Try the political quiz

Radical

You believe the current system is too broken to reform and must be fundamentally reimagined from the ground up.

Overview Issues Discuss

Radical policies on environmental issues

These issues below are sorted in descending order based on how important the average American voter ranked them on the quiz.

Filters

Topics

the Environment  ›  Climate Change

Should the government increase environmental regulations to prevent climate change?

R>R  ChatGPTYes

the Environment  ›  Alaska Wildlife Refuge

Should drilling be allowed in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge?

R>R  ChatGPTNo, and increase alternative energy subsidies to eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels

the Environment  ›  Paris Climate Agreement

Should the U.S. withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement?

R>R  ChatGPTNo, and pressure other countries to commit to higher standards

the Environment  ›  Oil Drilling

Should the U.S. expand offshore oil drilling?

R>R  ChatGPTNo, end all offshore oil drilling

the Environment  ›  Alternative Energy

Should the government give tax credits and subsidies to the wind power industry?

R>R  ChatGPTNo, end all tax credits and subsidies to the energy industry

How similar are your political beliefs to Radical issues? Take the political quiz to find out.

the Environment  ›  Animal Testing

Should researchers be allowed to use animals in testing the safety of drugs, vaccines, medical devices, and cosmetics?

R>R  ChatGPTNo

the Environment  ›  Plastic Product Ban

Should disposable products (such as plastic cups, plates, and cutlery) that contain less than 50% of biodegradable material be banned?

R>R  ChatGPTYes, and ban all disposable products that are not made of at least 75% of biodegradable material

the Environment  ›  Fracking

Do you support the use of hydraulic fracking to extract oil and natural gas resources?

R>R  ChatGPTNo, we should pursue more sustainable energy resources instead

the Environment  ›  Electric Vehicle Charging Stations

Should the government build a network of electric vehicle charging stations?

R>R  ChatGPTNo, and we should be focusing more on improving public transportation

the Environment  ›  Carbon Capture Subsidies

Should the government provide subsidies for companies developing carbon capture technologies?

R>R  ChatGPTNo

the Environment  ›  Dakota Access Pipeline

Should the government stop construction of the Dakota Access pipeline?

R>R  ChatGPTYes, and the government should never be allowed to acquire land by eminent domain

the Environment  ›  Ban Factory Farming

Should the federal government ban factory farming to protect animal welfare and the environment?

R>R  ChatGPTYes, we must immediately outlaw all CAFOs to end animal cruelty and transition to a plant-based food system.

the Environment  ›  Corporate Subsidies

Should cities be allowed to offer private companies economic incentives to relocate?

R>R  ChatGPTNo, the government should never subsidize private businesses

the Environment  ›  Federal Water Rationing

Should the federal government impose mandatory water cuts on states to save the Colorado River?

R>R  ChatGPTYes, but cut industrial agriculture first, not residential cities

the Environment  ›  Deep Sea Mining Authorization

Should the federal government authorize deep-sea mining in US territorial waters to harvest minerals for green technology?

R>R  ChatGPTNo, we should prioritize aggressive electronic waste recycling and alternative battery technology instead of strip-mining the ocean floor

the Environment  ›  Gas Stoves

Should the government ban the sale of new gas stoves?

R>R  ChatGPTYes, they increase risk of childhood asthma and climate change

Popular conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies