+

Answer Overview

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

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 16.8k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 16.8k America voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from America voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9NF9B4M from Iowa  answered…11mos11MO

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 from New York  answered…11mos11MO

 @GavinKuebler from Pennsylvania  answered…11mos11MO

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.

 @B4TYFKS from Utah  answered…3 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.

 @B4KLCSB from California  answered…2wks2W

No because carbon capture will incentivize fossil fuel companies to increase drilling and will not have a big impact on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions

 @B4FNL7M from Illinois  answered…3wks3W

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

 @B4D6KHP from Georgia  answered…3wks3W

No, for the sake of low taxes, low national debt, checks and balances, weak government, federalism, and capitalism.

 @B2M9934 from Texas  answered…3mos3MO

Subsidies disrupt the free market and prop up bad technology. We are too far in debt to continue spending money we don’t have.