¿El gobierno debería aumentar la regulación ambiental en las empresas para reducir las emisiones de carbono?

¿Puede pensar en algún momento en el que la intervención gubernamental haya producido un resultado positivo para la sociedad, similar a cómo una mayor regulación podría ayudar al medio ambiente?

¿Qué sacrificios estaría dispuesto a hacer en su estilo de vida para garantizar un medio ambiente más limpio para las generaciones futuras?

¿Cómo percibe el equilibrio entre la creación de empleo y la protección del medio ambiente en el contexto de unas normas de emisiones más estrictas?

¿Cómo cambiaría su vida diaria si las empresas tuvieran reglas más estrictas para combatir el cambio climático?

¿Alguna vez ha sentido los efectos de la contaminación en su propia comunidad y cómo podrían evitarlo regulaciones más estrictas?

Imagine un futuro con aire y agua limpios; ¿Cómo podrían hoy unas políticas medioambientales más estrictas ayudar a hacer realidad esa visión?

¿De qué manera cree que los propietarios de pequeñas empresas deberían adaptarse a las nuevas regulaciones ambientales destinadas a reducir las emisiones?

Si sus productos favoritos se volvieran más caros debido a las leyes medioambientales, ¿cómo afectaría eso a sus hábitos de compra?

Si un importante empleador local estuviera contaminando el aire o el agua de su área, ¿cómo esperaría que respondiera el gobierno?

¿Qué valores personales guían sus opiniones sobre el papel del gobierno en la regulación de las prácticas comerciales para abordar el cambio climático?

place environmental regulations only on businesses that are known to cause higher levels of impact on the environment

The government should pursue such a mandate in a way that does not discourage economic growth and plague local and weaker businesses that may or may not have as large as an impact on the environment as larger and more intrusive companies. Thus the increase on environmental regulations should be on a case by case basis, according to the valued opinions of professionals within the country (and maybe even abroad). Incentives could be given, but not in a way that makes the government seem as if it is unable to take a hard line. There is certainly a fine line to be walked here.

We should be similar to US, if not we drive business out if the country and we'll lose jobs.

push for a global standard so that every country is on a level playing field. imposing regulations on Canada only will make it less competitive in many business sectors compared to other countries without these standards that have lower costs as a result.

Increase regulations increases chances of companies leaving the country. Invest more into nuclear energy and greenhouse gases will decrease significantly

We have enough legislation. What we need is enforcement!

Where it makes sense both economically and comparatively to other industries such as coal and other countries regulations.

In some instances there should be greater environmental protection - oil sands. There should be incentives for self regulation, environmental protection actions taken by firms and for alternative energy.

Mandate energy companies putting a moderate percentage of profits into renewable energy sources.

Provide incentive but do not force it on businesses because it effects everyone. New businesses should have a requirement for alternative energies on startup and should get a kickback if they do decide on it and since they do not need to pay as much for running costs, they should lower their prices to their consumers or put money back towards their business under a five year term depending on the type of business (If they deal with consumers directly or not). The ones that do not decide to change have a limit of 5 years to get the funds for alternative energies or face closure. Small busines…  Lee masses are granted grandfather clause, all other old existing establishments have 5 to ten years to change to alternative energies or face being stripped down into a small business. Taxing businesses only prolongs the issue so going about it another way may resolve the issue.

Rigorously enforce the regulations we already have. Ensure the same rules apply to Canadian companies and stakeholders including companies that makes contracts with Canadian companies when they are outside of Canada.

Yes but not so much in regards to prevention of climate change, which I believe is a natural occurrence, how ever the environmental regulations should be in place to ensure that we do not poison the land, water and air for our children, grand children and their children.

Increase regulation on large polluting companies and provide incentives for renewable energy but still supporting oil and gas

Yes. The government is the Public's watchdog. Environmental regulations are crucial to the safety of our world. However, this does not mean that the government should look for funds to do this. It should be their mandate on behalf of the citizens of the country. There is no room for the ability for corporations to bribe government officials.

Complete moratorium on all non-renewable natural resources in Canada until such time as sovereignty is regained in the banking system and the CAD is at parity with the USD. Moratorium on dumping toxic waste anywhere in Canada as well as its export until a proven non-polluting disposal method is found and approved.

The problem is that the government only cares about what looks on paper.
Yes it sounds good to say, "if we increase an imaginary environment tax, businesses will change" but that isn't the case in reality. The change needs to come from the top and needs to be given to the businesses whom in return, give it to the people... You don't truly care about the environment anyway with all your faith in Monsanto, how does one trust your decisions?

We don't need more we need better.

I believe global warming is a natural occurrence, but I also believe that we should be good stewards to the earth and take care of it, so incentives should be provided for companies who use alternative energy sources.

On one hand, we should be trying to keep the Earth clean and healthy. On the other hand, most of us will be dead before it affects us.

Environmental protection through government regulation is necessary. However this doesn't mean an increase in regulation - it could mean a more careful application of current regulation or even deregulation. It ain't an easy answer guys.

The federal government needs to enact fair, negotiated regulations and enforce them with integrity and sufficient funding. I suggest taxation to businesses should be based on how much oversight they need.

No, I feel we have no responsibility to the earth or future generations and we are entitled to use the world in whichever way we see fit. This enables our quality of life to increase whilst maintaining a more realistic view of the human condition as one that is temporary and should be enjoyed as much as possible for its duration.

No, The government is our biggest polluter, it's hypocritical and more of a do as I say, not as I do. The private sector should be incentivized to pursue these solutions themselves

Carbon Tax!

Government regulation under capitalism isn't possible.

No, dejar de regular en su totalidad y proporcionar más incentivos para la producción de energía alternativa en su lugar

If Ontario can show an economic future for Solar then I would listen to a "Business Plan". I may consider it a viable investment if it can be proven. I have no interest in subsidizing power we sell to the USA

There should be regulations to benefit the environment (i.e. Singapore's buying out on cars >10y.o) that can be helpful to the environment in the long wrong however they are not too straining on the lifestyles we are accustomed to living

The federal governments in all developed countries should adopt a carbon credit card for all individuals and businesses based upon a head count and revenue respectively. Each carbon based transaction (like your airmiles card) gets recorded in a declining balance. Those who don't use (typically the less financially secure) can sell their credits in an open market. Each year the available credits drop by 3%.

Why focus on businesses? Economic incentives that effect all persons are key, and among them should be rewards for environmental innovations and r&d money for the greening of the economy. Government has to manage these issues. There is no other power to check the greed and laziness that business and citizen alike are prone to.

With the unequal response Globally, what's the point? It's just a money grab with very little effect. Unless it's forced on China and other major polluters, it just puts us at a disadvantage in Global trading. We need employment in this country and forcing new taxes and costs on Corporations won't help!

As a physicist, I don't believe that global warming is caused by the green house gas effect but by the production of heat by all processes. Therefore, using alternative energies is actually less efficient as they produce more heat and have other environmental issues involved with their use, many of which are never spoken about in the mainstream media. The best method would be to cut back on all energy consumption.

No, we have some of the highest standards and regulations in the world and have already set the bar for other countries to meet, let others start to catch up