[toomuchtuna]

> Which one do you think is better for encouraging further action?

I can fairly easily imagine that the doom and gloom spin does better. The message that anti-deforestation efforts work and have been for decades likely does less to make the average person feel they should continue to do anything about it in their daily lives, since the current trend indicates everything will be fine. Instead, if you believe that the situation is dire, a person that otherwise would not care deeply about the problem might be more likely to take action.

I would argue that a combination of the two is most effective, if the primary goal is to encourage further action. A little doom and gloom by framing the current situation as an image people can understand ("a football pitch every minute") convinces people that there is still a significant problem, and then the hopeful aspect (that the trend actually shows a positive outlook) convinces them that any action they take will be useful.

[SmellyGeekBoy]

Indeed, I went from a genuine "what can I personally do about this" when hearing about this on the radio this morning to "OK, I guess I don't need to get involved after all" when reading GP's comment. Just because outrage promotes clicks doesn't mean that it doesn't also encourage action.