Christine Todd Whitman

There are two sides, at least, to most political questions, and a politician's impulse may be to believe that the same holds true for science. Certainly, there are disputes in science. But on the question of climate change, the divide is stark.

I don't believe the government should determine what a woman does in this area any more than it should tell a chief executive how to run a company. Personal and family matters, relationships between doctors and patients should not be within the purview of government.

Republicans believe that problems are best solved at the level closest to the people and that the nation's strength comes from the diversity of its people, not from an all-powerful central government.

By withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, the U.S. cedes power and influence to our rivals. If we retreat on our promises and cede leadership on climate issues, we lose credibility. Further, we lose the ability to hold other countries accountable for a broader range of issues.

Beyond combating global warming and supporting domestic business interests, remaining a part of the Paris Agreement has clear benefits to the U.S. at large. Nations such as China and India are already eyeing an opportunity to take over America's role as the world leader on this issue.

As the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and former governor of New Jersey, I have witnessed the impact of climate change firsthand.

For years, I have been a strong supporter of clean, safe nuclear energy as an important part of our energy mix.

Neglecting clean energy sources such as solar, wind, and especially nuclear, can result in blackouts, increased power bills, and will take a heavy toll on our efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

Voting is the only way to make change in a democracy.

For too many years, those eligible to vote in primary or general elections did not bother to do so. Those sensible centrists who do not go to rallies but care deeply about our country effectively silenced their own voices. That sent the message to incumbents that they were either doing the right thing or that we just did not care.

The climate has always changed - after all, we've had numerous ice ages without human influence - but human activity has undoubtedly exacerbated Earth's natural trends beyond its capacity to adjust.

To forget that the EPA was borne out of public demand is to invite a real backlash.

Regulations have certainly gone too far in a number of areas, but it's important to remember that regulations are meant to be protective, and when it comes to the EPA, that means protecting human health and our world.

As a former EPA administrator under a Republican president, I recognize that it is easy to hate regulations in general. After all, regulatory action causes people to spend money or change behavior, often to solve problems they do not believe exist.

The conventional wisdom in an election year is that nothing will get done until after the election.

Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference has never tried to fall asleep with a mosquito in the room.

The E.P.A. is too important to treat like a reality TV show. People's lives and our country's resources are at stake.

Burning fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere. There is no debate about that. The link is as certain as the link between smoking and cancer.

We need a Congress that cares more about doing the people's business than their own.

We need elected officials who care more about policy than politics.

Jill Stein does not have the experience necessary to lead at a national level.

The irony here is this administration is spending more money on climate change research and development than any administration in all the rest of the industrialized world combined.

It's pretty hard to say no when a vice president-elect and a president-elect ask you to be part of the national team.

Gary Johnson's refusal or inability to name a single foreign leader, current or former, whom he admired, showed that he is not ready for the presidency.

Policy should always be rooted in unbiased science.