This is something that has been muddling around in my brain. I have no research or statistics. I am curious what you think though.
I started to think about poor people and how difficult it is for them to afford energy saving things like appliances, solar panels, insulation, etc. Their dollar must be stretched to where it is best needed for survival. They can't afford buying the better product that is better for the environment. They don't have the money to do so.
Wealthy people, on the other hand, have all the money to work with. So, they can make changes to their house, buy more expensive green items, put up solar panels, buy locally from farms, afford a fuel efficient car, etc.
On the other hand, because poor people have little disposable income they tend to buy less. They might be better at reusing things and fixing things. They are less likely to buy a new TV because there is a newer model. Whereas wealthy people might put in those solar panels, but they may have 4 iPods, 3 game systems, and 10 TVs...
So, what do you think? Who is greener--someone who is poor or someone who is rich? Do they offset each other?
| Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions. |
0
Who is more Green--the poor or the wealthy?
Started by FamilyTreeClimber, Jun 14 2012 01:12 PM
35 replies to this topic
#2
Posted 14 June 2012 - 05:33 PM
We've had this discussion before on the now defunct treehugger forums and I don't think we ever came up
with an answer either.
You made the main points-the rich can do more green things with their money-but do they? They spend a lot
on glam-diamonds and gold for instance, and the mining for those minerals is very destructive to Eco-systems
and the people trying to get them out from the Earth. (Black Diamond movie)
Lower income people as you said, cannot consume as much because of their budgets. But often because
of budgets, they're buying gmo-chemicals laced foods which are more destructive than organics. They
might take the bus instead of a car, so less emissions there (depending on the bus-I've seen some real
hog's breath coming out the back side of those buses.)
In a perfect world, if the well to do did spend their money on sustainable items, we would have less
emissions and less natural destruction, but it's far from a perfect world.
Call it 50/50?
with an answer either.
You made the main points-the rich can do more green things with their money-but do they? They spend a lot
on glam-diamonds and gold for instance, and the mining for those minerals is very destructive to Eco-systems
and the people trying to get them out from the Earth. (Black Diamond movie)
Lower income people as you said, cannot consume as much because of their budgets. But often because
of budgets, they're buying gmo-chemicals laced foods which are more destructive than organics. They
might take the bus instead of a car, so less emissions there (depending on the bus-I've seen some real
hog's breath coming out the back side of those buses.)
In a perfect world, if the well to do did spend their money on sustainable items, we would have less
emissions and less natural destruction, but it's far from a perfect world.
Call it 50/50?
#3
Posted 14 June 2012 - 06:17 PM
I think you might be right that it's a split. I was thinking about it because of the difficulties one might experience trying to live a greener lifestyle if they have little money. You wouldn't be able to buy better appliances for instance. You might be stuck with a car that is 20 years old.
The wealthy certainly have the ability to buy sustainable things, but they may also consume more than others just for the mere fact that their houses are larger. Naturally, they would have more stuff because the more space you have, the more stuff you have to fill it.
The wealthy certainly have the ability to buy sustainable things, but they may also consume more than others just for the mere fact that their houses are larger. Naturally, they would have more stuff because the more space you have, the more stuff you have to fill it.
#4
Posted 15 June 2012 - 09:47 AM
I think that they do offset each other. If I had to choose I would say that rich people are more green or at least are more capable of it. The less fortunate do not waste much resources, yes, but it is because of lack of choice, and that to me is never a good thing. Because when the time comes that they have situations wherein they don't have a choice but to waste, then they will. Whereas the rich person can just choose to not buy a new television set when a new model comes out, and furthermore use the savings to buy alternative energy tools.
#5
Posted 15 June 2012 - 11:43 PM
I really do think they offset each other. Going back to gadgets...you don't have poor people dumping a lot of e-waste into landfills. Some of them still have old TVs and can't afford to get a new phone or ipod each year. Rich people also tend to fly a lot more too. I have been pretty poor, but make money by being green. I get paid to recycle!
#6
Posted 16 June 2012 - 09:45 AM
One thing to keep in mind is numbers. Are we comparing the top 5% against the bottom 40%? Or the top 20% against the bottom 20%? The poor in the country outnumber the wealthy by a significant amount.
Another thing is that the wealthy are capable of many times more waste per person than the poor, however, their ability to be more sustainable is not that much more than the poor, simply because the high tech gizmos and ultra high efficiency items are not helping a large number of people, but a relatively small number of people per household. A 5,000 square foot custom built home for 2 people with ground source heat pump, solar panels and a wind turbine is not efficient nor sustainable. A 2,000 square foot home with an efficient furnace and good insulation for a family of 6 is more efficient and sustainable (this is not a large family discussion).
Another thing is that the wealthy are capable of many times more waste per person than the poor, however, their ability to be more sustainable is not that much more than the poor, simply because the high tech gizmos and ultra high efficiency items are not helping a large number of people, but a relatively small number of people per household. A 5,000 square foot custom built home for 2 people with ground source heat pump, solar panels and a wind turbine is not efficient nor sustainable. A 2,000 square foot home with an efficient furnace and good insulation for a family of 6 is more efficient and sustainable (this is not a large family discussion).
#7
Posted 16 June 2012 - 01:14 PM
yoder, on 16 June 2012 - 09:45 AM, said:
One thing to keep in mind is numbers. Are we comparing the top 5% against the bottom 40%? Or the top 20% against the bottom 20%? The poor in the country outnumber the wealthy by a significant amount.
Another thing is that the wealthy are capable of many times more waste per person than the poor, however, their ability to be more sustainable is not that much more than the poor, simply because the high tech gizmos and ultra high efficiency items are not helping a large number of people, but a relatively small number of people per household. A 5,000 square foot custom built home for 2 people with ground source heat pump, solar panels and a wind turbine is not efficient nor sustainable. A 2,000 square foot home with an efficient furnace and good insulation for a family of 6 is more efficient and sustainable (this is not a large family discussion).
Another thing is that the wealthy are capable of many times more waste per person than the poor, however, their ability to be more sustainable is not that much more than the poor, simply because the high tech gizmos and ultra high efficiency items are not helping a large number of people, but a relatively small number of people per household. A 5,000 square foot custom built home for 2 people with ground source heat pump, solar panels and a wind turbine is not efficient nor sustainable. A 2,000 square foot home with an efficient furnace and good insulation for a family of 6 is more efficient and sustainable (this is not a large family discussion).
#8
Posted 16 June 2012 - 04:27 PM
Interesting subject and lots of things to consider but I lean more towards the poor being more green. I think it is because the poor have to make do with what they have got. They can't afford to be wasteful and find ways to utilize what they do have to the fullest. While the rich tend to be more wasteful and not worry about the effects of being that way.
#9
Posted 16 June 2012 - 05:11 PM
Yoder, I was thinking compared one to one rather than all of the poor to all of the rich. If we did group to group, the poor would have a sizable disadvantage in that comparison just by their sheer numbers.
These are all good points that everyone is making. The problem I see is with the poor we don't know if they would have access to efficient items. If you are poor you may not even have access to efficient appliances, heaters, etc. You might replace your broken heater with the 20 year old one that your cousin just took out of his house. Your "new" refrigerator may be from 1990.
But, I think it's a valid point that the rich would consume more. Even if your house is energy efficient, if it's four times the size of a regular house owned by most middle class people, it has to use more energy just by the increased size, don't you think? You might own 4 Priuses but that's still 4 cars on the road compared to someone else's 1 or 2.
These are all good points that everyone is making. The problem I see is with the poor we don't know if they would have access to efficient items. If you are poor you may not even have access to efficient appliances, heaters, etc. You might replace your broken heater with the 20 year old one that your cousin just took out of his house. Your "new" refrigerator may be from 1990.
But, I think it's a valid point that the rich would consume more. Even if your house is energy efficient, if it's four times the size of a regular house owned by most middle class people, it has to use more energy just by the increased size, don't you think? You might own 4 Priuses but that's still 4 cars on the road compared to someone else's 1 or 2.
#11
Posted 17 June 2012 - 08:33 AM
If we are talking about poor people who are still living in a more primitive way like those who are living in the jungles/mountains, I think they are more green. They consume their own produce and do not buy foods packaged with plastics or buy bottled water. They also do not have any appliances as they wash their clothes with their hands and would wash their dishes without the need for dish washer and dryer.
#12
Posted 17 June 2012 - 10:59 AM
Speaking from a personal point of view, I've tended to be more green in the last few years, since our money's had to be stretched a lot further. While I did try to live green before, recently I've found out that all my green habits also save me money, so I look for more ways to both save money and live green. And I don't think I'm alone in this.
#13
Posted 17 June 2012 - 11:31 AM
zararina, on 17 June 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:
If we are talking about poor people who are still living in a more primitive way like those who are living in the jungles/mountains, I think they are more green. They consume their own produce and do not buy foods packaged with plastics or buy bottled water. They also do not have any appliances as they wash their clothes with their hands and would wash their dishes without the need for dish washer and dryer.
#14
Posted 17 June 2012 - 12:38 PM
Sandra Piddock, on 17 June 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:
Speaking from a personal point of view, I've tended to be more green in the last few years, since our money's had to be stretched a lot further. While I did try to live green before, recently I've found out that all my green habits also save me money, so I look for more ways to both save money and live green. And I don't think I'm alone in this.
I used to believe that it would be expensive for my family to live more sustainably than we used to, but I've found that living sustainably actually saves us money in the long run. We may pay a bit more locally grown food, but we don't waste as much on throw away appliances and are more careful who we give our money to when we make purchases, so this saves us in the end.
It's about looking at the big picture. A little more here, a little less there, but we have the same lives we used to, we just spend less all together.
#15
Posted 17 June 2012 - 01:20 PM
Shortpoet, yes, that shoe closet would be the example of extravagance. My goodness, who needs so many shoes?
I've been on a limited income for a few years. I know that I consume a lot less than I did when I had money all the time. You tend to shy away from the spontaneous purchases. You no longer can buy just because you want something.
I've been on a limited income for a few years. I know that I consume a lot less than I did when I had money all the time. You tend to shy away from the spontaneous purchases. You no longer can buy just because you want something.
#16
Posted 17 June 2012 - 02:40 PM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 17 June 2012 - 11:31 AM, said:
By that measure (sarcasm NOT intended) our homeless are the greenest.
No sarcasm taken and I agree. Living in shared spaces, with shared resources and minimal possessions does equal a greener lifestyle. Just not a desirable one for most Americans.
#17
Posted 18 June 2012 - 03:38 AM
FamilyTreeClimber, on 17 June 2012 - 01:20 PM, said:
Shortpoet, yes, that shoe closet would be the example of extravagance. My goodness, who needs so many shoes?
And buyers remorse-
some reports on the net say that about 40% of McMansions are sitting empty. What a waste.
#18
Posted 18 June 2012 - 01:25 PM
I think the rich by far. Homes are built once and lived in for decades, even a 5000 sq ft house can be less damaging on the enivronment long term than a 2000 house. Newer homes are better insulated and better able to withstand storms, etc. Solar, heat pumps, etc. are used on a daily basis as is heating oil, etc. That gives the rich the edge. With transportation, being 40% of carbon, those buying Leafs, Volts, Prius, etc. are going to make out better than those who have to buy used guzzlers because they are the cheapest. Some poor ride the bus but some rich take the train from the Hamptons 
Also, many rich don't even work, they drive very little, while the poor do work and drive much more.
It's true on a macro level as well, compare Google's footprint/employee vs. your mom and pop store. Also, the USA compared to Russia, China, India. Green is a rich man's game.
Also, many rich don't even work, they drive very little, while the poor do work and drive much more.It's true on a macro level as well, compare Google's footprint/employee vs. your mom and pop store. Also, the USA compared to Russia, China, India. Green is a rich man's game.
#19
Posted 19 June 2012 - 06:47 PM
Shortpoet-GTD, on 17 June 2012 - 03:18 AM, said:
Yikes! That is such a waste of money. I love shoes but not that much! Furthermore, I'm sure the wood used to make those closets are not cheap and with so many of them, I'm sure there were many trees that were cut down. At home, we no longer use wooden shoe racks because my partner prefers to use his camping shoeracks :D We bought additional two sets because they save space and money, not to mention, the environment.
#20
Posted 19 June 2012 - 07:56 PM
Mystique, on 19 June 2012 - 06:47 PM, said:
Yikes! That is such a waste of money. I love shoes but not that much! Furthermore, I'm sure the wood used to make those closets are not cheap and with so many of them, I'm sure there were many trees that were cut down. At home, we no longer use wooden shoe racks because my partner prefers to use his camping shoeracks :D We bought additional two sets because they save space and money, not to mention, the environment.
I really love shoes too. I really do, but that's just crazy. I was thinking that the poor and the rich may balance each other out. But after seeing that photo, I've changed my mine. Yes, the rich tend to buy hyrbrid cars, energy saving appliances and such, but they are more wasteful in other ways.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
