Where does "global climate change" rank for you, amongst the issues for the next election?

Answer 1

Every other issue added up doesn't even come close to the importance of the environment! Wars, economy, healthcare, immigration, pension plans... who cares if there is no planet left to have all these issues on in the first place! The amount of money that has been spent in the middle east wars could just have easily have been put into the development of hydrogen power vehicles/factories and into the development of windmill farms in the mid west, solar farms in the sun belt and tidal generators in coastal bays of the north west to provide enough electricity to cut enough water into hydrogen to power the entire nation! Oil is only an issue if 300 million Americans feel it at the pumps. Replace those pumps with an alternative and there is no more need to toil in a far off land to little avail in order to try and control a resource which is only killing the planet anyways. Terrorism is fed off the back of oil rich economies. Take away the value of oil and you take the air out of their tires! If those warring resources had instead been poured into the development of new technologies, not only would this war have been moot in the first place, but it would also spur on an entire new sector that would REPLACE the oil industry. Whoever is the front runner in the development of hydrogen technologies will be a leader in an "environmentally friendly" world and will hold the patents to the technologies and be a leg ahead in the race to provide transportation for this entire new world! Now that is economy! What importance is healthcare if environmental catastrophes and increasing cancer and respiratory illnesses are allowed to run rampant? What importance is immigration if raising tidal levels and hurricanes create more refugees out of our own citizens within our own borders? What importance is a pension plan if by the time it is put to use the world is in ruins and the United States of America is no longer the great nation it once was. Now is the time to take action, and if any presidential candidate is serious about winning this election then they will PROMISE a "man on the moon effort" to do what is required to develop hydrogen technologies capable of fueling vehicles within their first term and then will put into place the renewable energies within their second term so that our vehicles and factories may run with zero carbon emissions by the end of their time in government. To do anything else would be to sell America and the world short!

Answer 2

#1 most important issue by far. In fact, I'd almost consider myself a 1 issue voter, that one issue being global warming/climate change. Unfortunately, the candidates are placing very little importance on this issue. John Edwards has come out with a plan to reduce the USA's greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the year 2050, and for that reason I support him. I haven't heard a specific plan from any other candidate.

It certainly doesn't help that zero environmental questions have been asked at the debates so far. That ticks me right the hell off.

Answer 3

Fairly high, in that I will check carefully to see if the candidates assent to it as normal and something we can live and cooperate with, and have freedom to move forward with plans to improve our society in cooperation with nature as we each see fit, or see it as wrong and unnatural and something that requires invoking fear and the infamous "draconian" efforts to change everything now to their idea of a tightly controlled utopian society and culture, where we kill the patient to cure the disease, and (secret) ties are made to big industries to profit specially from some of the controls and efforts.

I like politicians who live the life they want others too, and in general cooperate with nature and believe in mankind's advancement into the future. Who do not try to direct science. Who go back to see what the Constitution actually said; it is beautiful, and pattern their actions in accord. Looking for candidates who have proven they are moral and ethical gentlemen and gentleladies.

I dislike and do not vote for willingly those who distort the facts for their own gain, who are career politicians anxious to hold tight to their jobs and get more money and more and more control over their constituents, etc.

So yes, ranks high, and I will be looking to see who represents me and my ideas best, and absent any such, I will, in protest, vote for a 3rd party candidate, usually Libertarian, who will at least upset the status quo! There is a lot of status quo that desperately needs upsetting in Washington!!!

Hope you give us all the results of your survey!!

Answer 4

Very high. I want government leaders who will take the state of the environement seriously instead of starting a war for oil and throwing out all of the government agencies that support environemental issues.

Answer 5

Who cares about a stupid election to elect another do nothing imbecile. We are destroying the earth and if we as people don't stop it now very soon it will be to late. Start alerting everyone to the truth starting with you and use your time to help.

Answer 6

Very high. In answering another question earlier I did some research and it seems that only the threat of biological warfare comes higher.

Answer 7

I would not vote for any candidate who doesn't side with the majority of the global scientific community on this matter.

Answer 8

I consider it a non-issue. Global Warming is just a bunch of political hot air, designed to be used as a scare tactic to 'make' people do what is really in their own economic best interest, anyway. Oil is running out. We NEED to convert to switchgrass ethanol. And at $1.65 per gallon, people could buy their own acre of land and a still, and within 7 years reach breakeven.

The only real problem with that idea is that Congress made it ILLEGAL to convert old cars to ethanol. If that sounds insane to you, read my blog, then send a copy of it to your local Congresscritter. Maybe they'll wake up.

Maybe.

Answer 9

Not high since it's a natural event.

I don't think any government has control over the oceans which control the temperature of the planet. It takes over 300 years for the oceans to respond to changes in the GMST.

Answer 10

All the way at the bottom becasue I believe that global warming is just earth's natural cycle.