Climate change is an increase in the earth's atmospheric temperature since the late nineteenth century. In politics the debate over climate change 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.
How many communities have contaminated water? What is the greatest threat to climate? Pentagon? Lol maybe we should deal with that first.
@9XN8RXNRepublican2 days
allow the free market to incentivize the private sector to achieve the required reductions
If there's enough evidence to prove one or the other, then I guess so.
Who cares about the environment.
I think that we need to switch to renewable but climate change is normal
They need to regulate the big corporations causing the mass majority of pollution instead of individuals and their belongings like cars
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
only if it doesnt make things worse for the people
Again another topic im not as educated in so i cant say yes or no.
No, people should make it a bigger deal but not make it required
yes, on everything besides cars
No. Other contries manufacturers cause the majority of emissions
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.
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.
Yes, and nationalize the energy industry to directly fund clean and alternative energy
Dont tear up the earth, work with the earth. No need for climate change after that.
Should educate more people first
they need to worry about theyre own emisions the goverment makes most of it
no,provide more incentives for alternative energy production instead and global warming is a natural occurrence.
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
No. Down with big government control.
Yes, and add a penalty for not followinng or evading regulations to ensure change.
It don’t matter to me what they do
they may think its not hard but it is hard
No, but it should be encouraged.
I don't have much knowledge on this subject.
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
Humans have no affect on Earth's climate
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.
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.
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?
While I believe climate change is a natural occurrence I believe it is beneficial to be more environmentally conscious.
I think that the companies should have that choice or be limited on how much pollution is put.
you cant prevent global warming or even try to slow it down
That's a broad question.
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.
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
Yes, but they should make public transportation to the smaller cities
@9M56T9CRepublican12mos
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.
@9M4STVTRepublican12mos
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.
No, but they should provide advantages to companies who choose to do good for the environment.
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.
@9M4J2Q8Independent12mos
Depending on the regulations many people could lose their jobs or businesses, including my family.
you cant prevent something thats already happening
@9LZGYMXConstitution12mos
We could do a few things better, but for the most part we should keep things the same
@9LYV232Libertarian12mos
No, but add incentives to develop alternative energy production
@9LXKN2SRepublican12mos
I think we should work on climate change but make it a smaller focus than other issues
@9LXC7HGRepublican12mos
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...
