Earth Day poll results!

Festival2-WeeklyPoll-Header

When laws are made for the right reasons, they help to keep people safe – however, some people argue that laws unnecessarily restrict people’s freedoms and that people should have the right to choose how they behave.

This week we want you to think about the question:

For this poll we asked you to share how you felt about the following statement:

What’s worse: too many climate laws? Or not enough climate laws?

The results are in and here's what you thought:


Earth day

Comments (223)

You must be logged in with Student Hub access to post a comment. Sign up now!

  • I want more climate laws so that we can reduce our carbon footprint and bring down the earth's temperature reducing global warming.

    1. Hello vibrant acorn, I agree that we need more climate laws to assist reduce our carbon footprint, but what legislation do you believe could help us lower our carbon footprint?

      1. I agree because...Poll finds people have the wrong climate action priorities for tackling carbon emissions.
        Most people overestimate the impact of less effective green actions.
        We also underestimate the proportion of people displaced by climate and weather-related disasters.
        If you think recycling as much as possible is the best way to cut your carbon footprint – think again. It’s actually a fair way down the list.

        Having fewer children is one of the most effective actions in reducing future greenhouse gas emissions – but this is not widely understood, a new survey finds.

        Have you read?

    2. I'm not sure about this because some people are trying their best to reduce their amount of carbon footprint. Others don't even do an effort. It wouldn't be fair for people who do try their best. We have to find the middle.

    3. Hello vibrant acorn I understand your concern, but one if the worst things contributing to climate change is driving and restricting that would put many people out of jobs including people in my own family , and in the cost of living crisis you need all the money you can get and some families including my own would severely suffer without a travel cheque and I understand that is not something you mentioned but if climate laws are inflicted I believe that travel or petrol use will be reduced, and on another note many poor or low economy countries will suffer greatly if climate laws are introduced and letting them opt out will simply allow other high economy countries to not obey said rules. I understand that global warming and climate change is a severe issue but inflicting rules is far to extreme.

      1. Yes, this is true but I still believe climate change rules are necessary. In terms of the cost, an option would be to go on strike and petition the government to provide and avoid having people living on the streets. However climate change rules must be in place, these rules can be gradually introduced to prevent drastic expenses in countries that depend on petrol. The rules can't be as agressive as the ones limiting peoples usage of cars to 3 times per week and flights to 10 a year as this is not a habit we are used to. Instead as I mentioned earlier, a gradual introduction of rules would work better.

        1. An interesting point you have made here, can you develop your idea further by identifying what rules might be introduced and put in place to tackle climate change?

          1. Rules are guidelines and instructions guiding behaviors in a particular society. They are created to manage behaviours in such a country or society with different countries having different rules.
            However, It will be difficult to stop global warming overnight but we can have rules that guides our behaviors tending to slow the rate of emissions and limit the amount of global warming by carbon footprint of heat trapping gasses. This can be achieved by reducing and recycling energy and most importantly we should have rules that encourage planting of trees because as trees grow, they help stop climate change by removing corbin dioxide from the air, storing carbon in the trees and soil and releasing oxygen into the atmosphere.

      2. I understand your concerns about the impact of climate laws on jobs and the economy. It is true that reducing carbon emissions will require changes in our transportation and energy systems, which could have implications for some industries and workers. However, it is also important to recognize that the effects of climate change itself, such as extreme weather events and sea level rise, can also have significant economic impacts.

        There are also opportunities for new jobs and industries to emerge in the transition to a low-carbon economy, such as in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and sustainable transportation. Governments can also implement policies to support workers and communities affected by the transition, such as retraining programs and economic development initiatives.

        Regarding the impact on poorer countries, it is true that they may face greater challenges in transitioning to a low-carbon economy, but they are also often the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The international community has a responsibility to support these countries in both adapting to the effects of climate change and transitioning to sustainable development pathways.

        In any case, addressing climate change is a global challenge that requires collective action from all countries, including high-emitting ones. All countries have a responsibility to take action to reduce their emissions and contribute to the global effort to limit warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius.

    4. I agree because... If there are not enough climate laws, people will continue to do things that will affect the climate. Activities like burning coal and trees, cutting down trees, livestock farming , exhaust gases from cars & generators etc are some of the human activities that produces carbon footprint which affects the climate change.
      These activities are very dangerous which can lead to :
      a. changes in rainfall pattern
      b. rising sea levels
      c. loss of wild life species
      d. stronger storms and hurricanes
      e. high temperatures
      f. spread of diseases etc
      In Nigeria, climate change has led to seasonal drought and desertification, excess flood which has affected agricultural activities and caused loss of shelter
      I believe if we have enough sustainable climate laws in place, thing will change for the better.

    5. Hello vibrant acorn! I agree with your comment because the more rules there are, the more strict the rules will become the lesser the climate change. As we all know, we cannot stop climate change completely, but we can reduce it in many ways. some of the ways include; using electric cars instead of using the cars that use petrol.

  • When we have too many climate laws some of us can't afford it, because as a human being even too much good thing is not good for us.
    FACT: too many climate laws also affects peoples right.
    Although it affects peoples right it is also important to obey them, because if they are not obeyed the Earth will not be a save place to live in anymore.

    1. Can you explain how more laws around climate change might affect people's rights with examples?

      1. If there would be too many climate laws it may seize our 'Right to movement'
        REASONS:
        People would be band from using modern means of transportation e.g cars, bikes, trucks e.t.c.
        and some people will be too lazy to stroll or use the traditional means of transportation e.g horses, camels etc and then will decide not to go anywhere.
        People would also be band from going to the outer space, because using of 'ROCKETS' release a lot of smoke, and due to this people (SCIENTISTS) will not have more knowledge about the outer space.

        1. I agree with you Climate change threatens the full and effective enjoyment of a variety of human rights, including the right to life, the right to water and sanitation, the right to food, the right to health, the right to housing, the right to self-determination, and the right to culture , and the right to development.

      2. After listening to my colleague's comment, this made me think, and after thinking and researching, I found that the laws applied to climate change can actually affect human rights!
        From my point of view, I believe that climate change laws should be based on the most important human rights that no individual can be deprived of. If we do this, the result will be an equal society!
        We come back to answer your question, how can laws affect human rights?
        It affects human rights with the right to life, the right to live in safe housing, the right to food, the right to health, and the right to many things. If we ignore them, the consequences will be dire.

      3. For the sake of the article, I am a book reader and I cannot pass my day without devoting a specific part of it to reading books and novels. Suppose that a law has been put in place to reduce the use of paper and replace it with something less harmful to the environment, given that we get the leaves from the branches of trees and we have to cut these Trees to obtain paper. If this law is put in place, authors and writers will not be able to publish more paper books, and their only solution will be to publish them on the Internet. I do not like to read from the Internet. I like to hold the novel in my hands and be away from the world of the Internet a little. The climate is a reason for negating the right to learn freely, and the right to enjoyment as well.

        1. Does every right have equal weighting? For example, might we have to give up some things we like or prefer in order to protect the right to life and protecting our planet?

          1. Your question really made me think. I think that the emotional aspect is difficult to choose in the face of global challenges such as climate change. For me, truth should overcome emotion, but if I think about it, I will find that it is difficult for a person to give up what he loves in order to get rid of another bigger problem. If I am put in a situation and I had to choose, I will not choose directly. At first, I will try to find other solutions that contribute to satisfying both parties, meaning that I find a solution that makes me not lose what I love and at the same time reduce climate change,For example, we use high-quality recycled paper for books and novels instead of cutting trees to get this paper, but if the only option is to give up what we love in order to get rid of climate change, I will do that because if climate change worsens, I will not be able to enjoy what I love or I practice life naturally, rest first and then enjoy, and in order to rest, climate change must be reduced in the first place!

          2. Your question is beautiful. The power of emotion has a great rule over us, but these laws concern the planet and its safety and the safety of those living on it. Therefore, it is possible to abandon emotion and focus on the safety of those on the planet. For example, if we set laws, we can abandon emotion, but we can adapt to the situation.

          3. I think what you said is true..Maybe we give up things we love to find the best in the future...we have to follow the laws because they help us later to overcome some difficulties given that the population of the planet is too many in relation to the planet..and therefore the increase in Co² and the lack of trees and urban sprawl ...
            We may give up a lot of things we love or a few things, but what we will find later is the best.
            Then, if we give up the things we love in order to preserve the environment..I think most of these things are bad because they will be stopped due to the protection of the planet...
            It is certain that bad things will push people to abandon them.... As for good things, they may find it difficult, but with time they will get used to..

        2. I disagree because... People to leave the trees to grow if we cut down the trees to get paper we won't get fruits and shade and it will cause pollution because without trees we cant produce oxygen. We need to care for the tree like we care about ourselves because trees are living things too. Even the factories that produce paper causes pollution
          I would suggest that you should read the book you have not yet read as there so many books out there you are yet to read.

      4. Well you will say my answer , Suppose a law was established To reduce the use of no paper from trees to replace it with something harmful to the natural environment Because we always get the paper from the trees But we always have to cut down these poor trees Let's get paper . What will happen if this law is applied?
        Firstly , Authors will not be able to write more novels, books and stories .
        And the only solution to this problem is to be published on the Internet , But I don't like reading stories online.
        I prefer to hold the novel, story or book in my hands and stay away from the Internet.
        And I discovered that the climate is the reason for the lack of freedom , And the right to learn it.

      5. I agree that there should be climate laws because they regulate the state and help advance society and preserve the environment, but these laws must take into account human rights, for example they must move safely and provide them with water and healthy food and many others. But we as humans must also preserve the environment not to face the crisis of climate change

      6. I do not agree with this opinion, because if we had a lot of laws for the climate, people would realize the severity of the severity of the climate and its negative effects, and we would not be in this situation. So that we do not face climate problems that affect our lives and make them worse

    2. If we had a lot of climate laws, people would have realized the seriousness of climate change and its negative effects, we would not have reached what we are now in terms of the negative effects of the absence of climate laws on us and the environment.

    3. I disagree with this, this is because more climate change laws could help humans stop the earth from overheating. It is true that it is very important to obey these laws, but it wouldn't take away from the people's rights. Yes it will stop them from doing various acts but this is what could put the earth at rest from overheating and could also help various animals for going extinct due to climate change.

      1. I agree with you but don't you think we need to take a break because if we are trying to stop the Earth from overheating don't you think that we might overheat our self for us to be working without rest because if there would be to many climate laws we might just be working always without resting.

  • There are too many climate laws because there is too much emphasis on protecting the enviroment with out proper consideration for economic well-being of less industrialized countries.

    1. This is an interesting and different viewpoint. Can you explain what you mean by giving some examples? Are there ways to protect the environment AND drive economic growth?

      1. Thank you for your comment Ways to protect the environment and drive economic growth There is a relationship between them, such that the economy is how to choose the best use of resources, and the environment represents these resources In terms of the economy, it is possible to benefit from protecting the environment by imposing penalties on anyone who destroys the environment or throws papers on the streetsThus, the state benefits from this money, including protecting and preserving the environment

      2. Its an interesting question one of the ways of prevention and growth is to replace fuel with solar energy as this will increase the economy and also prevention as consumes a lot of it
        Also if we look at the future we will find that humans will become helium an essential thing and this will result in development and protection

      3. " Environmental protection and economic development are not in conflict. Environmental protection is not a burden but a source for innovation. It can increase competition, create jobs and lifts the economy."
        This question made me to do a lot of research. Economic growth will be erode without sufficient environmental safeguards, and environmental protection will fail without economic growth. The earth's natural resources place limits on economic growth. These limits vary with the extent of resource substitution, technical progress, and structural changes.
        For example, in the late 1960s many feared that the world's supply of useful metals would run out. Yet, today,there is a glut of useful metals and prices have fallen dramatically. Some resources such as water, forests, and clean air are under attack, while others such as metals, minerals, and energy are not threatened. This is because the scarcity of metals and similar resources is reflected in market prices.
        Economic and political institutions have failed to provide these necessary incentives for four separate yet interrelated reasons:
        1) Short time horizons
        2) Failures in property rights
        3) Concentration of economic and political power
        4) Immeasurability and institutional uncertainty.
        The economic systems of the world should be managed so that societies live off the dividends of the natural resources, always maintaining and improving the asset base.Promoting growth, alleviating poverty, and protecting the environment may be mutually supportive objectives in the long run, but they are not always compatible in the short run.
        Poverty is a major cause of environmental degradation , and economic growth is thus necessary to improve the environment. Yet, ill-managed economic growth can also destroy the environment and further jeopardize the lives of the poor.
        Many contemporary economists and environmentalists argue that the value of the environment should nonetheless be factored into the economic policy decision-making process. The goal is not necessarily to put monetary values on environmental resources it is rather to determine how much environmental quality is being given up in the name of economic growth, and how much growth is being given up in the name of the environment. A danger always exists that too much income growth may be given up in the future because of a failure to clarify and minimize tradeoffs and to take advantage of policies that are good for both economic growth and the environment.

      4. There are several ways to protect the environment and drive economic growth. Some of them include
        Changing our vehicles to electronic vehicles. The science shows that a shift to electric vehicles (EV) will play a crucial role in reducing carbon emissions, a key cause of climate problems. In 2019, the transportation sector accounted for 29 percent of total carbon emissions. But, a major barrier to people’s reluctance to buy an EV is the relatively limited availability of charging stations. The legislation tackles this problem with a game changing investment in a national network of EV chargers. Public transport is a key way to reduce emissions; one estimate finds that U.S. bus transit emits an estimated 33 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than the average U.S. personal vehicle. And, of course, investments in hybrid electric buses would further decrease greenhouse gas emissions. The legislation makes the largest ever investment in public transit, modernizing and expanding transit and rail networks. This move will particularly benefit communities of color, who are especially likely to rely on public transportation.
        Another aspect that will reduce climate change and improve economic growth is the power sector. The electric power sector accounts for around one fourth of Nigeria greenhouse gas emissions because it is largely fueled by coal and natural gas. Investments in clean power such as electricity produced by solar and wind should reduce that impact.
        I think when these are practiced, the environment can be protected as well as improving the economic growth

    2. Yes, the point of all these laws is, of course, to protect the environment, because the environment is the place from which we derive food and drink, the suitable place to live, and it is also the place where all the various living creatures live, which have benefited us a lot
      And until now,it still helps us

  • In my country there not enough climate laws so people cut down trees and burn them also lack of electricity makes people to use generators which pollutes the air and leads to climate change.

    1. @harmonious_river if your country implemented more climate law, how do you think they could get people to follow them?

      1. I think that it will be through the government of the state, and it is possible for someone to come out to raise awareness of the importance of setting these laws, so people feel that their lives are in danger, so all laws will be implemented because a person in the personal and public interest can abandon the emotional side

    2. Yes, if there were sufficient climate laws, people would not have taken these measures, because they are actions that lead to disturbances in the climate and change, which leads to many climate-related problems.

  • The reason why I chose that there are not enough climate laws is because there aren’t enough climate laws in my country so people dump trash all over use to much generators which makes smoke that harms the environment and people are cutting and burning trees, forests and bushes at a rapid pace which is not good for the environment .
    So that’s the reason why I chose not enough climate laws

    1. I agree because in my country they do the same thing, when you enter the city, you can see trash on the floors everywhere you look, and as I am writing this on my personal computer, it shows that there is polluted air in my area right now. We need to create more laws and get other countries to join us in this endeavor.

  • I believe that the presence of many climate laws is better than the absence of them, because they help avoid pollution of the environment and the factors that negatively affect it, and they also try to protect us from the attitudes of actions that we spread to the environment.

    1. Yes, but on the other hand, not everyone may coexist with it, because of health or social problems, and perhaps economic ones, as when amazing_horse said: “Also lack of electricity causes people to use too much generators which makes smoke that harms the environment.” This is an economic problem that the state suffers from, which led to the cutting off of electricity or may affect their rights. For example, a scientist who wants to conduct research or discuss research in another country needs more than ten trips in order to be able to travel and conduct his work, so I think that these laws have two sides , positive and negative

    2. We have a saying from my hometown that says, "The best is in the middle" It means that the best thing a person can do is moderation in choosing judgments, and in my opinion it is the best solution and not putting too many climate laws or even reducing them, as both of them will produce bad effects.. First, because too many laws put pressure on the person and increase the worries of his life and restrict his freedom, like putting a bird in a cage and will make him want to get rid of these laws in any way to be free.
      Secondly, if there are not enough laws, The human race will end and the planet Earth will become extinct together. As a simple illustration, you have the ozone hole that resulted from increased carbon And we all know what its effect is on humans, plants and animals, but rather on the whole earth, so imagine if the laws that protect this situation from deterioration disappeared, of course the answer is that the layer will be completely destroyed ،Harmful radiation will enter the planet and kill all forms of life on it So let's make our own solution and not let others restrict our thoughts and set limits to our choices, such as choosing to over-lay the laws or not to put them at all, let's choose and make the best for ourselves and be moderate in that .

  • Not enough climate laws in my country will lead people to cut down and Burn trees indiscriminately. Also lack of electricity causes people to use too much generators which makes smoke that harms the environment . The smoke pollutes the air and weaken the ozone layer. We need to make more climate rules to protect earth and what lives on it.

    1. I agree! We need to install more environmentally friendly electricity sources such as hydroelectricity. If more countries could find a way to use more hydroelectricity or other renewable energy sources, we might have a chance to reverse climate change.

  • For me the worst is that there are not enough climate laws because people with so many laws will have a chance to choose the best among the worst of these laws and you will see which of these laws you can live with and accept There are a lot of strict laws that are put in place by the countries Like using the car three days a week yes there will be a lot of opponents because this will negatively affect their business, which will push people to think in a better way by saying that perhaps if the means of transportation worked on solar energy, it would be better.

    1. I agree with your opinion that people should live with laws to protect our environment. You know, "Need is the mother of invention", which means that when we are put in a difficult situation, we work hard for a solution. So I totally agree with you that we can follow laws and stop using the things that harm our environment.

  • My choice is that there be many and strict climate laws to preserve the environment. If they are not strict laws, people will persist and not care about the matter. I am completely convinced that whoever does not fear punishment does not behave well. Strict laws force everyone to abide by them. Compliance with the laws leads to a successful outcome. Logically, it is unfair to find people who follow the rules and curb their freedom to the behalf of the planet. On the other hand we find people who live without caring about their lives, others or the environment. So, laws gaurantee justice.

    1. I agree with you in some cases, but there are more tactful ways, and therefore the guide is attracted more quickly according to the behavior presented, and we must also respect the rights of others and not prejudice them

      But if this deal does not work for some, we will use strict laws to bind them.

  • For me, I think that the two options are not correct at all. If there are many climate laws, people will not abide by them, and it will become just ink on paper and writings, and if there are not enough laws, the planet will be destroyed, so we have to find a middle solution, because we must put in place sufficient laws, but At the same time, we are keen on the citizens' commitment to them. For example, we have to conduct polls on the development of laws, and this must be done after clarifying the dangers, because if the people are consulted about the laws, they will abide by them. Thus, we imply the population's commitment to the laws without complaining.

    1. @wise_shrimp, thanks for your comment. Am I right in saying you think only climate laws the the majority of the population agree with should be implemented? What do you think the pros and cons of doing this are?

  • In my opinion, it is better to have a lot of laws, because not putting strict laws works on the laxity of society in general, and this leads to a threat to the climate. Non-compliance with the laws has damages, including people uprooting trees, and trees have an important and significant impact on the climate, as they consume carbon dioxide, which contributes to the well-known environmental impact. Acid rain, which is harmful to trees

  • I cast my vote for "not enough climate laws" because I think that climate laws need to be somewhat more and strict to protect our earth for the future generation

    1. @eager_atmosphere can you give any example to support your answer? Maybe research for something in your country you think could be improved with a stricter climate law.

      1. Actually, in India we have many acts regarding climate which are being unknown and there are people who even doesn't know, there are acts for it.As we students studying about those, it's known to us .If something to be implemented or changed in our society,it should be strict enough.For instance,I want every individual to plant atleast a tree in a year.If they aren't doing it ,they are asked to pay fine.Many people don't want their money to be spent in the name of 'fine',so they start to plant . Implementation of laws like this can make a difference.Small steps bring great achievement.

        1. That's interesting! Are there any other climate laws in India?

          1. First of all THANKYOU and yes ,there are many other climate acts in India. According to Indian Forest Act, the penalty for cutting down a tree without the permission from the government is Rs.10,000 or 3 months imprisonment.It may extend upto 1 year. The reason to cut the tree should be acceptable,only then the government allows to cut the tree . So people fear to cut the tree as like they wish .

      2. In my country climate conservation is something they don't care about
        everyone throws their waste on the ground and they don't care how much it effects the climate .
        We really need strict law to git rid of this.

        1. @eager_atmosphere that's a great example, well done on the research! @poetic_fig do you think a fine like this would encourage people to follow climate laws? Why/why not?

        2. This is due to the state and the municipalities in the state, if they provide waste containers everywhere and make banners, and if they work to educate people and force them not to throw waste by paying financial fines for everyone who dumps waste on the street alone, everyone is committed to cleanliness

  • In my country Nigeria , i believe not enough climate laws causes climate change . Burning down of trees is highly practicalized and deforestation is a major factor contributing to climate change. this affects our environment which causes global warming. having this laws in my country will help slow down climate change.

  • I think it is good that there be laws for the climate or even laws for the land. For example, there should be laws to reduce pollution and for commitment not to throw garbage on the ground in order to reduce waste, and for the people to adhere to the laws. Public places must be preserved and garbage should not be thrown in them or even on the beaches and in the sea. Everything must be allocated separately and waste distributed everywhere in the streets and public places in order to become a clean and pollution-free society

  • Me I feel like we are looking at two situations here a situation with too much climate laws and one with less and to me I feel like both apply in a way that considering facts of course when they are laws responsible people like the scientists and Patriots will obviously abide by the laws. But also when these laws are not enough atleast have a brief talk and tell them the effects of climate change and the activities that they do that lead to it and leave it at that and if they continue doing those activities just let the do so so that they can release the effects of climate change and if they are responsible enough them trust me they will stop carryingout those activites.

  • In my country there are not enough climate laws because there is lack of electricity, burning down of trees, water pollution, air pollution and the lack of electricity causes the use of generators and it pollutes the air massively and it’s lead to climate change.

  • I believe that strict laws restrict people's freedom and their lives will become difficult and they will migrate to another country. I think that easy and simple laws are better with little punishment for those who violate them, and I think people will be happy like this. This is to encourage the ones who violate to follow the rules.

    1. Interesting point cheeful_dusk, how would you relate this back to climate laws?

  • There are too many climate laws because;
    Even though saving the environment is good, that does not mean the Earth and its inhabitants will be saved because there would still be problems like wars, kidnapping etc. So instead of making more rules(even though rules are good), I think people should focus on making more rules that can save people's lives.

    1. Outspoken_Eagle you mentioned there are too many climate laws, are these enforced enough? What rules can save peoples lives and how do you encourage people/businesses to follow them?

      1. For your first question, Yes some of the climate rules that have been made are being enforced but not enough because climate change is still happening. For example, in some places normally it would have started raining, but due to climate change, the weather just keeps getting hotter.
        For the second question, A rule that I think is meant to be made that could save people's lives is for governments around the world to ban the production of harmful substances like cigarettes. As of 2021, an estimated 20% (which is equivalent to 1.3 billion people worldwide) are smokers. Most of the are likely to die young, so if this rule was to be made it would save some lives.
        And for your third question, one of the ways that I think will make people abide by these rules is to make punishments and penalties (like fines, shutting the organisations down, etc ) for violators of these rules.

        1. Some interesting points! Do you think that education could be part of making people abide by rules? Or do you believe punishment is the most effective ways?

          1. Yes, I think that education could be part of making people abide by rules, But some people may still decide to disobey the rules even after learning about them. So I think punishments/penalties should only be administered to people who know the rules and decide to go against them.

            1. Some great points you have raised, I agree with your suggestion that punishments should only be administered to people who know the rules and then make an active decision to go against them.

  • I am against rigid rules. I see that these rules instill fear and guilt. They want to have a tax, regulate and remove our freedom. Governments should find alternatives instead of what they find harmful to the environment. We need to live freely without their rules. Their wars spoil the planet more than us!

    1. But do rules not benefit the majority? If we don't have rules, how do you motivate people/companies to become more sustainable? Can you suggest some ideas?

  • In my country, there are not enough climate laws so many people do things without consideration. An for the ones in place are not really followed.
    Example people still use fire wood to do many things so it release toxic carbons in the air reducing ozone layer, people fall trees not thinking of our ecosystem, the animals which live in it and the damage it will cause, people mine illegally, they live behind land mines which eventually cause erosion. So in this case low climate laws are bad.

    1. Why do you think some people do not follow climate laws?

      1. In my opinion, people don't follow the climate laws being laid out because some people especially in the rural areas are not even aware of existing laws.
        Where the people are aware there is weak enforcement so they are not really punished for breaking the law.
        An example is the law about felling trees people still practice deforestation for the purpose of charcoal or firewood because they are not aware of the law or they feel they can get away with it by not being punished.

        1. Yes, so the solution here is to keep lawmaking in moderation, not too much, not too little. And also to create awareness about the impact of our actions on the planet. The main reason why people in my country do what they do to affect the planet is ignorance. This could be solved if those of us who are enlightened about things like this would come together to create awareness among those who don't know.

      2. Because they think this is control but the opposite because the law is put in place to be applied and not to reject it for in order to obtain a safe and protective state we must apply the law

      3. Hello..
        It is possible that some people do not follow climate laws for reasons including /
        1- They may think that these laws restrict their freedom and express their opinion.
        2- They may be people who are not interested in climate change and its negative effects.
        3- Such laws may establish in a person's mind that adherence to the law is a kind of weakness and lack of resourcefulness, and that the smart and strong are the ones who do not abide by any law.
        and other stuff...
        Of course, people have to abide by the laws, and it is the duty of the state to impose laws that are positively compatible with society so that no problems arise when it is imposed...
        This is my opinion and I would love to hear your opinions as well

  • Laws are beautiful and deserve to be implemented. I am a person who loves laws, but isn't it good to have laws that are compatible with the requirements of society?  Our duty as human beings is to implement the law and reduce the carbon footprint to protect our environment.
    So, my question is: Do you think that their must be a strong relationship between earth dwellers inclination towards implementing a law or not?
    In other words, do you think that people must agree on the law first in order to implement it? And should they participate in issuing laws?

    1. You make a really interesting point poetic_nature!

    2. You asked good point for disscusion. I think that participating people in making laws that will solve the problem or avoid its happening will make people obey the laws of their own free will because they will be convinced of laws usefulness but it's difficult to share all people in that and they may have different opinions and contradictory suggestions.
      So that I suggest this will be done by the parlament (A class elected in the interest of the people by the people).

    3. In my opinion, people should agree on this law, because if everyone does not agree on it, then not everyone will implement it. Rather, it will only be implemented by those who want laws. Of course, there are many people who do not agree that there are strict laws.

      1. So, does this mean that people only follow laws if they want to? Are there other reasons why people follow laws?

        1. In my opinion, sometimes the government may have to force people to abide by some laws because their lack of sense of responsibility increases the seriousness of the situation. People must be made aware, as there are many ways to convince them of these laws. On the other hand, the government should study the applicability of laws before issuing them.

        2. We cannot say about people in general, but some people do not abide by the laws because they do not care about their environment and climate and do not realize the disasters that will result from their neglect and non-compliance with the laws because they feel that the laws restrict them .... Of course, some reasons make people follow the laws, including love for the homeland and their awareness for the disasters that will happen to their homeland, and everyone must abide by the laws of their country.

        3. While personal motivation is one factor that can influence why people follow laws, there are many other reasons as well. Here are a few examples:

          Fear of punishment: Many people follow laws because they are afraid of the consequences of breaking them. They may fear being arrested, fined, or imprisoned.

          Social norms: People often follow laws because they want to be seen as good citizens and conform to social norms. They may believe that following the law is the right thing to do, and they want to be seen as moral and responsible individuals.

          Respect for authority: Some people follow laws because they respect the authority of the government and believe that it is their duty as citizens to obey the law.

          Protection: Laws are designed to protect individuals and society as a whole. People may follow laws because they believe that they will be safer and more secure if everyone follows them.

          Personal values: People may follow laws because they believe in the values that underpin them. For example, they may believe in justice, equality, or fairness, and see the law as a way to uphold these values.

    4. I'm sorry I sent a comment I didn't write anything in it my finger slipped I apologize with all my heart and here is my opinion
      I do not think that the state involves the opinion of the people when drafting the law, even if the people gather to implement the law, they must implement it, but for a cohesive society that follows the laws, the following must be done:
      1- The state: It must impose laws that are commensurate with society.
      2- Society must accept and follow these laws.
      To ensure a safe and problem-free future in the country due to the laws. This is my opinion
      I'd love to hear your opinion...
      Thanks poetic_nature

  • Laws are beautiful and deserve to be implemented. I am a person who loves laws, but isn't it good to have laws that are compatible with the requirements of society?  Our duty as human beings is to implement the law and reduce the carbon footprint to protect our environment.
    So, my question is: Do you think that their must be a strong relationship between earth dwellers inclination towards implementing a law or not?
    In other words, do you think that people must agree on the law first in order to implement it? And should they participate in issuing laws?

  • having enough laws is one, but enforcing them is another. I think having enough laws an enforcing them will help in reducing carbon footprints.

  • Hi
    Mr .tiff
    How does climate change affect human rights?

  • I vote that "too many climatic laws are worse" because climatic change is not constant and it changes .For example if an country creates an law for overcoming drought the next year it may not experience the same climatic condition and the law has to be
    changed which will make the people hard to keep adopting to different strict laws.so I think that we should make the people practice self discipline and attain self responsibility about actions to be taken to overcome or eradicate climatic change which they will follow throughout their life time without strict rules.

  • I think it is good that there be laws for the climate or even laws for the land. For example, there should be laws to reduce pollution and for commitment not to throw garbage on the ground in order to reduce waste, and for the people to adhere to the laws. Public places must be preserved and garbage should not be thrown in them or even on the beaches and in the sea. Everything must be allocated separately and waste distributed everywhere in the streets and public places in order to become a clean and pollution-free society

    1. Interesting point, you said that there should be laws to reduce pollution. What sort of laws do you think would help?

      1. There are a lot of laws that help reduce pollution, for example, placing signs not to cut large trees that work to purify the air, as they give us oxygen and take carbon dioxide, and it can also be circulated not to build factories next to houses because factories produce air that is toxic and harmful to living organisms and also Not to throw the industrial waste that comes out of the factory, and the ozone layer must be preserved. If the ozone layer is eroded, the globe becomes unfit for living, causing many skin cancers in humans and harming animals. He also likes to exploit the sun’s rays, especially in the summer because the temperature is very high. Solar energy cells, which contribute to preserving and reducing electricity

    2. I agree with your opinion because the bad climate also has damages to humans and the environment

  • I think that the lack of sufficient climate laws is the worst because this makes people less conserving the environment, which causes an in crease in the percentage of pollution and results in many diseases and deaths, and thus we lose the ability to live properly in the event of pollution and the lack of adequate climate laws.
    Also, my region suffers from the implementation of this thing and there is no law and this makes me not go to school during the rainy season because of the pollution of the streets and the heavy rains.

  • Yes…we have talked about climate change is the change of atmosphere due to stuff like vapor, carbon dioxide methane etc. But in my teachers opinion the climate change cause is a thing Called the greenhouse effect .the greenhouse effect is an effect caused by chemicals like water vapor, carbon dioxide ,methane etc.the chemicals allow sun light in just like the glass of walls in greenhouse . If you don’t want what a greenhouse is where people plant plants ,where the walls are made out of glass to allow sun light won’t be easy to get out of it . Climate change has affected Nigeria seriously temperatures are rising Drastically, but nothing compare to what is happening globally , there have been floods then places that are wet are dry like desert. But if we come together we can prevent it using renewable energy like solar panels , wind mills and other renewable energy’s.

  • I see that a problem like this cannot be solved without imposing laws on people, because laws are very important, and if we let people act according to what suits them, the problem will become more complicated. Laws must be imposed, as well as penalties. Those who do not do the laws must be punished, and they must also be made aware of the seriousness of this problem. At the same time, the laws should not be difficult and easy for all people to do, young, old and sick, that is, to do them with their consent, and it becomes part of their routine

  • I think that the laws are wonderful and every country should have its own laws, but some people look at the laws as an obstacle to them, but I do not agree with them, and the laws should be in every country because the laws help protect the environment, progress and progress, and in addition to preventing apostates from doing things bad

    1. I find what you said about people seeing laws as an obstacle to them very interesting. Can you tell me a bit more about what you mean?

      1. Of course, what I mean by the obstacle in front of them is that they see it as a barrier between them and their dreams, but they cannot... They can achieve their dreams and goals with the law. For myself, I support that every country has laws that adhere to it, and on the contrary, I see that laws help the progress and transcendence of society, unlike what others see.

  • Many climate laws are important, useful, and good for humans and others, but I think that they will pose many obstacles to their movement and their lives. It is better for people to have experience and knowledge, and I believe that their knowledge of climate laws will help them In many things, every human being has knowledge.

    1. This really made me think. Do you think that sharing knowledge will happen fast enough to solve the problem? Should there be any "temporary" laws in the meantime?

      1. I think people should share knowledge yes because it helps them to be fast enough to solve problems and I think there should be temporary laws to make them quick to solve the problem more.