Climate change is a problem that requires widespread public support for various policies. Emotional framing of climate change-related issues may increase concern with climate change and increase support for individual and collective actions aimed at adapting to or mitigating the effects of climate change. However, not much research has looked into whether different emotional frames also influence support for specific policies aimed to address climate change. Drawing on functional emotion theory, which suggests that the appraisal of (discrete) emotions differentially affect perceptions and judgments, we hypothesize on the effects of three discrete emotions on support for different types of policy proposals. First, we predict that emotional framing of climate change that elicits anger in respondents will be associated with greater levels of support for policies that involve high levels of civil penalties imposed on firms or organizations that breach laws and regulations. Next, expect fear frames to promote greater levels of support for protective policies that aim to adapt to climate change. Third, we hypothesize that emotional frames that elicit guilt will be associated with greater levels of support for climate change policies that involve high costs to individuals and the society. Fourth, we also predict that fear and anger will make individuals focus on short-term solutions, whereas guilt will be associated with support for long-term policies, such as disaster preparedness. We test our hypotheses using data from a survey experiment conducted in the United Kingdom in which we used media frames that aroused anger, fear, and guilt as treatments.