Carbon capture technologies are methods designed to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from sources like power plants to prevent them from entering the atmosphere. Proponents argue that subsidies would accelerate the development of essential technologies to combat climate change. Opponents argue that it is too costly and that the market should drive innovation without government intervention.
Statistics are shown for this demographic
Response rates from 16.8k America voters.
67% Yes |
33% No |
62% Yes |
28% No |
5% Yes, and also increase spending for renewable energy and reforestation |
2% No, provide subsidies to renewable energy companies instead |
1% No, tax carbon emissions instead |
|
1% No, the government should invest in planting more trees to capture carbon instead |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 16.8k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 16.8k America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@9NF9B4M11mos11MO
No, but companies should be taxed for their carbon emissions and this will incentivize them to invest in carbon capture technologies and other ways of reducing pollution
@SenBR2003 11mos11MO
Yes, but only in tandem with supporting renewable energy production.
@GavinKuebler11mos11MO
No, they are a largely inefficient means of reducing carbon since they focus only on reversing environmental harm rather than reducing it and can be used to justify further carbon emissions.
@B4TYFKS3 days3D
They should, but they should also, make it so they have to show results or where the money is going to. So, it does not get spent improperly.
@B4KLCSB2wks2W
No because carbon capture will incentivize fossil fuel companies to increase drilling and will not have a big impact on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions
@B4FNL7M3wks3W
supportive in principle as a potential tool, but with careful oversight to ensure it doesn't become an excuse to continue fossil fuel reliance; prioritize emissions reduction
@B4D6KHP3wks3W
No, for the sake of low taxes, low national debt, checks and balances, weak government, federalism, and capitalism.
@B2M99343mos3MO
Subsidies disrupt the free market and prop up bad technology. We are too far in debt to continue spending money we don’t have.
Join in on the most popular conversations.