In a recent study by researchers at the University of Oxford, researchers found that policymakers are drastically underestimating how much people are willing to pay for climate action. Together, authors Ximeng Fang, Stefania Innocenti and Joshua Ettinger helped develop this study. It further underscores the disconnect between policymakers’ decisions and American views on climate change efforts.
While over 1,500 delegates from around the world attended UNEA, the research team only had access to survey 191 attendees. Their goal was to gauge how willing participants were to invest a portion of their earnings in climate solutions. One conclusion from these findings is that policymakers, politicians, and other officials all too often might be operating on bad assumptions about what the public thinks. The findings were published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment and are freely available online at DOI 10.1038/s43247-025-02536-2
The Research Team and Methodology
Ximeng Fang is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at Saïd Business School, University of Oxford. His research emphasizes the link between economic behavior and our most pressing environmental problems. Stefania Innocenti is an Associate Professor at Oxford’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment. As the head of the Behavior and the Environment research group, she’s a global leader on how to use behavioral insights to create smart, effective environmental policy. Joshua Ettinger is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication. This experience has been valuable for Ash, not least during his time as a DPhil researcher in Oxford.
The researchers distributed a survey to UNEA attendees. Their first question of interest was to have participants first approximate the percentage of the world’s population that would donate one percent of their salary to help combat climate change. Those responses revealed an enormous chasm between what they thought they were prepared to do and the reality of public opposition. First, policymakers may be under the impression that there is little support for increased financial contributions. The reality, based on research, is that most people are ready and willing to take action.
Implications for Policymaking
This compelling finding from the study reveals the sometimes overwhelming impact of perceived optics on the decision-making process of elected officials. If they don’t realize how much public support their voters have for climate initiatives, they might be too timid and avoid passing stronger policies. This miscalculation, unfortunately, comes at the expense of seizing real opportunities to make significant progress towards tackling climate change.
Dr. Ettinger, the lead researcher, explained that this research was intended to help motivate policy makers to pursue more ambitious climate policies. He’s most excited about seeing these findings persuasively inspiring decision-makers. He wants them to do a better job of matching their actions to the public’s true willingness — or lack thereof — to pay for climate mitigation. This disconnect between public sentiment and policymaking creates a vacuum that prevents real progress. This disconnect further damages the trust between Americans and their elected officials.
Factors Contributing to Misunderstanding
There are a number of reasons why these miscommunications lead to policymakers misunderstanding the public support for climate action. The researchers suggest that news media coverage, lobbying efforts, and exposure to specific ideological viewpoints might create an environment where policymakers receive skewed information about public opinion.
This pilot study challenges researchers and advocates alike to ensure that accurate, independent data and research should undergird policy development and policy argument. First, policymakers should address misunderstandings around the public’s desire for climate action. Taking this perspective will enable them to be advocates for the smartest, most impactful measures that really reflect what their constituents want.