31 replies to this topic

[tigerlily78]

I think E3 might have composed their message in a different program and then pasted it over, or they used the font size option in the message editor.

See?  :)
Personally, I think sustainabilty depends upon awareness and commitment, and poorer people with a mind to be more sustainable can probably do just as much as a richer person paying lipservice to the problem by driving a hybrid, but then engaging in conspicuous consumption in all other aspects of their life.

Of course I have also known people living at the poverty line who still felt they could afford to use paper plates and plastic cups and silverware at every meal. The convenience was not perceived as the WASTE it really was in terms of both money and resources.
On the flipside, you have many people in urban areas riding their bikes, walking, or taking the bus out of necessity because they cannot afford the expense of keeping a car in the city.

Mindset is more important than income in my mind.

[E3 wise]

I have to say I had forgotten about PG&E responsibility in the Brockovitch/ hexavalent chromium so you may be right about them trying to change their image.  What I was trying to stress was the partnership of Habitat for Humanity with residential alternative energy production.

The reasons are very logical, first lower income individuals will benefit greatly from the electrical savings.  Secondly these are smaller homes usually around 1500 to 1800 square feet which are less energy intensive.  Third by integrating solar at the time of construction costs are decreased significantly.

  I am really sorry about my last postings font size, I have no idea how that happened but I will try to be focused on my posting.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

I agree-Habitat for Humanity does great works. (Font size should be automatic, unless you've changed it-
but bigger is ok to these ancient eyes too.)

[zararina]

I think the status in life could not be enough measure or standard of who poluute the earth more. Specially if we would not include the billionaires who own industrial companies who are main contributor of environment destructions such as mining corporations, refinery and chemical factories.
More accurate if we would have data of how many poor people do effort to be greener versus how many rich people do effort to be greener. Since I think whether the status in life all can be green and all can be a polluter. Even who have more children, since there could be poor families who have many children that are growing their foods organically while a single child rich family can be too dependent or processed foods and chemically cultivated foods. IMO ;)

[tri-n-b-helpful]

I’m beginning to wonder if there has ever been a study or a paper on this topic? It would be a really great topic for university students! I can think of very little to add to either argument. I would like to raise the issue about exactly how effective is each one of these things that people can do for the environment. How much does each thing reduce greenhouse gases, for example? Surely this wouldn’t be too difficult to quantify? I know it would be time-consuming, but it would be very good for the discerning consumer to know. At the moment, many people want to do as much to help the environment as possible, but are unsure of exactly how much impact they are having or if they are having any worthwhile impact at all. People are also worried if they are being “led up the garden path” as far as the environment is concerned, whereas others are insisting that this is exactly the case! I think the intention is important for now and that people should not feel discouraged, but we should be encouraging others to do more of what they believe is the right thing to do – however they might perceive this – and learn about how they can do more and do it better.

[fancyfingers]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 12 January 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

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.

No, just because you have money to burn doesn't mean you are any greener than the next guy. The richer the person, the more likely they will have a bigger footprint on earth, from how large/small of home they have and all the products they purchase, (where the items are made, how are they packaged, etc) the more diamonds they have, the more effect they have on the earth (the diamond mines aren't the earth friendliest), rich people tend to eat out more, have hired help (gardeners, house cleaners, nanny, etc) the list goes on and on. Even if they drive a 'eco friendly' car, they will have two, three or even four of them, and don't forget the boat, ATV and trips on airplanes for vacations. Many poor people walk to the store, school and other places instead of driving because they do not even have a car. There usually is one car for the family.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

From some of the opinions here, it sounds like poor people/lower income are greener out of necessity=less consumerism.
To a certain extent, that's true.
But that doesn't mean that lower income people can't/don't have the same choices with product selection,
recycling, etc.
It's a mindset imo.
If they had more money, would they buy more stuff like everyone else? Probably.
Would those extra products help them in the long run to save energy i.e. insulation, better windows,
better appliances? Maybe.

[eds]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 12 January 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

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

You pose an excellent question, that links Money with being Green.
Were people during the Great Depression Green, because they had no jobs or money and
. . . the only food they had was from standing in line for bread and soup?
 acoffee.jpg   114.63K   1 downloads
My "Brain" tells me"that people that are financially better off," have wider number of choices and
. . . can be "Greener," than "lower income folks" whose choices are very limited and
. . . NOT always as "Green."

But my "Gut" (Personal Experience) tells me "that people that are financially better off,"
. . . do NOT know the difference between a "Want" and a "Need," and buy McMansions,
. . . Gas-Guzzling-SUV's, or anything else that people will let them buy on Credit and
. . . that's what got us into this Recession.
. . . While "lower income folks," living lives of quiet desperation, are forced to re-use, re-cycle, make-do
. . . can NOT afford to make mistakes, on what they spend their money on,
. . . without drastic consequences and so are "Greener."

[Shortpoet-GTD]

It's hard to have a wrong answer. But I love the discussion.

[ConservativeGreen]

Affluence gives you more ability to make high end green choices but even the poorest have some ability to choose.  However, around here I have observed the poorest seem to care the least and are the worst polluters.  They will throw trash on the ground rather than take one step to a trash can.  And recycle? Way too much bother.  Complain all day about being poor and then always have cigarettes to flick butts out the window.  I am not bashing all poor people, I have a poor family that I support directly and support other programs but some of what I see makes me sick.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

ConservativeGreen, on 31 January 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

Affluence gives you more ability to make high end green choices but even the poorest have some ability to choose.  However, around here I have observed the poorest seem to care the least and are the worst polluters.  They will throw trash on the ground rather than take one step to a trash can.  And recycle? Way too much bother.  Complain all day about being poor and then always have cigarettes to flick butts out the window.  I am not bashing all poor people, I have a poor family that I support directly and support other programs but some of what I see makes me sick.

I don't mean to sidetrack this conversation-taking it to the corporate level, but bp has lots of pocket money
and ruined the gulf for decades. In comparison, cigarette butts don't come close.

[fancyfingers]

Cigarette butts flicked anywhere but a trashcan really irks me. Back in April of 1999, we were at Disneyland in the line of The Haunted Mansion, when a woman in front of me who was smoking, tossed her lit cigarette down on the ground. I said, excused me, but you just dropped your lit cigarette on the ground. She glared at me and turned back around. I tapped her on the shoulder and said, 'Excuse me, your lit cigarette is on the ground. There is a trash can right there (pointing at it), please pick up your butt, put it out and put it in the trash can. Show your children a good example of what you are supposed to do with your cigarette when you are finished with it. If you don't care about that, look around, there are many children here, and what you just did was littering.' The woman once again glared at me, but she then picked up the cigarette, and put it in the trash can. Iplaces.f anyone has been to Disneyland, you know they have trash cans everywhere. Now, they have designated smoking areas. Some people, no matter how much money they have, think they can toss their trash where ever. That burns me up.