This time, we’re all going to the moon.

The climate change bill that narrowly passed the House of Representatives Friday recalls nothing so much as President John F. Kennedy’s 1961 call for the United States to send a man to the moon within a decade.

There are differences, of course. While Kennedy’s challenge was mostly about inspiration and politics, the task before us now is about planetary survival. And, instead of watching intently on TV, we are all going to take part in the bold venture, soaring to success or crashing to failure.

It is now up to the Senate to pass, and President Obama to sign, a final version of climate change legislation that will launch the United States toward a future as a nation that ends both its dependence on foreign energy sources and its leading role as a creator of climate-altering pollution.

As with the Apollo program, there are those who say that meeting this goal, slashing U. S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83 percent by 2050, cannot be done, because the necessary technology does not exist. And there are those who say it should not be done, because it will cost too much.

But reducing the amount of carbon that spews into the atmosphere is an expense only to those who can see but one side of the ledger. Continuing the status quo also carries huge costs, from increased storm damage to rising sea levels, from farmland turning into deserts to forced mass migrations of millions of starving people. There is strong agreement among most scientists that climate change is occurring.

The technological and industrial changes that will be necessary to slow or halt it will be expensive, in some cases massively so. But the money spent—by government, business and households—to make those changes will not fall into a black hole. It will, if we are smart and vigilant enough, go to more efficient uses of energy, justly rewarding those who invent them and gainfully employing those who manufacture and install them.

The massive job losses predicted by the mostly Republican opponents of this, or any, attack on climate change may more properly be seen as part of the ongoing evolution of the economy. With enough incentive from government and enough inventiveness from the private sector—the combination we use to win wars and explore other planets—green energy careers will replace pollution-heavy jobs just as surely as auto workers replaced blacksmiths.

And most of the jobs that will go away as we move to a greener economy are already living on borrowed time. Federal energy mandates and incentives just make it more likely that there will be 21st century jobs to replace them.

The bill that squeaked through the House is not perfect, with opponents claiming it does too little, costs too much, relies on a questionable cap-and-trade policy, places too much burden on A or gives too much benefit to B. The version that comes out of the Senate could be improved. The version that the president signs could be better still. But we need a bill passed and signed, or we will never get this mission launched.