35 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Diesel powered yachts, private jets-flying to Europe or some other destination for a day or two or just lunch.

A few years back I stopped watching Oprah because she sent her friend Gail to North Carolina for a sandwich.
Hello?

[FamilyTreeClimber]

I think the sheer volume of what the rich buy may outweigh and energy savings they may have collected by other means.  I remember seeing a floor plan for Bill Gates' house.  He needed an electric cart to get from one side to the other.  I don't know if he has install energy efficient things.  However, filling each of those rooms would probably equal the consumption of several poor families.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Not to mention the poor banks in the Cayman islands would be devastated without #mittens millions.

[yoder]

FamilyTreeClimber, on 20 June 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

I think the sheer volume of what the rich buy may outweigh and energy savings they may have collected by other means.

Agree.  Having all of the latest energy saving technology to heat and cool a mansion is not green or sustainable.  It is just using less energy to heat and cool a mansion.

I don't remember ever seeing a fleet of black Priuses or Volts with chauffeurs out in front of the ritzy hotels.

Using a helicopter to fly one person to meetings is not sustainable, even if it is the latest, most energy efficient model.

[Phil]

Well there is rich and there is uber rich.  Planes, yachts, etc. are not for the 1%, they are for the 0.001%  Gates and Buffet are the #2 and #3 richest on the planet.  My guess is Oprah is up there also.  While there are about 250,000 millionaires in the US, I think the number of billionaires is more like 250.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Ok, so let's put it in terms of those making less than 250K a year vs those making above that mark.

As green as I think I am, I have to admit, I'd probably buy something if I had that kind of money to toss around.
Maybe.
Solar panels for sure.

[Phil]

Did you catch that Ellison just bought one of the Hawiian islands?  I think he's #6 on the planet from the story I read.

It's so difficult to put a number on rich, in San Fran or NYC, 250k is probably solid middle class, in rural Kentucky you'd be rich.  Still 250K is at the point you no longer have to worry about a roof over your head or food on the table so it's probably as good a number as any.

[yoder]

Phil, on 23 June 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

It's so difficult to put a number on rich, in San Fran or NYC, 250k is probably solid middle class, in rural Kentucky you'd be rich.  Still 250K is at the point you no longer have to worry about a roof over your head or food on the table so it's probably as good a number as any.

Great point.  I'd agree that the 250k point is probably as close as you can get to a cutoff between wealthy and not wealthy, but again location, location, location.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

I guess I should have asked the question this way:  Are those with money to waste more green than those living on a fixed income?  Then, we are not dragged down by definitions of rich and poor, since those terms appear to be relative to where you are living.

It's an interesting debate.  You could say the poor can't afford to buy better quality things, so they are dragging on the system with their 30 year old refrigerator and washing machine that uses way too much water and electricity.  Then again, a person with money might have an energy efficient refrigerator in the house, but they may have another one in the garage, and a big freezer for all that extra ice cream they buy.

The poorer person may drive a beat up gas guzzler or they might not own a car at all.  Public transportation earns them points.  The wealthy person may be ready to buy one of those fancy Tesla electric cars that they've been showing off.  But, they may have a car for every family member, plus one for the servants to get groceries.

In thinking about this, I bet the greenest people are really the ones who lay somewhere in between.  They have just enough money to buy energy efficient appliances and fuel efficient cars, but not enough to waste it on everything they want to buy.  They don't live extravagantly, but they live comfortably.  They have enough money that they can make choices.  The freedom of choice is what it comes down to.

[Phil]

I wonder if it fits a standard bell curve where the center gets the most bang for the buck and the truly poor and uber rich do the worst.  You may be on to something!

I am not rich by any means but looking at the economics I was able to pay cash for my 10KW solar system from my investments, knowing it would save in the long run.  If I was on SS alone I never would have bought.

If I were rich I wouldn't change much from what I am doing, except I would buy EV's to replace my two current cars.   I will admit I might be tempted to have a winter home to get away from the snow though.

Which leads to a side question.  If people have second homes and house sitters, is that really wasteful?  The house sitter would have to live somewhere, any way.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Phil, on 23 June 2012 - 08:01 PM, said:

Which leads to a side question.  If people have second homes and house sitters, is that really wasteful?  The house sitter would have to live somewhere, any way.

Of course it is.
The resources to build the house, (wood, metal, roofing, pipes for plumbing, cement, dry wall, transport of those
items, etc.)
and the resources used to maintain it, (gas, electric, water.)
Not to mention urban sprawl (larger footprint on the Earth) and the emissions added from the house-sitter driving back
and forth to the home and running errands- groceries, etc.

[Phil]

My point was the sitter has to have a home so if they aren't sitting they have to live somewhere eise.   You haven't really saved a house or a car or commuting to the store or buying groceries, sitters have to eat too! .

If the house sits empty you are correct but if someone is using it, I would think that grey's the answer a little.  The sitter would likely have a smaller footprint, you could certainly claim that.

One thing engineers and scientists like to do is play devils advocate, you gain insight when you are forced to argue the other side.  Most things are not black and white as it turns out.  At least that's been my experience.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Every choice we make has an effect on the environment.

[yoder]

The opening question was "who is greener, the poor or the wealthy", but what Phil and I have noticed is that some parameters needed to be set before a real comparison could be made.  The terms poor and wealthy have different meanings to people, so what we were trying to do is identify the parameters before we proceded with the comparison.  We were not derailing the conversation, but were instead trying to make sure we were comparing apples to apples.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

It's true that every choice has an impact.  But, don't some choices make less of an impact than others?  The house will be built regardless.  If it sits empty running the refrigerator and all the things that they have left plugged in, adding in security lights and alarms, isn't that wasting more energy than having a house sitter?

Even if this fictitious house was built with energy savings in mind, wouldn't it still be wasting energy if no one is there to enjoy it?

[Phil]

Indeed.  FamilyTreeCliner hit on somehthing with disposable income.  Beyond recycling, people with low disposable income can't afford to make serious changes in their footprint.  Those with can makes changes.  Those with a lot can make changes to their own lives and the community at large.

But it's not that simple, (black and white as I said).  Is a cell phone a necessity or luxury?  Air conditioning?  Cable/satellite TV?  Personally I could have bought a new car or solar, I chose solar.  But I only did so because it made economic sense, if the payback was more than a decade I wouldn't have done it.  So, did I do a good thing for the wrong reason?

We've probably beaten this one to death.  In the end I think the question is irrelevent, it's more about commitment and self sacrifice than wealth.  Anyone who could afford a car can afford a roof full of solar, anyone who can afford even a used car can afford at least some solar.  Whatever the rich do is irrelevent to what we do, we can't control the rich, we can control ourselves.

Looking at it another way, since there are about 250K millionaires and 350 million of us, even if they all went green it wouldn't even move the US, 0.1%.  As with everything, it's the average Joe that will have to do the heavy lifting.