Most of my work on global warming and energy issues over the past 5 years has been on communicating these issues to the general public. The first thing to realize may be obvious: that we need to communicate the issue differently to different audiences. The second point I'll make is that if we approach the general public with an apocalyptic future worldview, they will likely tune us out immediately. That's just the truth. We can't expect to scare people in to action. The global warming movement tried this approach for the first 10 years or so with little success. We need to be honest with people about what we know, and also what we don't know. (This is a difficult exercise in humility for us, to admit that we don't 'know it all' but if we don't, we lose a LOT of the public.) If we act as though we know, for a fact, what the future will look like, again, people will tune us out. We need to present the facts, and say "based upon what we know now, these are the only plausible scenarios." The most important piece though is that we must present people with real solutions, and start with solutions that are doable for everyone. Not everyone can start living off the grid tomorrow, but everyone can replace a lightbulb with a CFL. And, everyone can start driving a little less. I'm not saying that we have to water down our message, but we do need to be realistic about what the public will respond to and what they won't. Sure, there is a segment of folks who will put solar panels on their house and abandon their oil heat for wood burning stoves, and it's important for those folks to set an example of what is possible. But, we also have to have things that average Americans can do that will make them feel "ownership" of the issue. Policymakers are a different lot. And, a lot of their reaction will be based upon how well we're able to educate, and MOBILIZE the general public (see above) to call for change. The biggest selling point for almost all elected officials that have taken action on this issue has been the COST SAVING argument - using less energy means saving taxpayer money. You just have to convince them that an initial upfront expenditure is worth it when the payoff won't be realized for 5-10 years. This is a challenge because of the way public budgeting works on a year-to-year basis. The last point I'll make is on the need to develp new and diverse messengers on this issue. It has to be more than scientists and academics. We need to cultivate faith leaders, public officials, and various sectors of the economy (health care professionals, farmers, etc.) The more different messengers we have, the harder it is for people to write off what we're saying as being a "special interest." Hope this helps.