In general, the younger U.S. generation is more concerned about climate change than the older generations. Between 2015 and 2018, ** percent of those between 18 and 34 years of age agreed that global warming would pose a serious threat within their lifetime, while only ** percent of those aged 55 years and older agreed with the statement. This likely reflects the different time periods that are experienced by each age group, where older generations will have less time in their lives for the effects to be realized. A larger percentage of the younger generation also believed that climate change was a very serious issue in comparison to the older generations. About ** percent of the younger respondents believed there was a scientific consensus regarding climate change as of January 2018. The differences in the perception of climate change may also be due to the exposure and education of younger people in climate change discussions as well as the relationship between age and political ideology. Climate and political ideology Overall, about ** percent of U.S. adults believe that global warming is mainly caused by human activity. However, there is a great disparity between political beliefs where ** percent of people who identified as Liberal Democrats believe in anthropogenic climate change, in comparison to that ** percent of identified Conservative Republicans were in agreement. This discrepancy can also be seen in politicians and their opinions on acting on climate change.

Between 2018 and 2023, there was a 20 percent decrease in claims that the weather was too cold for climate change, as well as a 10.5 percent decrease in statements suggesting heading into an ice age. As of 2023, climate change denialism on YouTube was based more around the perceived unreliability of the climate movement and climate science, rather than the denial of global warming.

The Climate Anxiety Scale (CAS) is a 13-item questionnaire for assessing climate anxiety (CA) as a psychological response to climate change. The CAS consists of two subscales, namely, cognitive impairment and functional impairment. This study aimed to validate the Polish version of the CAS. The sample included 603 respondents (344 females, 247 males, and 12 non-binary), aged 18–70 years (M = 25.32, SD = 9.59). Based on the exploratory factor analysis results, we proposed a 3-factor solution (i.e., intrusive symptoms, reflections on CA, and functional impairment), which seems to be theoretically more consistent with the content of the CAS statements. The confirmatory factor analysis showed that the original 2-factor solution and the 3-factor one had a satisfactory and a good fit to the data, respectively, as well as both were invariant across different gender, age, and educational level categories. Despite the fact that the 3-factor solution had the best-fit indices, we recommended to examine the CAS structure in different samples and use the overall CAS score in cross-cultural research. Cognitive and functional impairment subscales were positively correlated with personal experience of climate change, behavioral engagement, environmental identity, and environmental motives, but they were negatively correlated with climate change denial and sense of safety. The CAS subscales were correlated with depressive symptoms, but contrary to expectations, they were not associated with anxiety symptoms and any cognitive coping strategies. The Polish version of the CAS has satisfactory psychometric properties. Overall, we reported low CA levels in the Polish sample. Women and younger people experienced higher CA.

This dataset represents survey data on sufficiency-oriented policy acceptability in regard to dietary consumption. The study was part of the second round surveys in Denmark in 2023 within the FULFILL project - Fundamental Decarbonisation Through Sufficiency By Lifestyle Changes. As part of Work Package 3 (WP3) in the FULFILL project, we collected quantitative data from two countries: Denmark and Germany, with representative sampling (age, income, gender, current region). In this survey on the acceptability of sufficiency-oriented diet policies we recruited a representative sample with approximately 800 participants from Denmark and Germany, taking into account primarily the individual perspective, added by some questions on the household level. The central part of the survey includes a framing experiment including three groups with participants being randomly assigned to. We were interested in peoples' acceptability on three majorly discussed and sufficiency-relevant policies, i.e. meat tax, carbon label or meat-free day at public canteens. We investigated if an information on either the efficacy of the measures or a combination of information with acceptance information or none of these information could influence people's acceptability (overall, self vs. others perspective). We measured several control variables (socio-economics such as age, gender, income, education, household size, life stage, ideological measures such as political orientation or attitudinal measures such as sufficiency orientation and climate change denial). A quantitative assessment of the carbon footprint in the food consumption domain was also included.

This dataset represents survey data on sufficiency-oriented policy acceptability in regard to dietary consumption. The study was part of the second round surveys in Italy in 2023 within the FULFILL project - Fundamental Decarbonisation Through Sufficiency By Lifestyle Changes.

As part of Work Package 3 (WP3) in the FULFILL project, we collected quantitative data from three countries: France, Italy, and Latvia, with representative sampling (age, income, gender, current region). In this survey on the acceptability of sufficiency-oriented diet policies we recruited a representative sample with approximately 800 participants from each country, taking into account primarily the individual perspective, added by some questions on the household level.

The central part of the survey includes the randomised provision of information on the health-risks associated with meat consumption. We were interested in peoples' acceptability on three majorly discussed and sufficiency-relevant policies, i.e. meat tax, carbon label or meat-free day at public canteens. We investigated if the information provision impacted people's acceptability (overall, self vs. others perspective). We measured several control variables (socio-economics such as age, gender, income, education, household size, life stage, ideological measures such as political orientation or attitudinal measures such as sufficiency orientation and climate change denial). A quantitative assessment of the carbon footprint in the food consumption domain was also included.

This dataset represents survey data on sufficiency-oriented policy acceptability in regard to dietary consumption. The study was part of the second round surveys in France in 2023 within the FULFILL project - Fundamental Decarbonisation Through Sufficiency By Lifestyle Changes.

As part of Work Package 3 (WP3) in the FULFILL project, we collected quantitative data from two countries: France, Italy, and Latvia, with representative sampling (age, income, gender, current region). In this survey on the acceptability of sufficiency-oriented diet policies we recruited a representative sample with approximately 800 participants from France, taking into account primarily the individual perspective, added by some questions on the household level.

The central part of the survey includes the randomised provision of information on the health-risks associated with meat consumption. We were interested in peoples' acceptability on three majorly discussed and sufficiency-relevant policies, i.e. meat tax, carbon label or meat-free day at public canteens. We investigated if the information provision impacted people's acceptability (overall, self vs. others perspective). We measured several control variables (socio-economics such as age, gender, income, education, household size, life stage, ideological measures such as political orientation or attitudinal measures such as sufficiency orientation and climate change denial). A quantitative assessment of the carbon footprint in the food consumption domain was also included.