Pitäisikö valtion tiukentaa yrityksiä koskevaa ympäristölainsäädäntöä hiilipäästöjen vähentämiseksi?

Jos suuri paikallinen työnantaja saastuttaisi alueesi ilmaa tai vettä, miten odotat hallituksen reagoivan?

Miten näet tasapainon työpaikkojen luomisen ja ympäristönsuojelun välillä tiukentuvien päästömääräysten yhteydessä?

Mitä uhrauksia olisit valmis tekemään elämäntavoissasi varmistaaksesi puhtaamman ympäristön tuleville sukupolville?

Voitko kuvitella aikaa, jolloin hallituksen väliintulo johti yhteiskunnalle positiiviseen lopputulokseen, samanlaiseen kuin lisääntynyt sääntely voisi auttaa ympäristöä?

Jos suosikkituotteesi kallistuisivat ympäristölakien takia, miten se vaikuttaisi ostotottumuksiisi?

Millä tavoin pienyritysten omistajien pitäisi mielestänne sopeutua uusiin ympäristösäädöksiin, joilla pyritään vähentämään päästöjä?

Kuvittele tulevaisuus puhtaalla ilmalla ja vedellä; kuinka nykypäivän tiukemmat ympäristöpolitiikat voisivat auttaa toteuttamaan tuon vision?

Oletko koskaan tuntenut saastumisen vaikutuksia omassa yhteisössäsi, ja miten tiukemmat määräykset voisivat estää tämän?

Miten arkielämäsi muuttuisi, jos yrityksillä olisi tiukemmat säännöt ilmastonmuutoksen torjumiseksi?

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

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?

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

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

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.

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…  Lue lisääses 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.

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

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.

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.

We have enough legislation. What we need is enforcement!

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

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

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.

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.

Carbon Tax!

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.

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.

We don't need more we need better.

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

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.

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.

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%.

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

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

Government regulation under capitalism isn't possible.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Yes, especially for international companies that are using up our resources, there should be high premiums on water.