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:
Discussions from these authors are shown:
Voting for candidate:
These active users have achieved advanced knowledge of the terminology, history, and legal implications regarding the topic of Climate Change
@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.
@TheHillbillyLordRepublican6 days6D
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.
@B4JKGN81mo1MO
yes, but the environmental regulations need to be regularly monitored and any money going towards any causes are ensured that they are providing an overall better resolution toward the climate crisis.
@B2B65FFPeace and Freedom4mos4MO
Yes, increase regulations, yet I gained knowledge last year that climate change was more natural than we think. However, increase regulations for the sake of nature's fauna.
@9YC39MF7mos7MO
Yes, but it shouldn't be big enough IMMEDIANTLY to harmfully impact the economy, it should be a slow(ish) process.
@9XKGN377mos7MO
Yes, but it needs to be a very metered approach, as I believe some of global warming is a natural occurrence, and we also need to build infrastructure for alternative energy sources before transitioning from fossil fuels becomes viable.
@9SJN7KW9mos9MO
Yes, and the regulations should specifically target large corporations both domestically and internationally. The regulations should not significantly affect the average citizen.
@9S2J2FC9mos9MO
Hold foreign countries like China accountable. China alone is responsible for 15% of the trash produced, just trash. Not to mention all of the aerosols.
@9M3NC7J1yr1Y
the government should find a way to safely use a diffrent fule source other than ev or carbon becuse there are better and cleaner options and should put time into reserching them.
@9JKY6FZ1yr1Y
Climate change is natural and global warming isn't real, the world is getting hotter and colder that's how it works
@9GB29Y32yrs2Y
Global warming is bound to happen no matter what, i think that regulating what we do is just another way to control what we can and cant do as citizens
@9F7TS4D2yrs2Y
Yes not necessarly for climate change but just so the world has a better and healthier ecosystem and world
@958FYDT3yrs3Y
I think they'd be wasting money on something that doesn't exist
@957ZWGZ3yrs3Y
I think they should find ways of improving the climate without punishing the machine that keeps our country moving.
@957XZYX3yrs3Y
Climate change is going to happen no matter what we do. We may have affected the process of climate change but we never caused it. That doesn't mean we have to make it any worse. We should increase environmental regulations not to prevent climate change, but to let nature take its course.
depending on many variables, such as if we did switch to a more environmental energy would it create an energy crisis
@94BM5PC3yrs3Y
They should encourage more clean energy
@949BS99Independent3yrs3Y
Yes, should look at the causes of global warming such as the role of suburbia.
@93X498T3yrs3Y
No, decrease spending on environmentalist policies and instead tax carbon emissions and provide more incentives for alternative energy production
@933MWHQ3yrs3Y
No, as alternative energy becomes cheaper, the free market will lower carbon emissions
@8ZXVWKQ3yrs3Y
Create portions that companies can purchase but overall limit the amount.
@8YSTPG73yrs3Y
Yes, the government should increase environmental regulations, but global warming is also a natural occurrence alongside climate change.
@8YRRWTM3yrs3Y
They should spend little, but still keep an open mind.
Yes, the government needs to take environmental issues more serious as our environment is everything to every species on the planet. If we treat our planet like trash then it will become trash, so I believe every nation should create a better system in which we could save the world from being destroyed by our own hands.
@8YPJ7BQ3yrs3Y
Yes, especially in regards to corporations
@8YP63YVRepublican3yrs3Y
Yes, but explore other energy productions first.
@8XD99JWRepublican4yrs4Y
Yes but at a reasonable pace
@8WMRYNG4yrs4Y
I think the U.S should use a combination of green energy and non-renewable resources.
@8WKTLVD4yrs4Y
@8VZX6LT4yrs4Y
No, they are the ones causing it.
@8VZPSQV4yrs4Y
Yes, But we can't control the climate
@8VZPPYM4yrs4Y
Environmental regulation is not a national issue it is a world issue, China alone has 30% of the world's carbon emissions and see's no slowing down. Corporations are already going to carbon reductive technologies anyways.
@8VNNMNL4yrs4Y
Yes I do because climate change is causing our world to change more dramatically than we think and we can put a stop to it by just doing what needs to be done.
@8VGC94Z4yrs4Y
No, however there should be more options and ways to help and volunteer
@8S6TS2W4yrs4Y
Yes, but be mindful about the trickle down effects that happen and make sure the regulations are reasonable.
@8RYNGVN4yrs4Y
Yes, and the regulations should be placed on the disposal and cleaning of these greenhouse gas emissions should be required.
@8RG3Y2T4yrs4Y
Not yet, but begin researching them
@8R7QNG54yrs4Y
yes instead of trying to colonize mars lets just rebuild a place we called home
@8P34SWLRepublican5yrs5Y
Global warming is a natural occurence due to population increasing. However, we should still need to implement stricter regulations.
Yes, but every country must do the same to prevent this.
@8MPGFW65yrs5Y
well to a stand because millions of Americans could lose their jobs.
@8MNTNYVRepublican5yrs5Y
I do think they should protect the environment but don´t go all green because we would loose a lot of jobs for oil or gas company which are hard-working people.
@8MNMCDT5yrs5Y
Yes, only if other countries are doing the same.
@8LFDVP75yrs5Y
No but they should place funding to research cleaner methods of creating the same products not revamp the whole system
@8K9HLLB5yrs5Y
Yes but mainly go after big corporations that produce larger carbon footprints on our planet. Since normal citizens don’t actually have that big of a carbon footprint.
@8HW36KC5yrs5Y
80% of the worlds oxygen comes from the ocean
@8HDCV8Y5yrs5Y
No. Climate change is much more complicated than simply "global warming", and industries ought to regulate themselves.
@8H44FB75yrs5Y
No, private companies are moving that way naturally by demand of the consumer anyways. Let nature take its course so jobs aren't cut from forced change and instead let them transition.
@8CZR7NR5yrs5Y
It should not be the job for the government to tell people what they can and cant do but it should be encouraged that we move to cleaner forms of helping the environment
@8CKRWC85yrs5Y
Yes but in a gradual way that makes economic sense
@8CH8YH65yrs5Y
only on cars that are built after 1970 should there be rules
@8CBKFJS5yrs5Y
i mean yes, but only whats necessary. climate change isnt as big of a factor as people have made it out to be
@9C44KP92yrs2Y
simplify and reduce the impacts of the current regulations while incentivizing alternatives and best practice behaviors. Rather than enforcing increased regulations, use that funding towards research and technology for affordable & accessible longterm alternative energy products
@9BHC59B2yrs2Y
Depends how bad the climate change gets
@99KMJXD2yrs2Y
Yes, but slowly integrate it
@98XN8852yrs2Y
yes, but global warming is not a thing.
@98XM2MV2yrs2Y
Most regulations to prevent climate change doesn't work, because climate is dynamic system and also we don't have any alternative clean energy or safe producting with same affectivety.
@98XFYWR2yrs2Y
electric isn't actually helping
@97684VY3yrs3Y
No, I don't believe in Climate Change.
@94RZRKVRepublican3yrs3Y
I think that global warming is FAKE
@8SFN4JQ4yrs4Y
@8FV45L3Republican5yrs5Y
They should not enforce it, however people need to be mindful
@9F6ZR8WRepublican 2yrs2Y
In theory Yes, but we need to hold foreign countries accountable for their agreements for this to work. As a nation we shouldn't give ourselves a handicap when our global adversaries are doing as they please.
@2JG9DD3Libertarian5yrs5Y
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.
@8TPZHT74yrs4Y
Yes, nationalize all energy companies and transition them to green energy
@8YYT6363yrs3Y
I don't have an opinion on this. They can do whatever they want
@B5CVLJJ2wks2W
Like all things the earth will die eventually. I think it’s more important how individuals choose to spend that time.
@B2RS74X4mos4MO
Yes, Increase the incentives for green energy alternatives as well. Invest in reducing climate change that has already occurred.
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
Join in on more popular conversations.
