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 more63% Yes |
37% No |
57% Yes |
28% No |
7% Yes, and provide more incentives for alternative energy production |
5% No, provide more incentives for alternative energy production instead |
3% No, and global warming is a natural occurrence |
|
1% No, tax carbon emissions instead |
See how support for each position on “Climate Change” has changed over time for 24.7m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
See how importance of “Climate Change” has changed over time for 24.7m America voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from America users whose views extended beyond the provided choices.
@4YRY8PG3yrs3Y
government needs to regulate the pollution of the planet, not just for climate change; saving the planet is unnecessary, the planet will save itself. However, humans are capable of making the earth inhabitable for themselves.
@4YTBLYB3yrs3Y
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.
@93H9FXV2yrs2Y
Yes and make littering illegal
@5DVLBZW3yrs3Y
This question is wrong, as the real problem has always been corruption/cronyism and failure to enforce property rights. Regulations are written by cronies more to the benefit of polluters than to our environment or property owners. Regulations have actually made it harder to sue those who harm our shared/un-owned resources, stealing property value, health and life.
@9D5GR6M9mos9MO
Yes and drastically increase the amount of fines the company must pay in the event of an accident and provide more incentives for alternative energy production
@9D84HDR8mos8MO
Yes, but drastically increase the amount of fines the company must pay in the event of an accident
Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Climate Change” news articles, updated frequently.
@ISIDEWITH52mins52m
Oil and gas are doing more for the economy than his climate dreams.Despite President Biden’s best efforts, U.S. fossil-fuel production continues to grow, and it’s supporting the economy he touts. That’s one notable finding from the Bureau of Economic Analysis’s recent report on state GDP growth in 2023 that is always instructive about regional and industrial economic trends.The U.S. economy last year expanded by 2.5%, and while the rest of the press missed it, fossil-fuel producing states led the way. These include North Dakota (5.9%), Texas (5.7%), Wyoming (5.4%), Oklahoma (5.3%), Alaska (5.3%), West Virginia (4.7%) and New Mexico (4.1%). Mining contributed about two to three percentage points to GDP growth in these states.U.S. oil production last year hit a record 13.3 million barrels a day while natural gas output surged to a record 45.6 trillion cubic feet. Most has occurred on state and private lands, which the federal government has little power to stop. This is why government revenue in Texas from oil and gas royalties and taxes last year soared to $26.3 billion.Mr. Biden will never admit it, but privately financed fossil-fuel production is doing far more to boost the U.S. economy than his hundreds of billions of dollars in spending on electric vehicles and green energy. The latter may even detract from economic growth by causing a misallocation of capital to less productive uses.
@ISIDEWITH20hrs20H
Unions, manufacturing groups and some economists say the administration may need to do much more to restrict Chinese imports if it hopes to ensure that Mr. Biden’s vast industrial initiatives are not swamped by lower-cost Chinese versions of the same emerging technologies.“It is a very clear and present danger, because the industrial policy of the Biden administration is largely focused on not the traditional low-skill, low-wage manufacturing, but new, high-tech manufacturing,” said Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University economist who specializes in trade policies.“Those are precisely the areas where China has upped its own investments,” he said.Both America and China are using large government subsidies to stoke economic growth and try to dominate what they believe will be the most important global markets of this century: the technologies meant to speed a global transition away from fossil fuels in order to avert catastrophic climate change. Chinese officials have poured money into factories, including offering attractive loans from state-run banks to companies that might not have survived otherwise, to help offset a real estate crisis and sluggish domestic consumption. Those factories often run on low-cost labor.Biden has conditioned federal money on companies paying relatively high wages or providing child care for workers. Other credits are conditioned on factories drawing on components that are mined or produced in America. Mr. Biden has staked his re-election pitch on creating more well-paying jobs, particularly union jobs, but some economists have raised concerns that those efforts to change corporate behavior will undermine his core industrial-policy objectives.“On the one hand the Biden administration is doing everything it can to increase consumption of renewable energy products,” said Scott Lincicome, a trade expert at the Cato Institute, a libertarian research center. “On the other hand, it is warning China against the sale of cheap renewable energy products, which would boost American consumption of the very products we’re trying to encourage.”
@ISIDEWITH21hrs21H
EV sales are still growing, but not as quickly as the administration hoped and more slowly than in many other advanced economies. Inventories have continued to pile up: Despite $2 billion in dealer discounts and generous federal tax credits, stocks of unsold EVs grew by more than 200% in the first quarter. Ford Motor Co., facing heavy losses on EVs, recently said it will shift its efforts from battery-powered models to hybrids and new gas-fueled models.Drivers in the US are accustomed to much cheaper gasoline than Europeans. They’ve learned to like big vehicles and expect to be able to drive them great distances. With current technology, this puts EVs at a serious disadvantage. The Biden administration’s subsidy-first approach falls short. Making EVs cheaper doesn’t make owning and driving a gas-powered vehicle any more expensive, which blunts the policy’s effect. The conspicuously slow rollout of charging stations has added to the “range anxiety” that preoccupies many potential buyers. Complaints that EVs are less reliable than promised and more expensive to repair and insure have also made them a hard sell.Biden’s focus on creating “good jobs” at home in EV and battery manufacturing now poses a further risk — that the administration will try to put things right by raising tariffs and tightening restrictions on imports
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH7mos7MO
Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) in August 2022, which allocated millions to combating climate change and other energy provisions while additionally establishing a $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles. To qualify for the subsidy 40% of the critical minerals used in electric-vehicle…
@ISIDEWITH12mos12MO
In 2023 Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch were criticized after news articles revealed they had personal financial transactions with people who had interest in court decisions. Politico reported that Justice Gorsuch sold a vacation property to the CEO of a prominent law firm which…