Recent research has revealed a surprising disconnect between perception and reality when it comes to the global public’s willingness to contribute to climate action. The study found that participants at the UN General Assembly on the Environment environment (UNEA-6) in 2024 significantly underestimate the public's actual willingness to contribute 1 % of their personal income to combat climate change. On average, delegates estimated this willingness at 37 %, while a global survey showed that it is actually as high as 69 %. This almost half lower estimate suggests that those involved in global environmental policymaking might have a stronger mandate for more ambitious climate action than they realize.

Study details and findings:

• Perception vs. Reality: The average estimate of public willingness among UNEA-6 participants was 37.8 %, while the true value, derived from a representative global survey of nearly 130,000 individuals from 125 countries (Andre et al.), is 69 %. Only 18.8 % of the delegates surveyed estimated a percentage equal to or higher than 69 %.
• Who was surveyed?: The study included 191 participants from 53 countries attending UNEA-6. The sample included government officials, representatives of the UN and multilateral institutions, as well as delegates from academia, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private sector.
• No differences between politicians and non-politicians: Researchers found no significant differences in estimates between those who directly influence policymaking (e.g., government representatives) and those who are not directly involved in policy negotiations (e.g., academics, NGOs). Both groups showed similar underestimation.
• High environmental awareness of delegates: Although 88 % participants reported being very or extremely concerned about climate change, their estimates of public willingness reflect the phenomenon of “pluralistic ignorance,” in which individuals underestimate how concerned other people are about climate change and willing to act. Climate knowledge or perceived public efficacy did not lead to more accurate estimates.
• Possible causes of underestimation: Although the study could not directly confirm these mechanisms, previous research suggests that misperceptions may be influenced by:
  • The lack of loud public discussions about climate change.
  • By frequent exposure to individuals with specific ideological views.
  • The way public opinions are presented in the media.
  • The influence of lobbying and campaign contributions, which can distort politicians' perceptions of public preferences.

Implications and future research:

The findings have important implications for global climate governance. They suggest that individuals in different roles in international environmental forums can act on the basis of weaker assumption of public mandate, than it actually is. For those directly involved in political negotiations, this could potentially influence their policy ambitions. Informing political leaders about the current state of public opinion on climate change could therefore be a valuable goal. Previous research has shown that providing public opinion data to policymakers can influence political discourse, personal opinions and policy decisions.

Future research should extend these findings to larger and more representative samples, use qualitative methods (such as interviews) to uncover the influences that shape the perceptions of policy actors, and examine public perceptions of specific types of climate policies.

Total study stresses that despite broad public support for climate action, those directly involved in international environmental policies are unaware of this level of support, which may hinder more ambitious action. JRi