Climate advocates want to solve their “biggest problem” in the US: voter disengagement

In battleground states across the country, environmentalists like Dr. Emily Church is campaigning on behalf of an organization called the Environmental Voter Project in an effort to find people who care most about climate change — but who haven’t shown up in recent years. elections.

During a recent effort in Pittsburgh, Church, a biology professor who is leading local research for the project, recalled to ABC News how she directly lobbied lawmakers to take action on climate change, but they told her voters didn’t care about the issue. .

She said she is now trying to prove them wrong.

“The people who prioritize climate and the environment need to show up,” Church said. “This is how we get everything done.”

The Environmental Voter Project, or EVP, targets very specific individuals: registered voters who view climate change as their biggest issue, but who are unlikely to vote in the November election based on their voting history.

“Our biggest problem in the climate movement right now is that we don’t have enough voting power,” said EVP founder and director Nathaniel Stinnett.

EVP takes a targeted approach to knocking on doors, Stinnett explains. Using polling, the group first determines which registered voters in a particular area, such as Pittsburgh, would consider climate as their top voting issue. They then compare profiles with voting data to find people who haven’t been to the polls recently or regularly.

According to Stinnett, the group has been successful in general elections, primaries and even local races.

“We have increased turnout at times by as much as 1.8 percentage points in general elections, 3.6 percentage points in primaries and 5.7 percentage points in local elections,” he said, noting that while 1.8 percentage points sounds small, could well determine elections. Pennsylvania, for example, was only won by President Joe Biden by 1.17% in 2020.

For the Pittsburgh campaign, Stinnett said the EPP targeted people who did not vote in the 2020 election or subsequent years. He added that they have identified 22,135 voters in the city who are most likely to consider climate as their top priority, but who are unlikely to vote in November.

The group claims to be nonpartisan, but acknowledges that it is currently almost exclusively Democrats who are concerned with climate change. One of their hopes is to bring more Republicans to the table as well.

“We want to scare as many politicians as possible, regardless of which side of the aisle they’re on, until they think, ‘You know what, the only way I’m going to win an election is if I face the biggest crisis,’” Stinnett said.

Over time, climate change has become a more important voting issue. In 2010, only a slim majority of Americans agreed that global warming was happening, according to polling by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Now 72% of Americans agree.

But climate isn’t currently one of the biggest motivators for people this election cycle, surveys show — though climate advocates hope to change the electorate by encouraging the turnout of climate-conscious voters.

According to a February Wall Street Journal poll, registered voters cited immigration (20%), the economy (14%), abortion (8%) and democracy (8%) as their top issues. Climate change comes in 11th place, with 2% of voters choosing it as their most important issue.

More broadly, Gallup’s survey of what Americans say is the country’s top problem over time shows that climate, pollution and the environment were at 2% in March, far below economic problems and immigration.

Opinion polls have also shown that in addition to a partisan divide on the issue, there may also be a generational shift.

“Young voters tend to be more Democratic, and that’s kind of inseparable from their belief that climate is really important,” said Nathaniel Rakich, editor-in-chief and senior election analyst at 538. “So if Republicans don’t, If they If they want to lose this incoming electorate by large margins in the coming decades, they will have to eat up that Democratic support by at least proposing some solutions and addressing climate change.”

Even the Biden administration, which has prioritized fighting climate change, is being pressured by progressives to do more on the issue.

Twenty-one activists from the environmental group Sunrise Movement were arrested outside the Biden campaign headquarters in Wilmington, Delaware, in February. That group and other advocates have additional demonstrations planned ahead of the November election.

“I think there have been some missteps by the government; allowing the Willow project in Alaska was a step backwards. That was unfortunate,” said Lena Moffitt, executive director of Evergreen Action, referring to a massive oil drilling initiative that was supported by Alaska lawmakers and others in the state for its economic value but was criticized by environmentalists because it undermined White House climate goals.

“We know we need to transition away from fossil fuels, and at the same time, the government is doing a lot to accelerate that transition away from fossil fuels,” Moffitt said.

The choice for voters in November on the issue of climate is stark. President Biden has spoken urgently about the dangers of failing to slow climate change and has promoted sustainable energy solutions, supported electric vehicle infrastructure and created a new Climate Corps to train and expand the environmental workforce.

Biden last week finalized new protections against oil and gas production for about 13 million acres of land in Alaska and has imposed aggressive vehicle emissions standards through the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce future greenhouse gases.

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump, who has long questioned climate science without evidence, has opposed Biden’s clean energy policies and vowed to roll them back – arguing it will drag on the economy and make the US less competitive and independent makes.

“The fact is that President Biden has done more to address climate change than any president in American history. And there is much more to be done,” Moffitt said. “Scientists have said we can still avoid the worst of the worst of the climate crisis. But what we do in the coming years is essential to the path we choose.”

Stinnett agreed, telling ABC News that Americans are too often told to focus on their own individual habits rather than government policy.

“(Politicians say:) ‘Hey, don’t mind that coal plant over there. Instead, it’s all your fault that you have a plastic water bottle in your hand.” And we bought it. We bought it hook, line and sinker,” he said. “In reality, it is much more of a political and systemic problem that needs political and systemic solutions.”

In Pittsburgh, Church said that despite the difficulty of getting new, environmentally conscious voters to the polls, she thinks the challenge is worth it.

“The science is very clear. So we know what we have to do,” she said, “it’s just a matter of getting it done.”

Copyright © 2024, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.