To Scare or Not To Scare?

America seems to have a split personality when it comes to global warming, according to a new international survey from the non-governmental group World Public Opinion.

On the sunny Dr. Jekyll side, 52 percent of Americans want the government to put a higher priority on climate change action than it does now. It's a bare majority, but a majority all the same. (The average for all 19 countries polled was 60 percent.)

But rephrase the question, and Mr. Hyde emerges from the shadows: When asked how high a priority the government should place on addressing global warming, on a scale of zero to ten, U.S. citizens rated it a 4.71. Even the citizens of Iraq and the Palestinian Territories rated it higher (5.14 and 4.91 respectively), and these are people with some really pressing immediate problems on their plates, like threadbare civil society and daily violence.

According to youth activist Rachel of the DC Action Factory, the problem is how the message is being framed. Emphasizing positive outcomes like a "clean energy future" and abundant green jobs are a fatal mistake, she says, because it disconnects activists, legislators and the public from "the heart of global warming:"

There is hardly ever a mention of the 300,000 people who are dying, the endless amounts of agriculture that are going to be lost, or that entire countries are going to be under water in less than 20 years. They never talk about the fact that global warming could lead to the end of human existence. That is why we have to change our behavior now.

...When we talk about our energy future, we have to say we need it to prevent additional carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere. When we tell people to paint their roofs white or change their light bulbs, we need to say that these small steps should be paired with larger steps by Congress to pass aggressive legislation.

Overall, we need to reconnect to the heart of global warming and remember why we need to innovate. We cannot forget the risk that is in place if we don’t do these things and we have to tell that story to the public.

So is the problem that advocates for strong federal legislation to cap and reduce greenhouse gas pollution are holding back on the grim details of global warming's impact on human life and livelihood? More destructive storms; new public health problems; potentially devastating sea level rise; record high temperatures; disruption of agriculture; devastating forest fires; melting of glaciers that provide drinking and irrigation water for millions around the world; and more?

Would siccing these scary truths on the American electorate make them demand effective action from Congress?

Or do people become more motivated when they learn how the slashing heat-trapping gas emissions will pay off in tangible benefits like a cleaner, more verdant environment, lots of new and well-paying green jobs, a more secure nation, and of course all the benefits of a stable climate?