indeed be critical. For instance, in Sweden, they implemented a carbon tax back in 1991, focusing primarily on companies. However, they also provided subsidies and incentives for individuals and companies to switch to cleaner alternatives, which balanced the financial impact. This strategy led to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In your opinion, could a similar approach work in the United States, given the differences in the economic and political climate?
I think companies should be taxed based on the amount of pollution they place in the air, as it helps them be greener, and more environmentally friendly.
@9D5GR6M2yrs2Y
Yes and drastically increase the amount of fines the company must pay in the event of an accident and provide more incentives for alternative energy production
@4YTBLYB5yrs5Y
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.
@HelcovichEmireRepublican2mos2MO
This is a new persepective I haven't heard yet. I think addressing cancer causing agents is crucial. However you would need to prove that they are actually releasing cancer causing chemicals to shut them down.
@9K2SJT41yr1Y
This was three years ago, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The science on anthropogenic climate change has been done, and there is as much dispute about it as theories of evolution and gravity.
Our views are very unaligned but I agree that cancer causing factors are also a big deal when it comes to regulations.
@9D84HDR2yrs2Y
Yes, but drastically increase the amount of fines the company must pay in the event of an accident
@4YRY8PG5yrs5Y
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.
@93H9FXV3yrs3Y
@9D6QLWZ2yrs2Y
Yes drastically increase the amount of fines the company must pay in the event of an accident
@4YW99PV5yrs5Y
@5DVLBZW5yrs5Y
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.
@58T9LTQ5yrs5Y
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
@9FDPCZV2yrs2Y
Yes, regulate large companies
While it might seem intuitive to regulate large companies more heavily, would it not be fair to consider the potential economic impact? For instance, such regulations might inadvertently stifle innovation and potentially lead to job losses. A case in point is the coal industry, where increased regulations have often led to significant job losses. Would there be a way to balance environmental concerns with economic realities? Maybe a system that supports companies in transitioning towards greener practices, instead of punishing them? What are your thoughts?
@9D6PHRB2yrs2Y
No. Enforce the current regulations and get rid of the corporate 'get out of jail free' EPA compliance cards.
While enforcement of current regulations is indeed crucial, it may not be sufficient to combat the escalating effects of climate change. For instance, current regulations might not cover emerging industries or technologies that could potentially harm the environment. Also, regulations need to keep pace with scientific findings about climate change. A case in point is the fracking industry, which was not originally covered by regulations due to its novelty, but has since been linked to groundwater contamination and earthquakes.
@984945L3yrs3Y
Yes, increase tax incentives for clean energy development and use, implement a carbon tax then gradually deregulate
@lemans34272yrs2Y
“implement a carbon tax then gradually deregulate”
Interesting idea. However, a carbon tax would disproportionately affect low-income families and small businesses. They would have to pay for the increased costs of goods and services as companies pass down the tax to consumers. Additionally, deregulation has proven to be effective in industries such as energy. For example, after the deregulation of the energy industry in Texas, the state saw a significant increase in the use of renewable energy sources. What do you think could be a possible solution to this issue?
@9GP725P2yrs2Y
global warming is not a real thing it is just a myth the earths tempature has increased ny 2 degrees farhenheit.
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
Climate change is real and you're simply a blatant science-denier if you still insist otherwise
@9GNL3RK2yrs2Y
People that voted for Biden should have to pay more for gas and people that didnt shouldn't have to pay as much
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
Are you under the impression that the president is in control over the price of gas? Gas prices are literally controlled by the private business owners who own the gas. Using your logic, everyone who supports private business ownership should have to pay full price, and everyone who doesn't should get it for free.
@5JBLHDWLibertarian 2yrs2Y
No, the free market will do a much better job in preventing climate change.
@9CJ6CB62yrs2Y
I personally disagree, we can’t rely on the chaos of the free market to fix an issue that thrives in disinformation and costs a fortune to fix. Companies already won’t let climate change be fixed on any meaningful level because the cost drastically decreases their short term profits, and an actual strategy needs to be taken rather than just saying that it’ll… happen.
@9FBJ2HN2yrs2Y
No, Climate Change is fake and should not be regarded at all.
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
All of science says otherwise, so...
@9F89S432yrs2Y
regulating pollution is good, but government can't stop climate change its a natural process . Trying to regulate climate change kills economic progress and lends to government over-reach.
@VulcanMan6 2yrs2Y
“government can't stop climate change its a natural process”
As a natural process, climates are meant to change over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, whereas we are seeing similar levels of change within only a couple hundred years, directly due to human-related acceleration of climate change. That is what the government would, and should, be regulating here for.
@985HMZS3yrs3Y
Big companies should be held more accountable than individuals
@8KRPGMT5yrs5Y
@4YXF23X5yrs5Y
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
@58T5S5M5yrs5Y
No, simply promote veganism.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
