My take is that the idea of "Net Zero" is somewhat popular, like in this study
https://www.ppic.org/publication/ppic-statewide-survey-calif...
62% of Californians are for it but I think people perceived it as involving trade-offs that interest would prove really thin, in
https://news.gallup.com/poll/704228/energy-concerns-not-spik...
they ask "What is the most important issue facing the country?" and it is under %1.
So long as it can be framed as "let's take away Elon Musk's private jet" (somebody else pays) it fits comfortably in the left-wing unicause but if it comes down to a $400/ton carbon tax that adds $4 to a gallon of gas I think it will be unpopular.
You might convince some billionaires that there are billions are made from it but to the average wage earner who already feels like they are barely treading water any real sacrifice could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Personally I think we lost, like civilizational suicide lost, when "net zero" replaced "get off fossil fuels" because "net zero" seems to really mean: pump out all the carbon you want now, we will DAC it out in 2045 or right now you can fly on that jet and pay some tropical gangsters who say they planted some trees.