I understand where objectors to the usage are coming from. But I’m happy (in this case!) to move with the times. Of course, wherever there’s a real danger of misunderstanding arising, then some additional term or terms, or a paraphrase, are necessary.
I find the usage linked in #19, in its context, only ambiguous if one’s simply not paying attention; here’s the context: https://www.greenmatch.co.uk/blog/2016/10/cel... (The sentence above the image I linked reads "GreenMatch has listed 10 influential celebrities that are using their fame to advocate for climate change awareness and through their activism are doing their part in saving our planet.")
The usage is met with not just in slogans or captions of that kind. Some of the professional literature of the past two decades makes use of it (and searching the web will provide plenty of recent, informal examples). This kind of possibility was already alluded to in hm – us’s #13. The users seem to rely on a reader’s being interested in the spirit, i.e., the sense, of what’s said, rather than in the letter, in the given context, and use the form of words in the interest of keeping the language uncluttered. 4 examples below. These texts are not philosophical or literary but are concerned to communicate business, environmental, sociological matter to the reader. In the various contexts the usage is perfectly unambiguous.
For example, in 2015, the firm faced controversy over advocating for climate change at the same time it represented several so-called “climate change deniers”, like the American Petroleum Institute (API). Soon after the firm resigned ...
(Janis Teruggi Page, Lawrence J. Parnell, Introduction to Strategic Public Relations )
One advantage he has when it comes to advocating for climate change is that he knows the science, but he also knows the political system—both in the United States and the world.
(Avery Elizabeth Hurt, A Global Threat: The Emergence of Climate Change Science )
How do we balance the need to win hearts and minds with the reality that we can't all be advocating for climate change all of the time, while acknowledging that a lot of people have more immediate problems in their lives?
(Brett Favaro, The Carbon Code )
The analysis of the social movements advocating for climate change is extremely limited. There are only a handful of empirical analyses of this movement. There is a need for research in a number of areas: 1.
(Riley E. Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle, Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives )
(Rest assured, where any of the above appear ambiguous out of context, as here, I’ve checked up on all of them—the sense in context is always unambiguously the one in question in this thread.)
This is going to convert no one, I'm perfectly aware of that. My bias with respect to language has always been broadly descriptivist as against prescriptivist, doubtless with exceptions that prove the rule. And in this case, as I say, I'm happy to move with the times, with the provisos already mentioned.