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.