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
In a striking turn of events, nearly 50 environmental leaders and activists, once colleagues of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), have publicly called for him to abandon his presidential bid. This group, which has worked closely with Kennedy on various environmental initiatives, is now taking a stand against his political aspirations, fearing his candidacy could inadvertently aid in the reelection of former President Donald Trump. Their concerns have culminated in a series of ads urging Kennedy to 'Honor our planet, drop out,' highlighting the gravity of their plea.Kennedy, known for his environmental advocacy, seems to have alienated some of his strongest allies with his decision to run for president. The environmental community, typically aligned in its efforts to combat climate change and promote sustainability, finds itself at odds over Kennedy's political ambitions. The call for his withdrawal is not just a reflection of political strategy but also an indication of the deep divisions within the environmental movement regarding the best path forward.The public campaign against Kennedy's candidacy underscores a broader debate within the environmental sector about the role of politics in achieving their goals. While some view political engagement as essential to enacting meaningful environmental policies, others worry that divisive figures like Kennedy could fracture the movement and detract from its core mission. This situation is a vivid example of how political ambitions can sometimes clash with advocacy goals, leading to unexpected rifts among longtime allies.Moreover, the opposition to Kennedy's presidential run from within his own ranks highlights the challenges that environmental activists face in maintaining a united front. As the 2024 presidential election approaches, the environmental movement is grappling with how best to influence policy and public opinion, a task made more complicated by internal disagreements over strategy and leadership.As this drama unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the complex interplay between environmental advocacy and political power. The activists' plea to Kennedy to prioritize the planet over personal political ambitions speaks to the broader challenges facing the environmental movement today. It remains to be seen how Kennedy will respond to this call to action and what impact it will have on his campaign and the environmental movement at large.
@ISIDEWITH13hrs13H
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.
@ISIDEWITH14hrs14H
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.
Explore other topics that are important to America voters.
@ISIDEWITH1yr1Y
Countries that have mandatory retirements for politicians include Argentina (age 75), Brazil (75 for judges and prosecutors), Mexico (70 for judges and prosecutors) and Singapore (75 for members of parliament.)
@ISIDEWITH2yrs2Y