The tragedy of tragedy the commons is that it is not based on evidence. Elinor Ostron won the nobel prize by proving that the commons are sustainable most of the time. Things only become unsustainable when those who exploit the land have no physical relationship with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom.

No, she proved that the commons are sustainable only when those exploiting the land have a physical proximity and relationship to the land. Her research was entirely focused on small local communities organized around the exploitation of a specific natural resource (i.e., fishing village in Maine, forest village in Nepal).

In all other cases, the tragedy of the commons applied.

She has proved that it is not the form of management that causes environmental problems, but rather large-scale exploitation. In doing so, she has discredited the hypothesis of the tragedy of the commons, which was never based on evidence.

Many private industry owners do not even step on the ground they are exploiting. Why the tragedy of the commons gain so many traction?

So how does this make it okay to generalize a whole generation as one point of view?

That's what the data shows.