Strong majority oppose stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions - 279 participants
Sep 10, 2016
New Hampshire already participates in a cap and trade program through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which has an overall goal of reducing carbon emissions across the nine participating states to 45% of 2005 levels by 2020. However, the state has not passed any legislation mandating a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions beyond participation in RGGI, and RGGI does not cover other pollutants, such as methane. Read more about this issue. On September 10, Citizens Count, NH’s Live Free or Die Alliance decided to put the issue to its Facebook members, posting the question, “Should NH set stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions?”
Should NH set stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions?
Participation: 279 participants gave 712 responses.
A total of 90% of those participating gave a 'yes or no' response to the question. The remaining 10% of participants engaged in the discussion but did not give a yes or no response. In total, the LFDA received 712 responses from 279 individuals. (Click here for details on our methodology.)
What Participants Said
No: A strong majority, at 91% of ‘yes or no’ respondents, were opposed to setting stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
- “We already have very strict emissions laws… time for other states to step up. What is the point for a tiny state like ours to heavily regulate emissions if our neighbors do not?”
- “We aren't Southern California. We don’t have the same problems, and we can’t afford their ‘solutions’, which always amount to confiscatory taxation.”
- “Before we do more than is required, I want proof that we aren't doing enough, and that we're harming the environment… Let's fix what needs to be fixed, and stop spending millions on what doesn't need to be fixed.”
Yes: The minority of ‘yes or no’ respondents, at 9%, supported setting stricter limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
- “Yes, [or] let’s just keep polluting our planet so our children have nothing.”
- “This can be done progressively and incrementally.”
- “Yes, all the states should.”
Other: As noted above, 10% of those participating did not give a yes or no response, instead addressing their comments to related questions and issues. These included:
- Alternatives to state-level regulation: “It would be much, much better if action were taken on the federal level in the form of a revenue neutral emissions tax, so the market could work out how best to make reductions.”
- Where regulation should be focused: “Don't put this on the people that buy the cars, put it on the manufacturing of the vehicle. I'm sure they have the ability to produce a car with cleaner emissions.”
- Debating global warming itself: “No more junk science, please.”
*Editor selection of actual participant quotes.