Try the political quiz

17k Replies

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

Yes

 @9F9W6Y9 from California agreed…7mos7MO

Top Agreement

Due to deforestation less and less c02 is being taken out of the atmosphere. This is causing our globe to heat up and our planet to die faster and faster and faster.

 @9F7ZKV2 from California agreed…7mos7MO

climate change is scientifically proven to exist, there is no further discussion needed. Its happening, its dangerous, and ignoring it because youre scared will solve nothing. There is no conspiracy, there is no ignoring it, and it must be fixed

 @9F7RV4R from Florida agreed…7mos7MO

The earth has gotten hotter summers each year. Sea levels are rising. Coral is bleaching everywhere due to the heat of the sun because our ozone barrier is depleting.

 @9F7V3PC from Texas agreed…7mos7MO

Antarctica is melting more and more every day. Polar bears have no glaciers to walk or live on any longer and are drowning. The air pollution is insane in most southern states. Hurricanes in California are not normal. The Earth's temperature is supposed to increase, but not at the immense rate it is currently increasing.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

Yes, and provide more incentives for alternative energy production

 @9F7Z388 from California agreed…7mos7MO

Nuclear fission energy is a source that provides a insane amount of energy and until we can either improve our discoveries of nuclear fusion or have better batteries and more efficient energy production, then we need it.

 @9F8G2X2 from Oregon agreed…7mos7MO

California has seen two hurricanes in two years in a row, after only receiving the remnants of a few hurricanes over the past 150 years. Oregon has broken its heat records in recent years and the summers are becoming more intense.

 @9F7HX7T from California agreed…7mos7MO

Hopefully if we start as soon as possible we can prevent global warming from drastically ruining our planet and providing more incentives for alternative energy production would help to do just that.

 @9F7GKQ8Democrat from Iowa agreed…7mos7MO

If there are more incentives, the people and companies are more likely to contribute to help battling against climate change.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No

 @9F7Z7JD  from Texas disagreed…7mos7MO

Top Disagreement

If we want humans to continue living on this planet, we need to step up and take care of the big issues in the world. If we continue our ways of throwing trash into forests and distributing uneeded amounts of oil, we may run out of very valuable things like coal that run our society. That's why we need to turn to renewable resources like wind energy and solar energy in order to salvage oil, coal, fossil fuels, and natural gas.

 @9FDD7ST from Missouri commented…6mos6MO

Instead of removing current methods we should increase funding and ideas for Renewable energy sources that not only aren't a burden like the current ones , but also can be easily phased In and cause a benefit Instead of a burden on the average consumers.

Wind energy is massively killing birds and wildlife

Solar is extremely expensive

Water is also killing fish and animals we need to eat and affecting the ecosystem

The idea our current ideas and methods are some how better is a delusional mindset considering we are ignorant of the ramifications of using these methods.

Currently we…  Read more

 @9F972XL from Utah disagreed…7mos7MO

It is the privilege and responsibility of every human to care for the world in which we live and leave it better for the following generations. With the increase of information and technology working together a solution should available to solve the issue of how to dispose of waste.

 @9FBFYWKRepublican from Connecticut disagreed…7mos7MO

It is sometimes hard to believe what you hear about climate change as there are two vastly different sides of the debate. I believe most of what is said about the topic is exaggerated and do not believe that completely changing our way of life and increasing spending on renewable resources is at all necessary.

 @6avinfrom Maine disagreed…1mo1MO

Yes

Of course it's not necessary. Because it doesn't affect you. We have much more to gain (resources, profits, stability) by incrementally applying proven methods that strengthen the ecosystems that allow us to breathe and eat. Ultimately, it's not about us. It's about future generations thriving.

 @9F9GBVHRepublican from Colorado disagreed…7mos7MO

Climate change has been a fact for billions of years, CO2 is good for plants, therefore there is more green than ever.

 @6avinfrom Maine commented…1mo1MO

Yes

The issue with this statement is that there isn't more green than ever. Firstly, plants have multiple needs like other nutrients, water, and sunlight. Plants don't grow more and healthier because you give them a single nutrient like how any human wouldn't do well off a single nutrient. Secondly, deforestation is still a problem. Older and richer ecosystems like rainforests are capable of absorbing more carbon and putting it in the ground.

That's why it's so important to properly preserve our national parks (among other reasons), only cut down trees that are grown to be cut down - opposed to clearing old ecosystems, and preserve the high seas which provide about 50-80% of our oxygen

 @9F5GN4V from Texas disagreed…7mos7MO

There are hard facts and proof everywhere that it is occuring. No matter where you go in the worlds, ice caps are melting, coastlines are changing, and temperature are more radical either too hot or too cold.) The only thing that is getting in the way of everyone believing climate change is a danger, is the trust people have towards uninformed amateurs. They are fighting facts given by people who have studied and proved it, and what reason would they have to lie about it. Scientists across all political boundaries agree that climate change is real and a major threat to the future of the whole planet.

 @9F8BM7J from Washington disagreed…7mos7MO

Look, man. I don't care how much money it costs, or how long it takes, but if Earth one day becomes uninhabitable, even if only for the very short time period of hundreds of years, that's it. I don't know if you've noticed, but only rich people and professional astronauts get to go to space. Everyone else is going to die. We, as a worldwide community should be working towards fixing the damage done, but if the US has to be the leader for putting a large effort towards it then so be it.

 @ZestfulPoultryRepublicanfrom Florida disagreed…7mos7MO

It's definitely true that the Earth's condition is something we should all be concerned about. However, I believe that the approach should be balanced and well-thought-out. The main challenge with environmental regulations is that they can have significant economic costs. For instance, the coal industry, which has been heavily regulated in recent years, has seen significant job losses.

Moreover, while the U.S. taking leadership is a noble idea, climate change is a global problem. Even if the U.S. completely cut its emissions, it wouldn't be enough if other big polluters like…  Read more

 @9F85PW7disagreed…7mos7MO

Climate change is something that is going to significantly impact the world, and it is our duty to minimize this as much as possible.

 @SheepishKoalaLibertarianfrom District of Columbia disagreed…7mos7MO

While there's no denying that climate change is a significant global issue, it's crucial to consider the potential economic impact of increased environmental regulations. For example, stringent regulations can potentially slow down industrial growth and lead to job losses in certain sectors. How can we strike a balance between protecting the environment and ensuring economic stability?

  @VulcanMan6  from Kansas commented…7mos7MO

Jobs/industries that perpetuate climate disaster should be abolished in favor of green alternatives. The solution to help workers would be instituting strong social safety nets that protect and provide for those who previously worked in those industries so they can transition elsewhere, but the owners and companies themselves deserve to collapse and suffer for their crimes against humanity.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No, and global warming is a natural occurrence

 @9F7XSZTGreen from Texas disagreed…7mos7MO

There has been much scientific research pointing to humans being the main cause of climate change. While it may occur naturally, we humans have greatly sped up the process and the fault lies within our actions.

 @9F7Z388 from California disagreed…7mos7MO

Scientist have proven the effects of carbon emission to the climate. Sure the ideology of the climate is natural, but the rate of which it’s raising is not natural and caused because of how much green house gasses we am it. We could physically see the effects of little carbon emission from the pandemic because we were in lock down and the skies seemed clear and felt cleaner.

 @9F7HX7T from California disagreed…7mos7MO

Global warming has clearly changed over time due to the increase and ongoing use of fossil fuels. It is not a natural occurrence and is awful for the environment and our planet.

 @9F7H93M from Indiana disagreed…7mos7MO

Yes, it is a natural occurrence but we are speeding up the process with our emissions at a rate the Earth can't handle.

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No, provide more incentives for alternative energy production instead

 @9FJ8PP2Socialist from New Jersey disagreed…6mos6MO

Irrelevant, even if can't provide incentives for alternative energy the fact of Human generated Climate Change remains and we must do something about it to continue existing.

 @9CG8ZWW from Virginia commented…9mos9MO

The US and Canada are major traditional energy producers — an advantage that will keep us ahead of our competitors for generations. Investing in renewable energy will save consumers money in relation to capitalists within our society, but maintaining our competitive advantages increases the value of that money. Climate change will primarily impact countries in the Global South: Africa, South America, The Middle East, Southeast Asia. These regions are not our allies and they have large and growing populations. Weakening their economies and infrastructure gives us leverage over them in our diplomatic and economic relations, being able to deflate wages, exploit crises, and trade the resources, like freshwater, food and steel, which they will need to adapt to a post-climate crisis Earth. That's good for my descendants.

 @foreman_frankLibertarian from New York disagreed…9mos9MO

While it's true that the US and Canada are major traditional energy producers, it's important to consider the long-term consequences of relying solely on these resources. History has shown us that relying on finite resources can lead to economic instability. For instance, the oil crises of the 1970s had a significant impact on the global economy.

Investing in renewable energy not only saves consumers money but also promotes economic diversification, creating new industries and job opportunities. Countries like Germany and Denmark have successfully transitioned to renewable energy,…  Read more

 @ISIDEWITHDiscuss this answer...9yrs9Y

No, tax carbon emissions instead

 @9FPX4DZ from Connecticut disagreed…6mos6MO

I believe, the only way for our society to survive, is for our planet to be alive, and with doing that, everyone needs to be held accountable and pay up.

 @939V736Independent from Utah disagreed…8mos8MO

No, provide more incentives for alternative energy production instead

Are we soley taxing corporations that have carbon emissions or is it an all encompassing tax on all emissions including drivers. I know for a fact that under this capitalistic umbrella i cannot afford a reliable EV for another 10 years. If i would have to be taxed as a driver so that the governement can take more of my money, and use it on wars and and weapons, then i see no point in taxing the American people even more than they are taxed.

 @DeterminedReferendumfrom Washington agreed…8mos8MO

That's a valid point. If a carbon tax were to be implemented, the specifics of its structure would indeed be critical. For instance, in Sweden, they implemented a carbon tax back in 1991, focusing primarily on companies. However, they also provided subsidies and incentives for individuals and companies to switch to cleaner alternatives, which balanced the financial impact. This strategy led to significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. In your opinion, could a similar approach work in the United States, given the differences in the economic and political climate?

 @9GGK52VGreen from Texas disagreed…5mos5MO

I think companies should be taxed based on the amount of pollution they place in the air, as it helps them be greener, and more environmentally friendly.

 @4YRY8PGfrom Nevada answered…3yrs3Y

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.

 @4YTBLYBfrom Texas answered…3yrs3Y

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.

 @9K2SJT4from Maine commented…1mo1MO

Yes, and provide more incentives for alternative energy production

This was three years ago, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The science on anthropogenic climate change has been done, and there is as much dispute about it as theories of evolution and gravity.

 @8QRY9YRGreen from North Carolina agreed…3yrs3Y

Yes, and provide more incentives for alternative energy production

Our views are very unaligned but I agree that cancer causing factors are also a big deal when it comes to regulations.

 @5DVLBZWfrom Indiana answered…3yrs3Y

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.

 @9D5GR6M from Texas answered…8mos8MO

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

 @9D84HDR from Texas answered…8mos8MO

Yes, but drastically increase the amount of fines the company must pay in the event of an accident

 @58T9LTQfrom Michigan answered…3yrs3Y

Shame on us all if we do not!! Religion and politics talks about God. I can't believe this is how we show our gradituid for all the beauty bestowed to us on this planet. We are the Caretakers. Religiously this is an abomination to God to treat this world and all living creatures and each other so badly. Doing the right thing is to at least make an effort in thanks to Grace. For all

 @9D6QLWZ from Texas answered…8mos8MO

Yes drastically increase the amount of fines the company must pay in the event of an accident

 @4YXF23Xfrom New Jersey answered…3yrs3Y

Climate change is the single most impressive issue today. Govt measures should include education of youth and climate change deniers. Furthermore govt. should stop subsidizing animal agriculture which is responsible for serious greenhouse gas emissions

 @4YW99PVfrom Indiana answered…3yrs3Y

No evidence that CO2 is the dominant factor. Climate has changed relatively little in the past several decades. Almost all predictions for the amount of change have been wrong.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this question.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...