Except we're not demi-Gods, able to decide what to do at will with the entire planet. Pursuing some serious efforts in one area can't be turned down simply because there's something else that could be done in another area.
In fact, people who actively shame others for eating meat, having vacations, and raising kids, are doing exactly that. Except, instead of optimizing the ecological impact, they optimize their own emotional return through gaining influence over others, similar to religious missionaries.
I think, for everyone who actually wants to solve the climate change problem, being honest about their goals could be a good starting point.
Unfortunately being anti-nuclear is more emotionally fulfilling for people.
There are a lot of people on earth, working in parallel or asynchronously should be a lot more efficient than fixing problems synchronously one-by-one and reassessing in between?
5 years and about 10 major releases later, I can confidently tell you that convincing a large group of people to do anything, even it if pays off great for them, is a long and time-consuming process, that is often more labor-intense and risky than the engineering part.