The two most controversial aspects in the recent environmental debates would be pollution and climate change, which are semi-linked to each other.

Regarding Pollution:

Question 1: Do you believe pollution is a serious problem. Yes or No?

I am honestly boggled whenever someone answers no to this - it seems to me that the vast amounts of waste generated by six billion people (and growing) is bound to have negative effects on the environment - I don't understand how someone could possibly believe that pollution isn't a serious issue that will have to be addressed soon.

Question 2: Do you believe pollution is an immediate problem that requires immediate investment: yes or no? If no, what do you consider more important? If yes,

I think this is the real killer in the debate - most people agree that millions of tons of plastics being added every year to those floating in our oceans and sitting in our landfills is going to be a problem sooner or later. The question is how soon, and how much of a problem. Is it one that is worth prioritizing over the recent recession? Perhaps not. Is it one worth prioritizing over, say, space exploration or developing a better educational system or rebuilding our screwed up health-care plans?

The second big issue everyone's been discussing recently would be climate change.

Question 1: Do you believe climate change exists?

This is an interesting one - there's a lot of people out there who actually deny the idea that we're undergoing climate change. It used to be that these people were typically the same kind of people who believe the earth is six thousand years old and Jesus will come down and smite everyone who disagrees with them, but now its getting to be an increasingly popular position. In the United States, in particular, climate change seems to be closer to a politically divisive issue than a fact-based scientific one - Republicans tend to oppose action in regards to climate change, citing it as a low-priority, unproven threat, while democrats and their grassroots activists tend to support action towards reduction of greenhouse emissions.

I'm obviously biased towards the idea that climate change does indeed exist, so take this information with a grain of salt, if you will.

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. At present, no scientific body of national or international standing has issued a dissenting statement. A small minority of professional associations have issued noncommittal statements.

Opponents maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved," dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls."

~Wikipedia on Global Warming Scientific Consensus

Question 2: Assuming you answered yes to question 1, do you believe that Climate Change is a significant enough problem that it merits immediate action? If so, what sort of action, and what priority would you put it at?

Similarly, do you feel that this issue is a high priority short-term issue or a high priority long-term issue or a low-priority short-term/long-term issue and why? What do you consider more important, and what do you consider less important?