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

You'd have to define "serious". But yeah, I generally support measures to reduce pollution.

Regarding how how someone could not think it a serious problem- It's easy when you never see the effects of your pollution. It's not affecting me, ergo it's not a serious problem.

> 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?

How much investment? In what? I think some investments make sense. Others probably don't, in that their benefits are overstated.

Generally speaking I don't think "investment" and "technology" will solve our problems. People will need to modify their behaviors and their level of consumption. People won't do this until there is sufficient economic motivation for them to do so.

> Question 1: Do you believe climate change exists?

The climate's always changing. The question you want to ask is, "Do you believe anthropogenic climate change exists?"

My answer is "probably". But I also think it's overstated, and that climatologists rely overmuch on extrapolations and computer modeling.

> Opponents maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved,"

For the record, this is not true. Opponents maintain that a "small but significant minority" of scientists question anthropogenic global warming. They don't claim a majority, afaik.

> 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?

If all the dire predictions are completely accurate, then yeah, it's a big deal and we should take immediate action.

That said, I feel like all the dire consequences are mainly going to affect groups of people other than the ones currently talking about curtailing carbon emissions. That is to say, poor developing countries, which are typically the ones fighting hardest against any restrictions on their emissions.

Food scarcity and things like that would obviously affect everyone globally, but rich nations have more room to fall before people actually start starving in the streets.

As far as cars go, I feel like that will mostly resolve itself as we start to run out of oil. It will become more expensive and there'll be much more willingness to use alternate fuels simply due to cost. This will probably happen inside my lifetime. Coal is a bigger problem. First, because it accounts for a larger percentage of carbon emissions than gasoline, and second because there's a lot more of it in the earth's crust for us to extract before it starts to get prohibitively expensive.