> Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. […] Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act.
The situation is similar in the US: the majority of people don't think the government should be kidnapping citizens from their homes and shipping them off to foreign prisons without trial, but they also think everyone else is okay with it.
"It's a widespread concern" is not a news story, unless and until someone does the research and confirms it. Otherwise, how do the journalists know it's the case? And investigative journalists aren't usually running large-scale population studies.
It could be argued that the corruption of news media is the reason that the masses who support, and have always supported, climate action believe that it's not a widespread belief.
I'd argue it's fairly directly responsible for the small number who don't support climate action too.
And I think the same applies to governments kidnapping people and ignoring courts who tell them it's illegal.
> Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. […] Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act.
The situation is similar in the US: the majority of people don't think the government should be kidnapping citizens from their homes and shipping them off to foreign prisons without trial, but they also think everyone else is okay with it.
"It's a widespread concern" is not a news story, unless and until someone does the research and confirms it. Otherwise, how do the journalists know it's the case? And investigative journalists aren't usually running large-scale population studies.