[at_a_remove]

Stop and think about this for a bit.

Putting someone on the Moon takes a certain number of people, and it's a thing, and you can do it and be done with it. Less than a hundred thousand people, probably. A fixed budget.

Addressing climate change means suddenly stopping everyone from doing certain things. It's much broader in scope and involves forbiddance, long-term. It's a near-endless stream of don't: don't burn that coal, don't leave that light on, don't drive so much, don't use that plastic bag, don't have that many kids, and so on. This goes across billions of people and it won't ever end.

They're not even comparable.

[KerrAvon]

Sorry, but that's both false and defeatist. You personally not leaving a light on for a few hours is going to make fuck-all difference. You know what _would_ put a dent in it? Restricting private jet travel. Instituting some kind of time or fuel constraints on that would be worth a zillion peons turning off their lights more often.

Addressing climate change largely doesn't require personal sacrifice, and personal sacrifice may in fact be counterproductive. We have to identify the actual major sources contributing to it and fix those. There aren't really that many! They're just rich and powerful and they want you to feel like changing a lightbulb in your house is actually doing something. And it is, but it's not doing as much as grounding Musk's private plane forever would.

[fomine3]

Private jets are quite inefficient but it's just a minor one of many emission sources. It should be blamed but just banning private jet doesn't end global warming.