There was an article posted on The Guardian yesterday with this headline: “Voters think Republican climate dissenters ‘crazy’, bipartisan poll finds.” The first two paragraphs are:
Republicans in Congress who reject the science behind climate change could soon be reduced to political fossils, with new polling on Wednesday suggesting three-quarters of young voters find such views “ignorant, out of touch or crazy”.
The bipartisan poll conducted for the League of Conservation Voters found solid 80% support among under-35 voters for Barack Obama’s climate change plan – and majority support even among those who oppose the president.
At first glance, this seems like great news. But on a deeper level, this article represents a profound conclusion: the theory of change behind the divestment and climate movements is real and working.
Why is this so? One of the major purposes of divestment is to take the climate movement to a new level of inclusivity, breadth, and depth. In my mind, the purpose is to build a movement so large and powerful that it will achieve two political purposes: 1) pressure politicians to listen to the concerns of their constituents, and 2) empower an educated public to vote in politicians who will listen to our voices and act on climate change.
Therefore, the fact that so many young voters are calling climate-denying Republicans “crazy” means that the movement is developing the strength to vote in politicians who care and call on politicians already in office. This is big big news.