Re-frame climate change problems round energy security?

An idea that's been washing around in the UK for a while seems to me to be chiming with new evidence in the US - that climate change campaigns have historically framed messages around their own values when they should be framed round the values of the people targeted.
Chris Rose in the UK has segmented people according to whether they are 'settlers', 'pioneers' or 'prospectors'. Very roughly, climate change campaigners tend to be pioneers and are prepared to try new things. Prospectors want fun and like buying things. Settlers tend to be older and want security. (This is not sufficiently detailed and there's more on this here).
This chimes with new research in the US which indicates that the threat of a massive hike in oil price means that:

...a broad cross section of Americans may be ready to engage in dialogue about ways to manage the risks associated with peak
petroleum.

Although they use different audience segmentation to that just described, the authors appear to be finding that energy security (rather than the feelgood factor of having saved a polar bear) might present the foot-in-the-door opportunity to persuade people to adopt energy-efficient behaviours. The research report concludes that:

Respondents who self-identified as very conservative and those who were strongly dismissive of climate change were the respondents most likely to perceive very harmful health consequences.

There are related previous posts here and here. I'm grateful to Jonathan for bringing the US article to my attention.