At the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development 178 countries voted to adopt Agenda 21. Agenda 21 is non-binding action plan that sets climate sustainability and poverty. guidelines for national, state and local governments. Proponents argue that the agenda’s guidelines will encourage federal and local governments to protect the environment and combat poverty. Opponents argue that global organizations should not make rules for local governments and these rules are unnecessary because they are impossible to enforce.
Statistics are shown for this demographic
Province/Territory
Response rates from 318 London North Centre voters.
84% Yes |
16% No |
82% Yes |
13% No |
2% Yes, and exceed the guidelines and be the world leader in environmental standards |
3% No, come up with local solutions that work for each community |
1% No, increase sanctions on countries that are the top contributors of global pollution instead |
|
0% No, and the UN should be abolished |
Trend of support over time for each answer from 318 London North Centre voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Trend of how important this issue is for 318 London North Centre voters.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Unique answers from London North Centre voters whose views went beyond the provided options.
@Brandonnoe84 2mos2MO
No, come up with local solutions that work for each community, and increase sanction on countries that are the top contributors of global pollution instead.
@9TD8FMR2mos2MO
Take it into consideration but every city is different and needs to also figure out whats best for that plot of land.
@9RBXRKD4mos4MO
Every country should strive to follow and exceed environmental guidelines and high pollution countries should receive sanctions
@9PSLGWZ5mos5MO
Yes, but the UN is not an organization worth treating as a benchmark for ethical or righteous standards.
@9VF2RTR2mos2MO
Only if it makes sense based on our society needs and environmental guardianships and also financial support for the people
@9TXBP2Y2mos2MO
Yes as a framework but also look at local needs and adopt additional measures, or equivalent alternatives if it makes more sense
@9K6HR9K9mos9MO
No, this only subdues us and makes us only look more controlled to the weak jewish mindsetted and bankerist dogs while their cabinets reeks of dumb communistic idealized pigs who have nothing in common with anyone, total demolition is what we need for the headquarters and such as mass death.
@9JV5LCX 9mos9MO
No, because not all countries have the same level of pollution nor production nor trees to compensate.
China, for example, is responsible for over 50% of all pollution and won't impose the same restrictions until 2060. We need manufacturing to return here to reduce pollution impacts due to global trades. impacts.
Join in on the most popular conversations.
