Il governo dovrebbe aumentare le norme ambientali per prevenire il cambiamento climatico?

Dovrebbe esserci una cooperazione mondiale, altrimenti rischierei di nuocere l economia quando in altri stati non rispettano l ambiente (Cina).

Certo come ridurre l uso di pesticidi e combattere con sistemi meno dannosi, per quanto riguarda l uso di energia elettrica sono contrario perché credo che le batterie creano problemi se non vengono smaltite e inoltre ho paura che la Cina potrebbe diventare potente con l utilizzo di energia elettrica.

Un'eccesiva produzione normativa può essere controproducente, il cambiamento climatico può essere combattuto con maggiori investimenti sulla ricerca. Magari tassando solo aziende e fabbriche che rilasciando CO2 nell'aria producono esternalità negative per la collettività.

Quando pensa all’equilibrio tra crescita economica e tutela dell’ambiente, a cosa dà la priorità e perché?

Immagina un mondo con aria più pulita ma con costi della vita più elevati a causa delle rigide normative ambientali; in che modo questo compromesso influisce sulla tua opinione?

In che modo la possibilità di un aumento dei disastri naturali dovuti al cambiamento climatico influisce sulla tua opinione sull’intervento del governo?

Hai notato eventuali impatti del cambiamento climatico nella tua comunità e quali misure ritieni potrebbero essere adottate a livello locale?

Come pensi che le generazioni future giudicheranno i nostri attuali sforzi per combattere il cambiamento climatico?

Ricorda un momento in cui hai sentito una connessione personale con la natura; in che modo preservare quel sentimento influenzerebbe la tua posizione sulle normative ambientali?

Se dovessi rinunciare ad una comodità per ridurre le emissioni, quale sarebbe e perché?

Quali cambiamenti hai osservato nei modelli meteorologici locali e come pensi che la società dovrebbe rispondere?

Immagina un mondo in cui alcuni animali si sono estinti a causa della perdita del loro habitat; in che modo questo ti fa riflettere sulle nostre attuali politiche ambientali?

Come ti sentiresti se il tuo luogo preferito all’aperto fosse colpito da condizioni meteorologiche estreme e quali misure ritieni possano impedirlo?

Se ne ha la possibilità si

Si, e cercare di evitare il più possibile le sostanze inquinanti, ponendo un tetto massimo di emissioni (a seconda delle necessità dello stato) e imporre gravi sanzioni in caso di violazioni, se troppo pesanti, si passa all'ergastolo

No because no matter what the United States does to help the environment, there are many countries who abuse the environment just like we do today. The United States could be the cleanest most environmentally friendly nation in the world but we would be the only one. If you are going to put more regulations do it for the whole world. The environment is more than just the U.S.

Not convinced there is global warming. That said, everyone should be good stewards of the earth God gave us to live on rather than be after that almighty dollar.

This is a way to kill jobs. Businesses should do all they can to preserve the environment while creating jobs.

Non-profits should be encouraged to spearhead this campaign through private donations

Anthropogenic global warming is a scam perpetrated by the United Nations.

Change it to global pollution instead of global warming and you'll get more bi partisan support to curb any root causes.

Global warming is a natural occurrence however we should still do what ever we can to protect the environment. The incentives need to be enough to warrant the business implementing them. I know a City who dumps sewage into a river and pays the fines because it is less than the cost to handle the sewage properly. That's messed up.

Environmental regulations to control pollution are fine, but not in the name of "global warming" or "climate change." While I believe these are natural climate cycles, there is no harm in seeking to prevent egregious pollution.

No, tax carbon emissions instead. But also tax other emissions so that activities show their true environmental cost. Then use the collected money for environmental restoration and preservation.

No EPA should not increase regulations to prevent global warming. The U.S. does plenty to reduce carbon emissions to the detriment of jobs and the economy. Pressure counties like China, India, and Brazil to reduce their carbon emissions. Never hear liberals complain about these countires.

government should stop the politics of environmental regulation; no funding for AGW; no Kyoto; no carbon tax; no secret treaties; no wealth transfer to UN or foreign despots

Climate change is natural phenomenon and has and continues to change regardless of man's activities. Government policies should be based on science (not consensus) aimed at mitigating the effects of climate changes.

I believe in the free market if the government instead of forcing people to go green makes their non greenness know people can choose to go with other companies costing the less green company money thus making them want to go green to beat the other companies.

This issue is based on politically motivated science. I don't think there is enough information to accurately make a decision.

Petroleum companies should not be allowed billions in corporate wellfare. The rest should take care of itself.

No, they need to reevaluate the thousands of laws and restrictions they already have and apply some common sense regulations.

Provide incentives for alternative energy production, stop subsidizing oil and gas and coal.

No, global warming is a natural occurrence. But it is good for businesses to be ethical. Provide fees for unethical environmental practices.

No, government regulations risk becoming corrupt and harming the people and things they are supposed to protect.

There is no Global warming! It's the natural cycle of the Earth. Right now, we're in a cooling phase, not warming.

Emissions are a problem, but many of the alternative energy solutions are worse. We fool ourselves into believing that an electric car is better for the environment because we don't see the emissions....but much of the power for electrics comes from coal. Furthermore, the batteries are often made with unrecyclable materials that are quite toxic. Fund the research, but never be satisfied with the results.

global warming cycles are normal, but adding incentives for alternate forms of energy should be consider to reduce any man made impact.

No, it is far more efficient to adapt to changing conditions, regardless of cause. Additionally, there are benefits to global warming including food production, reduced mortality due to cold weather, etc.

More unilateral action by our govt. while countries like China build things like huge canals through the rainforests and use the proceeds for a historic record peacetime military buildup is stupid.

Depends on the motivation behind those regulations and the science backing them. Track record so far is to find ways to increase tax with little or no environmental outcome - so NO, not without very good reason.

Some regulation is needed but we also need to ensure we don't make it so complicated that businesses cannot compete in the US. or make it a requirement that goods shipped to the Us have to have the same standards as they would here. This will ensure more jobs stay here

Penalties should be higher and stricter to keep environmental damage in check

Government should increase environmental regulations when bad actors are harming the environment. Same type of question back to you: Should government increase financial regulations to prevent global financial problems?

No, the government should increase environmental regulations to prevent the destruction of our environment. Do not politicize protecting the environment by tying regulations to global warming.

Truthful studies are needed and only then should regulations be implemented, but not just based on theory, and proof has not been confirmed in the last 50 years, they should go back 200 years to determine if the earth is heating up or just a 100 year cycle.

No. Environmental regulations will not prevent global warming.

If it can be proven that global warming exists, and is caused by the emission of greenhouse gasses, the biggest cause of global warming must be the government. Early automobiles were a novelty, only afforded by the wealthiest Americans. It was not until our government poured trillions into building new and improving existing roads did the auto industry flourish. Then, with the government creating housing projects and government subsidized housing, criminals found it affordable to live in our nation's wealthiest zip codes, which caused a fleeing to the suburbs to avoid the government caus…  Leggi di piùed criminal element. The thousands of pork barrel highway projects helped to facilitate the largest migration out of cities in the history of the world. Now the average commute to work is exponentially longer, because of our government. If the government really wants to slow the emission of greenhouse gasses, it should stop building and maintaining roads, stop paying the rent of criminals in our wealthiest zip codes, approve the building of nuclear power plants, and allow private citizens to continue making city life more enjoyable. Currently we have the big causer of emissions trying to regulate emissions? Don't make me laugh.

Global warming is more natural than the ideologues would have you believe. I am for alternate energy but not before it is an economically viable solution. I do not approve of the govt forcing policies and technology before they are efficient and affordable. Pushing policies before affordable efficient alternatives exist push more people into poverty and dependence on the govt

Yes, the government should always be looking to increase environmental regulations not because of Global Warming but because it is the best thing for the earth, but in balance with economics, technologies and incentives for American companies to grow. And truly for the environment and not to win votes or make friends wealthy.