<div>Which works better: climate fear, or climate hope? Well, it's complicated</div>

Communication is everything when it comes to the climate change debate – and there isn’t just one way to speak to people’s emotionsThere’s a debate in climate circles about whether you should try to scare the living daylights out of people, or give them hope – think images of starving polar bears on melting ice caps on the one hand, and happy families on their bikes lined with flowers and solar-powered lights on the other.The debate came to something of a head this year, after David Wallace-Wells lit up the internet with his 7,000-word, worst-case scenario published in New York magazine. It went viral almost instantly, and soon was the best-read story in the magazine’s history. A writer in Slate called it “the Silent Spring of our time”. But it also garnered tremendous criticism and from more than the usual denier set.Rather than treat emotions as levers to be pulled, they should be seen as part of a dynamic interplay Related: Checkmate: how do climate science deniers' predictions stack up? Continue reading...