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.
@ISIDEWITH6hrs6H
Representatives from more than 30 countries gathered in Brussels in March at a nuclear summit hosted by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Belgian government. Thirty-four nations, including the United States and China, agreed “to work to fully unlock the potential of nuclear energy,” including extending the lifetime of existing reactors, building new nuclear power plants and deploying advanced reactors.“Nuclear technology can play an important role in the clean energy transition,” Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, told summit attendees. But she added that “the reality today, in most markets, is a reality of a slow but steady decline in market share” for nuclear powerThe numbers underscore that downturn. Solar and wind power together began outperforming nuclear power globally in 2021, and that trend continues as nuclear staggers along. Solar alone added more than 400 gigawatts of capacity worldwide last year, two-thirds more than the previous year. That’s more than the roughly 375 gigawatts of combined capacity of the world’s 415 nuclear reactors, which remained relatively unchanged last year. Pledging to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 is a little like promising to win the lottery.For the United States, it would mean adding an additional 200 gigawatts of nuclear operating capacity (almost double what the country has ever built) to the 100 gigawatts or so that now exists, generated by more than 90 commercial reactors that have been running an average of 42 years. Globally it would mean tripling the existing capacity built over the past 70 years in less than half that time in addition to replacing reactors that will shut down before 2050.The Energy Department estimates the total cost of such an effort in the United States at roughly $700 billion. For much less money and in less time, the world can reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the use of renewables like solar, wind, hydropower and geothermal power.
@ISIDEWITH7hrs7H
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.
@ISIDEWITH1 day1D
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.”
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Absentee-by-mail ballots are paper ballots that are mailed to voters who must then fill them out and return them, often with the voter's signature and sometimes a witness signature to prove the voter's identity. In 35 states and Washington, D.C., any qualified voter may vote absentee-by-mail without…
@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…
@ISIDEWITH6mos6MO