Should the US first prioritize economic growth or climate goals when planning for the future?

📈 Economic growth (31%) – "Just like America is one of the most generous givers to charity, you can do a lot more from a position of strength (economic wealth) than you can from poverty ( investing into a new technology before you have a viable replacement in place). Uranium power production has come a long way since Chernobyl, we need to seriously consider it."

• "The free market, properly regulated, will work towards the best economic outcome, which is lower prices for greatest profits. Regulations will keep them within reasonable environmental standards, short of hamstringing growth and profitability."

"Economic goals can have a hard number analysis (outside of politicization) hence your article, whereas climate goals are 100% politicized, noted in your article as well – but also by the fact that US politicians seem to think if the US alone acts we will save the world. Meanwhile, if you look around the globe, not many other countries are striving towards climate goals. US can not act alone."

🌳 Climate goals (36%) – "In this particular example, generative AI is not a must-have. It seems very shortsighted to put our climate and possibly our own lives and livelihoods at stake simply to meet the short term AI demand. What the technology companies need to do is manage the expectations surrounding AI use and development in order to meet longer term goals, especially with the climate and safety threats that it poses."

• "Nothing else matters more than doing what we can to mitigate climate change. All other issues will be impacted, and all other problems will be dwarfed, as our climate continues changing."

"America's landscape is already being altered by energy consumption needs in the form of wind farms and solar farms in order to supplement America's energy needs. These solutions often have negative impacts on the communities in which they are placed, disrupting the culture and livelihoods of farmers. These decisions to develop the economy through more technological advances has far-reaching consequences, some of which we do not know the full extent of yet."

• "The economy is already not at its best, but what is the point of trying to fix and build an economy when it could be gone in the future due to climate change? If the sole focus was on climate change, I personally think there could be better inventions made to produce renewable, sustainable energy that could power the future of AI. It all has a very 'get rich quick' mentality which is not sustainable."

⚖️ Roughly equal balance between the two (33%) – "We have to balance the two. Without economic growth, climate action will wane. Without climate action, the economy will wither as we keep paying for more and more storms, droughts, etc."

• "It's going to have to be nuclear energy. It's the only real solution. If it's expensive, let the AI companies, which are making billions, pay for part of all of the plants. Windmills are far too harmful to wildlife and do not generate much energy. Solar is slightly better, but there are many environmental impacts from batteries and mining. Nuclear is the way to go. We have the technology today to make it much safer and cleaner than earlier iterations."

"Would it be hard to require these companies to generate their own power? Maybe we have a grid that is solely used by the public and certain energy dependent sectors use their own grid?"