Individual-level solutions, such as lifestyle changes, are often regarded as cost-effective complements to systemic policies like government regulations in addressing climate change. However, some argue that exposure to these solutions may shift focus away from systemic interventions, potentially crowding-out support for large-scale policies. Across two experiments in Iran (N = 303) and Australia (N = 308 and 625), we tested whether exposure to different numbers of individual and systemic policies would affect individuals’ perception of systemic climate solutions. Results showed that, regardless of country or exposure type, whether through daily life or experimental manipulation, participants consistently supported systemic policies and changes, attributed greater responsibility to the government, perceived minimal conflict between systemic and individual approaches, rated systemic policies as more effective than individual ones, and viewed individual actions as only moderately substitutable for systemic solutions. These findings challenge the crowding-out hypothesis, suggesting that exposure to individual solutions does not diminish support for systemic policies or structural reforms.