There's no "getting elections right"; these models just estimate probability. They gave Trump a 29% change in 2016 -- that's almost 1 in 3!
A better way to assess accuracy would be to bin predictions (0-10% chance, 10-20% chance, etc.) and see if the observed frequency aligns with the predictions.
Many things are the truth, so it's really a question of framing. Another truth: humans have done reversible and irreversible damage to their natural environment; they can collectively reverse some of the damage and prevent further reversible and irreversible damage.
To focus on only irreversible damage -- especially as David Attenborough, somebody who over the better half of a century has earned massive respect and trust from people all over the world -- would be wildly irresponsible.
I think most of those students would answer that they are protesting the US government's complicity in this particular injustice -- which doesn't apply to the other injustices you list. I have a hard time imagining that most people asking this fair question can't think of that obvious answer.
A better way to assess accuracy would be to bin predictions (0-10% chance, 10-20% chance, etc.) and see if the observed frequency aligns with the predictions.