[Arnt]

The problem is that it doesn't matter.

Most of that those giant emissions are your daily commute etc. The aren't enough private jets to really make a dent compared to all the middle-class car drivers.

Merely being a reasonable demand isn't enough to get a law or treaty. A good intention won't be enough, a likely significant effect is politically necessary.

[sandworm101]

>> Most of that those giant emissions are your daily commute etc.

Daily commutes, even by IC car, are not the bulk of carbon emissions. Carbon emissions from all transport are only about 1/3 of total emissions, with commutes being a subset of that. The bulk of emissions, the other 2/3, are from non-transport things like electricity and food production. Installing some solar panels and not eating meat might be more effective than avoiding the daily commute.

[Arnt]

Yes, and no matter how much less meat the billionaires eat, it's not going to move the needle.

A treaty that is sure not to move the needle won't get signed.

[olivergregory]

It's not about the effectiveness: it's about the message.

[jaredklewis]

Wow. So instead of fighting climate change with measures that are actually effective, we’re going with ineffective measures with good “messaging?” I’m sure the millions of climate refugees in 2100 will appreciate our spot on messaging!

[znpy]

> The problem is that it doesn't matter.

This line of reasoning can be applied at any level: "my commute to the office? Oh, that doesn't matter, it's the big factories, the big coal-based power plants that pollute. It's the billionaires that pollute. Not me."

So either we all stop shifting the blame on somebody else and we all start cutting our carbon emissions or, we might as well enjoy polluting: we can still blame it on somebody else! (i'm being bitterly sarcastic here)