When Al Gore told Grist.org, in an interview last month, that “it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on the dangers of global warming,” his critics pounced. Those who don’t believe the Earth’s climate is changing as a result of human behavior took his comments as evidence to back their claim that the whole thing is a conspiracy of the left. (“Gore says it’s okay to lie about global warming,” read the typical response on one right-wing blog.) But Gore had a point: some overstating of facts is sometimes necessary in order to get people to care.

“In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality,” he said in the interview. “And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."

Tim Flannery, an Australian scientist and author of another recently published global warming book, The Weather Makers, might agree with Gore. Some climate researchers have accused Flannery of similar types of overstatement, or at least of cherry-picking facts or extrapolating from one study to make a broader point. The listing for a recent TV interview with Flannery read, “Author Tim Flannery predicts 'new dark age' if global warming not addressed.”

But others advocate a more positive approach, predicated on the idea that doomsday scenarios can breed paralysis and, worse, apathy. “Green-minded activists failed to move the broader public [on climate change] not because they were wrong about the problems, but because the solutions they offered were unappealing to most people,” Alex Steffens of Worldchanging.com wrote in the May issue of Wired (which featured Gore on the cover). He went on to write, “With climate change hard upon us, a new green movement is taking shape, one that embraces environmentalism's concerns but rejects its worn-out answers. Technology can be a font of endlessly creative solutions. Business can be a vehicle for change. Prosperity can help us build the kind of world we want.”

Of course, this is the same message Gore is peddling. The subtle difference is a question of whether, in order to get people to listen to this message, you need to scare them a bit first.

Despite the recent media blitz about global warming, the environment consistently ranks near the bottom of Americans’ priorities, in public opinion polls. Which is all the more baffling when you stop to consider that “the environment” is the air we breathe, the water we drink, the sun that keeps us all alive, the resources we collect and use for food and shelter and energy, the land on which we grow crops and build houses and do everything else in our lives. It affects our health, our economy, our culture. Without “the environment,” there would be no us. So why does it continue to rank so low down on people’s radar?

One answer is that people tend to care about localized environmental issues, rather than global problems. Research has shown that if Gore had made protection of the Everglades a campaign issue in Florida, he could have won the state - and changed history. Humans seem to be hard-wired to deal with immediate rather than long-range problems. Some people like to compare the hold in the ozone layer to global warming, arguing that we banded together – governments, industry, citizens – to solve the ozone problem so we should be able to similarly solve global warming. But the hole in the ozone was, in addition to being fairly simple to fix (by banning CFCs), already well underway and posing a threat to many people. Global warming is also already well under way, but many of the problems caused by climate change are yet to come. We generally read about global-warming related problems that are happening in far-flung areas, such as the Arctic, but many of the predicted impacts are not yet at hand.

The problem here is that by the time they are at hand it will be much to late to stop them. So how to get people to care? The fact is, there isn’t just one answer. As with everything, different people respond differently to different ways of communicating. Saving the planet for future generations argument is an argument that resonates with some. For others, it’s the idea of biblically directed stewardship of the Earth. For others, it’s seeing a disastrous event like Katrina and understanding that global warming is likely to increase this type of scenario.

Perhaps the most important thing is for credible journalists to disseminate as much information as possible about the environment and global warming, and let others make sure the importance of this information is not underestimated.

Related Links:

Grist Interview with Al Gore

Gore's Critics

Wired Green Issue

Tim Flannery Interview

Image: The University of Michigan