People do say they're willing to make "some" changes, however they overwhelmingly vote against any specific meaningful changes that affect them. For most (though not all) those survey answers are empty words for feel-good political posturing that don't match their actual actions afterwards. For morally-loaded things like this one, it's worthless asking people about what they "would" do, you have to measure what they actually do.
For example, when fuel costs rise sufficiently that people would actually have to reduce driving instead of just paying more (to a MUCH smaller extent that would be required to make a dent in climate change, i.e. where MUCH larger price increases would be needed to reduce consumption) people will literally riot to get tax adjustments or subsidies to keep consuming fuel in the previous rates - e.g. last year's protests in Argentina, Peru, Haiti; earlier Gilets Jaunes riots; and in places where the politicians can afford it, they just concede that without a fight because that gets them votes - e.g. California gas tax rebate.
Sure, people will say anything while its just talk, and they will agree (grumpily!) to meaningless changes like paper straws, however, when the push comes to shove and it would actually result in some significant reduction of consumption by the masses, those people will not only vote against that but actually fight tooth and nail to prevent any such measures from being enacted.
Do a survey on whether people are willing to have a carbon tax that's high enough to actually reduce their consumption, where they would sometimes not drive somewhere or not buy something because it's too expensive due to its effect on the climate - you won't get many positive answers. People would be willing to take "some action" like this survey https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans... which determined that ~$15/month would be the limit for most, i.e. a token amount that "takes some action" but does not actually require to change behavior and reduce consumption.
I don't disagree, but I'd emphasize that there are countless things states could do that don't directly affect the consumer. For instance net metering - if you generate 5kWh (probably through something like solar) you get compensated for 5kWh. It's a simple, fair, and great way to encourage people to adopt technologies like solar. It helps the systems rapidly pay for themselves, motivates utility companies to pursue technologies requisite to widespread clean energy use (like energy storage methods), encourages people to use electric vehicles with "free gas", and more. There are also the immense benefits in terms of system integrity and more that decentralized energy production can offer.
But some places like California are now actively working against this. The argument is that electric retail rates charged to consumers are dramatically higher than the real cost of that energy, so it's not fair for utilities to have to pay retail rates to consumers who contribute to the grid. So the new policy being pushed through will have you receive credit for a tiny fraction of the retail rate for energy you generate. And now all those benefits get reversed.
Actions like this aren't being taken because of voters, to say the least. The reality is that at all levels of politics, corporations are kings and voters are peasants. The irony is that the peasants, exactly like in times of yore, absolutely have the ability to change this - but cannot organize themselves efficiently enough to do so. Even when all it would take in modern times is ticking a different checkbox.
For example, when fuel costs rise sufficiently that people would actually have to reduce driving instead of just paying more (to a MUCH smaller extent that would be required to make a dent in climate change, i.e. where MUCH larger price increases would be needed to reduce consumption) people will literally riot to get tax adjustments or subsidies to keep consuming fuel in the previous rates - e.g. last year's protests in Argentina, Peru, Haiti; earlier Gilets Jaunes riots; and in places where the politicians can afford it, they just concede that without a fight because that gets them votes - e.g. California gas tax rebate.
Sure, people will say anything while its just talk, and they will agree (grumpily!) to meaningless changes like paper straws, however, when the push comes to shove and it would actually result in some significant reduction of consumption by the masses, those people will not only vote against that but actually fight tooth and nail to prevent any such measures from being enacted.
Do a survey on whether people are willing to have a carbon tax that's high enough to actually reduce their consumption, where they would sometimes not drive somewhere or not buy something because it's too expensive due to its effect on the climate - you won't get many positive answers. People would be willing to take "some action" like this survey https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/americans... which determined that ~$15/month would be the limit for most, i.e. a token amount that "takes some action" but does not actually require to change behavior and reduce consumption.