In general, do you agree with the Trump admin’s decision to reverse the EPA’s 2009 greenhouse gas endangerment finding?

Yes (26%) – "You can’t predict the weather a week away and you expect me to believe 50 year doomsayers. Remember when we were all going to freeze in the 1970s because oil was going to run out. Now we’re going to melt from the greenhouse effect. How many times does the sky have to fall to see the real purpose: money."

• "The green new deal is one of the biggest hoaxs of the last 10 years. I applaud this administration for actually listening to the other scientists and making clear, level headed decisions to benefit the people who put them in office. It's about time!!"

"I agree with most of the roll backs. The over reach and abuse by regulator has to stop. Remember when you couldn't buy a gas stove? Or a gas furnace? Or your faucet had to be low flow? All over steps for the sake of nonsense. People have the power to choose with their purchases. If you believe the climate is warming due to human (or animal in the case of methane) and care about that change, then change your spending habits. If you think you waste water by turning on the faucet and can't control how much you turn the spigot, buy the low flow. Be a vegan if you believe cows cause climate change. Start with yourself. But, please respect my desire to live differently."

No (64%) – "We have only to look at how our environment improved during the Covid shutdown to know that greenhouse gases are detrimental to the environment. This puts human lives at risk, not only in the US but also around the world. And it’s all for money."

• "The US is one of the biggest GHG polluters and this will drastically affect the way environmental policy is enacted moving forward. This will set an unfortunate trickle down effect for all environmental laws."

"If politicians had had the backbone to make decisions based on science rather than politics, AKA money, the US would be leading the way in clean air, clean water, and clean energy. The amount of scientific documentation about the impact of pollutants on daily health is significant. Yet the science is ignored or sidelined because of lobbying and campaign financing laws. We are speeding to the point of no return with climate change and human health."

• "We need to be concerned about our environment. We only get one world to live in. We need to do our best to keep it clean even if things cost more because of the laws. However, the bulk of the cost shouldn't be passed to the consumer. It should be split between the manufacturer and the consumer."

"It’s a terrible decision for many reasons. First & foremost it sends the message that this administration believes that greenhouse gases does not endanger health & public welfare which undermines decades of research & scientific proof that it does. Next, it weakens the legal basis for climate protections-which means that power plants,vehicles & oil & gas operations will no longer be regulated. And last, it will create regulatory chaos & litigation among environmental groups, certain states & industries that have invested under existing rules."

• "The idea that indirect harm is not the responsibility of an actor is pretty bad in the small scale. It's hugely problematic in the long run for problems as large as emissions management. We're setting the next generations up for significant struggle."

Unsure/other (10%) – "I know this is an issue, but a reexamination of our part of these emissions shows that our country is not the problem. We are over burdened because Asia cultures refuse to regulate theirs."