Try the political quiz

8,039 Replies

@9XNNWDSLibertarian from Tennessee answered…3hrs

How many communities have contaminated water? What is the greatest threat to climate? Pentagon? Lol maybe we should deal with that first.

@9XN8RXNRepublican from New Jersey answered…2 days

allow the free market to incentivize the private sector to achieve the required reductions

@9WFWNV2Transhumanist from New York answered…1mo

If there's enough evidence to prove one or the other, then I guess so.

@9WDXMZDRepublican from Michigan answered…1mo

I think that we need to switch to renewable but climate change is normal

@9WDR7B4Constitution from Maryland answered…1mo

They need to regulate the big corporations causing the mass majority of pollution instead of individuals and their belongings like cars

@9WBQ3V9Constitution from Georgia answered…1mo

No, we need to focus on our countries such as china and india that make up most of the qorlds pollution. our country even if we produced 0 emmisions wont change anything unless we focus on the top 3 pollutiong countries

@9WBJ7P8Independentfrom Vermont  answered…1mo

@9W9Y4NNConstitution from Arizona answered…1mo

Again another topic im not as educated in so i cant say yes or no.

@9W979C3Constitution from Illinois answered…2mos

No, people should make it a bigger deal but not make it required

@9W8J3RKRepublican from Texas answered…2mos

No. Other contries manufacturers cause the majority of emissions

@9W8B5B6Republicanfrom Maine  answered…2mos

The overwhelming majority of pollution is caused by China, If you want to stop pollution you must stand against the CCP. But that won't happen will it.

@9W88PVLLibertarian from Texas answered…2mos

No, it should be up to the civilian populous and the businesses to decide on these choices, the government shouldn't interfere in people's lives like this.

@angel.uGreen from Maryland answered…2mos

Yes, and nationalize the energy industry to directly fund clean and alternative energy

@9W73LR8Peace and Freedom from Kansas answered…2mos

Dont tear up the earth, work with the earth. No need for climate change after that.

@9W55G2RRepublican from Colorado answered…2mos

they need to worry about theyre own emisions the goverment makes most of it

@9W558M5Constitution from Illinois answered…2mos

no,provide more incentives for alternative energy production instead and global warming is a natural occurrence.

@ave123445Peace and Freedom from Missouri answered…2mos

it wouldn´t really matter cause even if its against the law or something, people will break it. It would be nice to attempt to do it but it won´t be full proof

@9W4JJ46Constitution from North Carolina answered…2mos

@9W4HNJFGreen from Texas answered…2mos

Yes, and add a penalty for not followinng or evading regulations to ensure change.

@9W48QCFDemocrat from Pennsylvania answered…2mos

@9VZPMR5Women’s Equality from Tennessee answered…2mos

I believe that we should come up with alternative solutions while we still use our old solutions so that when the energy efficient solutions are sustainable we can phase out the old ones

@9VZG8NLVeteran from Oklahoma answered…2mos

We should stand together to reduce are carbon foot print but this plant has been going through climate changes since the big bang. Its nature and science it shouldn't be a political matter. I do strongly agree with the EPA its a much need agency that protects are air quality and so much more.

@9VZD6JZDemocrat from California answered…2mos

Doesn't matter what one country does, if the whole world doesn't contribute to the cause, it won't matter in the long run.

@9VZBFYGTranshumanist from Illinois answered…2mos

Yes, but it will only make a difference if EVERYONE follows the regulations. So, is it really worth it? Can’t everyone just have just have good morals and do whether better thing?

@9VYYQJHRepublican from New Jersey answered…2mos

While I believe climate change is a natural occurrence I believe it is beneficial to be more environmentally conscious.

@9VY3498Constitution from Illinois answered…2mos

I think that the companies should have that choice or be limited on how much pollution is put.

@9VV8ZZMTranshumanist from South Carolina answered…2mos

you cant prevent global warming or even try to slow it down

@9VTHJBCConstitution from California answered…2mos

I think it's great to be saving the planet and the environment. But I think that is also important to let the American people keep their rights. You may or may not see it, but this country is slowly turning socialist. But I saw this thing where a small country was burning trash and then purifying the air coming from the trash. I think some of these things could be set up in America to make our planet a cleaner place.

@9VSLSG2Independent from Texas answered…2mos

Yes, Make it so then we are still able to use carbon emissions for those who want it and make it so it’s possible for people who don’t want it to not use it and still have energy

@9M5T7LDWomen’s Equality from Utah answered…12mos

Yes, but they should make public transportation to the smaller cities

@9M56T9CRepublican from Virginia answered…12mos

Some countries need to do this such as big manufacturing countries(China). I do not support the Green New Deal. If we do increase regulations, Hundreds of thousands of Americans will be out of work.

@9M4STVTRepublican from Michigan answered…12mos

The U.S. as a whole is nowhere near as polluted as people want to believe, our main issues are the larger countries, India and China, as they are often left with little technological advancements, along with their increasing population density in Bejing or other large cities. The worst case in the U.S. was LA, and they ended up solving a majority of the issues by enforcing cleaner cars and energy sources.

@9M4RQWYVeteran from Michigan answered…12mos

No, but they should provide advantages to companies who choose to do good for the environment.

@9M4JC8FVeteran from Minnesota answered…12mos

No, they should Get rid of all fuel burning plants and replace it with cleaner energy plant like nuclear reactors, solar panels, windmills, and hydropower.

@9M4J2Q8Independent from Texas answered…12mos

Depending on the regulations many people could lose their jobs or businesses, including my family.

@9LZQKDFWorking Familyfrom Pennsylvania  answered…12mos

@9LZGYMXConstitution from Kentucky answered…12mos

We could do a few things better, but for the most part we should keep things the same

@9LYV232Libertarian from Minnesota answered…12mos

No, but add incentives to develop alternative energy production

@9LXKN2SRepublican from Iowa answered…12mos

I think we should work on climate change but make it a smaller focus than other issues

@9LXC7HGRepublican from Nevada answered…12mos

Stop worrying about emissions so much and start worrying about replanting forests which, in my opinion is the real issue.


The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart...