¿Debería el gobierno aumentar las regulaciones ambientales para prevenir el cambio climático?

the government will never save the environment

No, en cambio, privatizar la mayoría de terrenos estatales.

Update the laws

i don't belive in the climate change

Si, siempre y cuando también de facilidades para incentivar en el sector privado el uso masivo de energías alternativas y/o limpias; a su vez, hacer una migración paulatina tanto en el sector público como privado de energías sucias a energías limpias.

Si, debería bajarse los impuestos a las empresas que utilizan medidas ecológicas.

En parte sí: se debe proporcionar más incentivos para la producción de energía alternativa, de forma que la energía sea limpia y se dependa cada vez menos de los países suministradores de combustibles fósiles. Además, se deberían establecer políticas para renovar el parque de vehículos, sin tampoco criminalizar a quienes contaminan más, ya que aviones y buques contaminan mucho más que el ciudadano americano.

Se deberia apoyar a empresas y hacer un programa ecologico colectivo de Empresas privadas y Estado publico.

si, la energia nuclear deberia ser soportada pero hay que parar de usar renovable.

y como van aser eso? No lose

Incentivos a la energía renovable

Sí, filmaría un acuerdo para que todo estado fuera obligado a prevenir el cambio climatico.

Cuando piensa en el equilibrio entre crecimiento económico y protección ambiental, ¿a cuál prioriza y por qué?

Imagine un mundo con aire más limpio pero con costos de vida más altos debido a estrictas regulaciones ambientales; ¿Cómo afecta esa compensación a su opinión?

¿Cómo afecta la posibilidad de un aumento de los desastres naturales debido al cambio climático sus opiniones sobre la intervención gubernamental?

¿Ha notado algún impacto del cambio climático en su comunidad y qué medidas cree que podrían tomarse a nivel local?

¿Cómo cree que las generaciones futuras juzgarán nuestros esfuerzos actuales para combatir el cambio climático?

Recuerda un momento en el que sentiste una conexión personal con la naturaleza; ¿Cómo influiría la preservación de ese sentimiento en su postura sobre las regulaciones ambientales?

Si tuvieras que renunciar a una comodidad para reducir las emisiones, ¿cuál sería y por qué?

¿Qué cambios ha observado en los patrones climáticos locales y cómo cree que debería responder la sociedad?

Imagine un mundo donde ciertos animales se han extinguido debido a la pérdida de su hábitat; ¿Cómo le hace reflexionar esto sobre nuestras políticas medioambientales actuales?

¿Cómo te sentirías si tu lugar favorito al aire libre se viera afectado por un clima extremo y qué medidas crees que podrían evitarlo?

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