31 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Do you think
that people that are financially better off are greener than lower income folks?

Middle to high income consumers have the opportunity to buy electric or hybrid cars, solar
panels, organic foods/clothing.
But it is still consumerism; using up more
resources.
Using these products does less damage once they are made though.

On the other hand.........

Lower income people don't consume as much because of budgets, but some
of the items they do buy may be worse for the environment. They may continue
to drive an old gas guzzler, because they can't upgrade. But the resources are
not being used to make that newer car for them, so there's that.

In general, who do you think is greener?
Or is it just 6 in one, half a dozen in the other?

Thanks ahead of time.

[mariaandrea]

Is the glass half full or half empty?

So, I'm low income. I'm also very green-minded. My level of consumerism is very low and my level of re-use is very high. I think that tends to be the other way around with people who are at least financially comfortable. We have 3 people in a small space so we have less of a footprint and use less energy to heat than a typical suburban family in a typical house. We also ride the bus or walk everywhere. But, sometimes we do have to buy the cheapest products that I know are not made in any kind of a sustainable or environmentally sensitive manner. We can't buy organic produce or meat all of the time - some of the time, but not 100%. If I had the income that would be my first priority.

As consumers, it's the people actually buying the products who influence companies and manufacturers. Supply and demand, you know. When people show a preference for electric or hybrid vehicles and orders pile up that exceed demand, more will be made and fewer gas guzzlers will be made. When more homeowners install solar panels and rooftop wind turbines, manufacturers will make more. I'm not able to be an influence at that level and it's important. We need to vote with our wallets.

So, all in all, about equal.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Thank you. It's been on my mind for awhile now, so thanks for the input.

[magickat]

I do think it tends to be the better off who are greener as they can afford to be! Whist it costs nothing to do things like recycling, poorer families cannot do things like buying organic foods as they cost more. However, lower income households probably have fewer and less powerful cars and use less fuel heating homes, so perhaps are inadvertantly greener.

[CrownedClown]

I also think that even if little, richer people have advantage and are more greener.

Quote

Middle to high income consumers have the opportunity to buy electric or hybrid cars, solar
panels, organic foods/clothing.

No matter how you look at things they are being more generous to mother nature then people who can only do simple things like recycling, however that doesn't make them any better then the rest of the people. I myself can't afford electrical car, so I use mainly busses, and even though at the moment all I could do is recycle I still think I'm contributing.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Oh, I'm not pitting one against the other, don't get me wrong. Just trying to figure it out.

[Hydrotopia]

Where the scale tips is the fact that the most wealthy tend to lean conservative and conservative is clearly anti-green...

[still learning]

You didn't say whether or not you meant low income in the US or in the world.

I have no doubt that for fossil CO2 emissions, a poor person in the third world contributes far less than just about any US adult.

In general, higher income people buy more stuff and more energy too.  Buy more automobiles and drive them more, buy bigger homes, buy more airline tickets to faraway places.  Exceptions abound, but higher incomes foster higher consumption.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

still learning, on 13 January 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

You didn't say whether or not you meant low income in the US or in the world.

I have no doubt that for fossil CO2 emissions, a poor person in the third world contributes far less than just about any US adult.

In general, higher income people buy more stuff and more energy too.  Buy more automobiles and drive them more, buy bigger homes, buy more airline tickets to faraway places.  Exceptions abound, but higher incomes foster higher consumption.

U.S.
I know the poorer countries don't buy much, and the uber rich in other countries (some not all) are the
rulers/dictators.; so it's not the same as here (in general)

[joeldgreat]

Let's put it to these perspective, a low income generating person don't have the luxury of buying a car of his own, whether a petrol fueled or a hybrid one. Then will it be more appropriate that the lower income people are more greener than the high income group simply because they don't have the money to buy any of the luxury there is.

People who can afford to buy a car (second hands included) are not considered as low earning individual. The mere fact that he can buy one, then he had enough money to pay for it.

But, that only my other side talking, for the purpose of discussion.

[CrownedClown]

Yeah but I don't think it's right to consider the extremely poor who don't have any other choice, but to be green. I mean I doubt they give a rats *** about the planet when they can bearly buy themself something to eat.
Btw I'm not saying this in any racist or other way negative way. I'm not trying to offend anyone in anyway and I apologize if I do so with this comment.

[jasserEnv]

One aspect to think of with respect to income level and "level of greenness" is that poorer people tend to have more children and tend to directly consume certain resources. This is a hugely damaging aspect. If you think about bush meat and deforestation for cooking fuel in India and parts of Africa, you get the combined impact of severe overpopulation with direct uncontrolled resource consumption. While those in the first world are definitely also to blame, there is also some regulation of our consumption that affords the natural world some protection. All that said, I have read a few times that the wealthiest 1 billion and poorest 1 billion people are the most destructive to the planet.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

joeldgreat, on 13 January 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Let's put it to these perspective, a low income generating person don't have the luxury of buying a car of his own, whether a petrol fueled or a hybrid one. Then will it be more appropriate that the lower income people are more greener than the high income group simply because they don't have the money to buy any of the luxury there is.

Not being able to buy a hybrid or electric doesn't make lower income people greener. Perhaps, just the opposite.
They're driving that old gas guzzler, and polluting more, for years.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

CrownedClown, on 13 January 2012 - 09:04 PM, said:

Yeah but I don't think it's right to consider the extremely poor who don't have any other choice, but to be green. I mean I doubt they give a rats *** about the planet when they can bearly buy themself something to eat.

I disagree.
Lower income people care about the environment just as much as the well heeled. They may not drive a Prius,
but they do recycle, shop second hand stores out of necessity (which is better for us and the planet, verses
using resources to manufacture new goods) or walk/take the bus because of budget, don't own a car-etc.

Using a broad brush/stereotype for a group of people is inaccurate.
People from all income levels care about these subjects.

I didn't post this question as a "us verses them" but rather to sort out the choices made by both groups.

[CrownedClown]

Btw I'm finding more and more green things about me everyday. I had forgotten that second hand stores are green :D. Even though I enjoy buying brand names I shop twice as much in second hand stores. I was doing it mainly because I could find brand names for 1/5 ot the actual price, but now I'll be doing since it's also green :D.

Also by poor I meant countries in Africa for example where the people really don't have a choice.  
I agree this isn't a competition "us vs them", because as long as a person is trying even a little I still think that's great. There really isn't a need for a winner here :)

[Phil]

Dirty little secret:  Green incentives are "tax cuts for the rich".  How many poor or even middle class are going to put $20, $30, $40,000 worth of solar on their roofs?  How many are going to get that $7,500 rebate on a Volt?

No contest, the more affluent are far greener, both nationally and internationally.  Compare pollution levels of first world nations vs third world, China, India, Mexico vs US, Germany, France as an example.  Not even close.

Nationally and internationally, the more affluent, on average, have smaller families, that alone makes them the green winner.  Also, as mentioned earlier, when the affluent trade in their gass guzzlers, they end up in the used car market.  Since they are the least expensive that is what the poor and lower middle are able to afford.  It's the same with energy star appliances.

The wealthy are also able to upgrade their insulation, heating plants, etc; whereas the poor often rely on wood heat to save money on propane, electricity, etc.

Although recycling is done by both, my guess would be the more affluent would recycle more.  People working two jobs to make ends meet barely have time to think.

In no way do I think it is about intention, it is about choices, and the well to do have them while the poor for the most part do not.

Finally, "Where the scale tips is the fact that the most wealthy tend to lean conservative and conservative is clearly anti-green"

Sorry, that's pure propaganda on two counts.  Gates,  Buffet, Soros, most of wall street, most of Hollywood elite, etc. are all liberal, not conservative.  Also, conservatives are NOT anti green, I and all my conservative friends are more green than any of the liberals I know.

Conservaives see two types of liberals "green", the Ed Begley types that put their money where their mouth is and the Al Gore types that talk a good line then pollute like hell.  In my ancedotal experience, there are 10 Gores to 1 Begley.

Al Gores house uses 12x the energy of an average house, he claims the seas could rise 30' then buys a house on the beach.  George Bush lived in a house designed by a green architect, used solar electric and hot water, geo thermal heating, etc.  "Oil man" Bush said publicly we were addicted to oil and needed to stop, he removed the $3,000 limit in alternative energy tax credits and spent more on alternative energy research than all his predicessors, (all the electric cars coming out now were developed inder Bush's tenure).  Lastly he put 10KW of solar on the white house.  (I'd provide the link but I have too few posts).

How much solar does Gore have on his house?

We really need to stop pigeon holing people with stereotypes and treat people as individuals.  Actions speak much louder than words, it's results that count not intentions.  You make much more progress by making friends than making enemies.  These are all truisms.

The thing conservatives ARE against, is green at any cost.  That is a recipe for disaster.  There is at least one solar farm and one wind farm reported as being idle because environmentalists are blocking transmission line access.  Does that really make sense?  Also, if you go bankrupt then there is no money for ANY green initiatives.  You have to be sensible with choices, it's never all or nothing.

Case in point.  Solar was absurd in Carters time.  Prices were, $15/watt in 80's dollars.  Now they make sense because they are less than $1.50/w in todays dollars and only now are they on the cusp of viability.

Another case.  EV-1 was absurd in it's time.  At a cost of $85,000 in 90's dollars it would make the Volt at $40,000 in todays dollars look like the bargain of the century.  Even the Volt isn't viable, (Chevy announced they would drop it if it didn't pick up sales by mid year), how could the EV-1 be?

Spending excessive funds for technology that isn't ready just leaves less money for technology when it is ready.

[Jessi]

I definitely think it's more dependent on the person than it is on the income. Like you said, there are reasons both groups have more access to sustainable living.

While higher income brackets may have access to things like more energy-efficient cars, they could also easily afford disposable goods like paper towels and constant fast food that a lower income bracket doesn't even have the funds to buy and waste in the first place.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 14 January 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

How many poor or even middle class are going to put $20, $30, $40,000 worth of solar on their roofs?  
How many are going to get that $7,500 rebate on a Volt?

How many rich people do? Just because someone has money doesn't mean they have solar on their roofs,
or solar water heaters. Yes, they will have better major appliances, but all new appliances are energy rated.

But you should agree that people with more money are bigger consumers, and often of products that
are destructive to our ecosystems i.e. gold, silver, mcmansions, multiple cars/ limo's.
But on the other side, they also have the capacity to build greener homes, install large capacity
rainwater retention units, etc.

Phil said:

No contest, the more affluent are far greener, both nationally and internationally.  
Compare pollution levels of first world nations vs third world, China, India, Mexico vs US, Germany, France as an example.

"Greeness" levels often depends on the governments in place. China and India were huge coal producers,
but are now transitioning into solar.
Germany, on the other hand, is very green-have been for years.
http://thinkprogress...th-of-december/
That's because of the incentives put into place from their government. France went with nuclear; again-
government decision.

Phil, on 14 January 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

  

Nationally and internationally, the more affluent, on average, have smaller families,
that alone makes them the green winner.  

Agreed.

Phil, on 14 January 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

How much solar does Gore have on his house?

That depends on which web site you read.
http://thinkprogress...home/?mobile=nc

Phil, on 14 January 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

We really need to stop pigeon holing people with stereotypes and treat people as individuals.  Actions speak much louder than words, it's results that count not intentions.  You make much more progress by making friends than making enemies.  These are all truisms.

Again, I did not start this thread to pit one group against the other. We're all good and bad in our own way.

[E3 wise]

   <sub>I must say that when I read your question regarding readers view on if wealthier people were greener than less affluent middle or lower income people I was struck by the timeliness of this question.  As you and many readers have pointed out it is much easier for affluent people to go green.  With this said my question is why more are not becoming greener.  Let’s face it the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer and the middle class is being squeezed out of existence.  If any group had the means to adopt a new lifestyle, you would think it would be them and yet I see very few doing so.  Oh of course you have those richer people doing it for monetary reasons but often that is the main focus of rich people in America “How can I have more money.”

Likewise in past history it has usually been the wealthy who have been the early adopters of new technology.  Look at the automobile for example.  Early in its history only the rich could afford a car, they where expensive and fickled contraptions that usually required a driver who acted as the mechanic to keep the thing going.  Then comes Henry Ford, using the assembly line process he drove down production costs and provided a model for cars for lower and middle classes.  My point is that often the market place is the decider of who will take advantage of green living and costs & mass production contributes to adoption by the masses.

Here is an example of what I am saying, Habitat for Humanity has recently partnered with builders in Georgia, Phoenix, Oakland and other areas. For close to 5 years, PG&E (Pacific Gas & Electric Company) has been providing clean and efficient solar panels to every new Habitat for Humanity-built home in their service territory - at no cost. This first-of-its-kind partnership brings solar energy to families in underserved communities, extends the resources of our non-profit partners and contributes to a healthier environment for us all.

   Honestly I think education is the most important factor in this question.  Anyone who truly wants to make a difference can and the more small things we all do, the more they add up to big accomplishments.  If you educate people about water resources they will do things like using a cup and turning off water while they brush their teeth or apply for incentives for low water use toilets.  Yes the 1 %’s have more bathrooms, but if we 99%’s all do our part we can accomplish much more than they can.  Yes rich people can build more energy efficient homes, but if incentives for new higher efficiency HVAC (heat, ventilation, air conditioning) are made available to all then average homes take advantage of it also.  Part of the problem here is this economic recession we are in which has made us all look at thing in a different way.  If you lose your home or are unemployed basic issues such as food become more important than going green.  With this said a bad economy may also cause people to car pool to save money, or reduce gas usage, or buy at local farmers markets all to save costs and thereby in doing so live greener.  What I really think is cool is you posing these kinds of questions because it causes us to ask questions and look at ourselves to see what we can do – always a good thing.

Great question and posting- E3Wise</sub>

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Thanks, I appreciate that. And I was trying to get people to look at all the issues regarding this-and
not putting one group against another as has been said here by others.

Regarding PG & E, I'm glad to hear it but I wonder if they're trying to clean up their image after
that debacle with Brockovitch/ hexavalent chromium and the number of cancers they caused.

Btw-why is the print so small on your post?