Often we call things political positions like we are inferring that it is party politics alone, ie the position is purely a political one and not a consumer issue. Having a stance on a thing while it may hold political interest can also be one that has great impacts on consumers, if not directly now certainly they will be into the future.
Sometimes the only way to get change is to get political. To get legislation enacted that changes the way we do things, Sugar Taxes, Tobacco smoking, Gambling advertising, Alcohol advertising among many where there are political interests involved often require supporting one stance over another. Lobbying is political, it may be that only one side is lobbied in other cases it may be a select few or indeed the whole list of political parties.
Perhaps it may be better thought of that CHOICE while politically involved does so only to better get Consumer outcomes and as such they might be considered to be apolitical, having no preference for a particular party but certainly having a preference for an particular outcome.
In the realm of Climate Change (CC) and how it is seen, the results of CC have direct effects on consumers, often this is lost because some people see the discussion purely as a division between what one party/group politically believe and what another group/party believe. Science however has a extremely large non partisan view of what is happening and what is needed, they need politicians to get over their party lines and make the changes needed at the legislative level to bring about the outcomes we need. This requires that we as consumers support a good stance or political move eg petitions, if we don’t know about it how do we support it or decide whether it is worth our support.
The reference to CC is just an example of one area where some see it as purely political, there are others eg Gun Control, Immigration, Bush fires.