The Pledge to Mobilize will fight denial and initiate a WWII-scale mobilization by Climate Mobilization

Judge 1: Climate change (as the proposer notes) is not WWII, nor do people respond in the same way they did in 1941 to the climate even when it strikes us in disasters. The proposal is not clear nor convincing on how people will take the pledge. And once they take the pledge if it will influence behavior. The logic is tautological. People take the pledge and then they behave better. But to behave appropriately they have to take the pledge. And taking the pledge is evidence they will behave better. I have had experience with two similar naive efforts in other areas and they were spectacularly unsuccessful. Judge 2: The proposal envisions a climate pledge that individuals can take and then spread on a one-to-one basis. The pledge asks people to share the pledge and information about climate change and only vote for and support candidates who support action. The positive side of the proposal is that it is thoughtful about movement building and mobilization, and envisions are large-scale response. The downsides are the lack of supporting infrastructure, mainly in training and pushing out the message, and the ambitious goals of reducing emissions on a very short timeframe without a sense of how that might happen.The ratings are based more on the pledge itself, rather than the emissions reductions goals and timeline for reduction.