Should the Government take a more active part in preventing climate change?

Answer 1

Well yes I think they should, as an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that's the only way to slow down the damage we're doing. However no government will do it in a hurry as it will involve making themselves hugely unpopular and therefore losing votes

If they put a hefty tax on flying we'd complain that only the rich could afford it...
If they introduced compulsory recycling (as they have in one or two london boroughs) we'd complain about a big-brother state...

etc etc...
unfortunately it's not as simple as just 'doing the right thing'

Answer 2

Unfortunately they are politicians and they will use this issue as any other, something to be vocal about when it is in their interests. The chances are all three major parties will come out with positive policies regarding climate change before the May elections next year. Unfortunately the climate change drum will stop beating after the election.
For some reason they are so short sighted that they cannot see there could be many economic benefits in going down that road. It could give a boost to the local and national economy, create employment, allow diversity in failing manufacturing industries and create a globally exciting market if we were the first to get into it regarding serious research and development.

Answer 3

Yes they should, they could start by the planning laws for new build homes and buildings. All buildings should be fitted with double glazing, high quality insulation and solar panels as standard requirements, and be south facing. Transport should be improved tenfold and be subsidised as train fares are much to dear. Air tickets should have an extra pollution tax and no cheap flights as they are the biggest polluter. Tax breaks for people that do not own a car. Say NO to nuclear power . recycle, compost, the list goes on there is a lot more that could be done.
Not just the Government all of us should be doing something.

Can someone please tell Mr.Bush and his greedy Government

Answer 4

Yes, but they won't

Actually doing something costs money. Talking about it doesn't.

When the government signed up to the Kyoto agreement they agreed to cut CO2 emmissions by about 7 millions tons or something. Whatevetr amount it was they could have exceeded the target tenfold just by insisting that all new windows contained energy saving glass. That wouldn't have cost them anything but they didn't do it. Well, not till relatively recently as it is now part of building regulations.

Answer 5

Absolutely. One of the primary jobs of the government should be to protect our environment so we have access to clean air and water. Some progress is being made, but most of it is coming from state and local efforts. The feds need to help more!!

Chow!!

Answer 6

Definately. A first strike with multiple nuclear war heads on rapidly industrialising nations such as China should reduce oil usage quite reasonably.

Answer 7

Most definitely perhaps they could car share for a start, that what they proposed for us mere voters, or maybe just have one car per politician. Maybe just one holiday a year consisting of about a week unlike the several months they have now, lol.
Yes they should lead by example!

Answer 8

YES!!! They don't give a **** about anyone but themselves! the government wastes money on blowing up Iraq when it could prevent the entire world being harmed!

Answer 9

Yes! Very few corporations or individuals will make the necessary changes voluntarily. Government regulation is the only way it will happen.

Answer 10

Yeah! By not blowing out so much hot air all the time.