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
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    25 days ago

    They won’t, there’s nobody to inspire them like Bernie, just pro-fracking, genocide-sponsoring Democrats and even worse Republicans.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      25 days ago

      Or even worse, people like you who do everything they can to disparage the only party that might possibly do something good…

      You think you’re being sly, but it’s just cringe.

      • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        25 days ago

        Or even worse, people like you who do everything they can to disparage the only party that might possibly do something good…

        “The problem isn’t with the politicians and their policies, it’s with people disparaging them.”

        In my 42 year being alive, has social mobility improved? Is the education system allowing more young people to succeed? Have we made strong inroads into ensuring all young people have food and a place to live?

        If no, then maybe the problem is not with people being disparaging.

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days ago

        If talking about Democrat policies is disparaging to the party then I don’t know how I’m supposed to explain why the young folks aren’t excited to vote without disparaging the party. XD

      • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        25 days ago

        Choosing between shit and a shit sandwich, it’s fine to point out one has carbs but it’s dishonest to pretend you’re excited to eat a shit sandwich

    • pycorax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      25 days ago

      And that’s the problem. Why do they need someone to inspire them when they should also be interested and invested in their own future? Can’t say the same thing is happening in my country, generally even the most politically apathetic person at this age range (me included) understands the importance of it but somehow this seems like a wild idea in the US?

      • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        25 days 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          25 days 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.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            25 days 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
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              25 days 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.

          • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            25 days ago

            It’s not defeatism, it’s political realism based on an understanding that the USA is not and has never been a democracy. The only two parties that matter get to pick their constituencies and they cannot fail, they can only be failed by the usual electoral scapegoats.

            And in any case, the DNC knows they’re winning this election so why should they risk alienating their corporate and billionaire donors by appealing to the idealism of the youth?

            Also, I don’t believe in lesser-evilism. If a party can’t pass an anti-genocide bar that’s so low as to be subterranean, then they aren’t getting my vote.

            • pycorax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              25 days 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?

              • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                25 days 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?

                Only in the short term, because the victory of the greater evil activates people politically. That’s how we got Biden in 2020, it was as inevitable as Harris’ victory next month.

                In that case, realistically, wouldn’t a lack of a vote be practically equivalent to a vote for the greater evil?

                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.

                it does seem that the people who support the republicans seem to be a lot more passionate in voting for their end?

                Yup. They’ve got a party that promotes their sense of greivance and Democrats can’t match that energy without moving left and alienating their right-wing campaign financiers.

                • pycorax@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  25 days 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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    25 days 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            25 days 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.

        • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          25 days ago

          As a commie socialist I believe that’s exactly what we need to make the future suck less