Survey of young people aged 16-25 from all US states shows concerns across political spectrum

Survey of young people aged 16-25 from all US states shows concerns across political spectrum

The overwhelming majority of young Americans worry about the climate crisis, and more than half say their concerns about the environment will affect where they decide to live and whether to have children, new research finds.

The study comes just weeks after back-to-back hurricanes, Helene and Milton, pummeled the south-eastern US. Flooding from Helene caused more than 600 miles of destruction, from Florida’s west coast to the mountains of North Carolina, while Milton raked across the Florida peninsula less than two weeks later.

“One of the most striking findings of the survey was that this was across the political spectrum,” said the lead author, Eric Lewandowski, a clinical psychologist and associate professor at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. “There was no state sample where the endorsement of climate anxiety came in less than 75%.”

The study was published in the Lancet Planetary Health, and follows a 2021 study covering 10 countries. Both the previous and current study were paid for by Avaaz, an advocacy group.

  • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
    10·
    1 month ago

    And that’s the problem.

    I agree, it’s a very serious problem that the Democrats continue to push policy that is unpopular with young folks.

    Why do they need someone to inspire them

    Because elections are popularity contests.

    they should also be interested and invested in their own future

    They very clearly are, but there aren’t any American political parties that are invested in their future. Just ones that pretend to cater to them while selling them out to the oil and weapons industries.

    somehow this seems like a wild idea in the US?

    Yeah, it sucks. Any time you start talking about making the future suck less, Republicans start calling you a commie socialist and Democrats kick you out of the group chat.

    • pycorax@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 month ago

      That seems very defeatist though? I mean I get where you’re coming from in that ideally we’d have options which align more with what we want to move towards progress but realistically that’s not something that’s entirely possible right now.

      Right now, there’s an option that pushes progress further back and the other one that seems somewhat neutral by comparison (unfortunately). In that case, wouldn’t picking the lesser evil be better than simply standing by and doing nothing?

      • leftytighty@slrpnk.netEnglish
        4·
        1 month ago

        Let’s look at the topic of this thread. Is Harris neutral? She’s walked back her stance on being against fracking.

        The options are “a lot worse” or “less worse.” And those are the options every four years. Voting is ineffective, and Democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to making villains out of climate protestors.

        Yes harm reduction is important and I think young people should vote Democrat. But Democrats have done nothing to earn it.

        • pycorax@lemmy.world
          4·
          1 month ago

          Yea I definitely agree with you entirely and I don’t think what I said is in anyway counter to what I said. I do wish that’s what people in general keep in mind when choosing what to vote or even voting at all.

        • pycorax@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 month ago

          While I agree with you in the ideal scenario, wouldn’t the end result of not voting for the lesser evil lead to the outcome where the greater evil wins anyways? In that case, realistically, wouldn’t a lack of a vote be practically equivalent to a vote for the greater evil?

          I’m not American and so I have no idea how things on the ground are like but it does seem that the people who support the republicans seem to be a lot more passionate in voting for their end?

            • pycorax@lemmy.world
              1·
              1 month ago

              No, abstaining is abstaining regardless. All blame directed at uncommitted voters is in reality a fault of the parties that fail to appeal to them.

              The voters cannot be blamed for the lacl of choice they were given, to do so is to insist that the parties have a right to make demands of the voters rather than the other way around.

              I can’t say I agree entirely with you here since it does seem to equate a lack of variety in choices is the same as a lack of choice. Still, I do somewhat get what you mean and I can respect that. Either way, thanks for humouring me, it was enlightening to see the other perspective.

              • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                1·
                1 month ago

                it does seem to equate a lack of variety in choices is the same as a lack of choice

                That would seem to be a fundamental point of contention there. In my perspective, a distinction without a difference is a distinction in name only. If there’s no variety to a choice then it might as well be moot, the only people who have agency are the ones who constrained the window of choosable options.

                Anyways, I’m happy to share my weird perspective on politics. It’s always nice when folks actually listen instead of just ending the conversation by declaring me part of their opposition. XD

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        1·
        1 month ago

        Forget it, you’re talking to a brick wall.

        Let them get some life experience and maybe in 15-20 years it’ll be a productive conversation.