"moving the most wealthy to technology and lifestyles with lower environmental impact" - that's a strategy that's new to me, and initially sounds smart, as I'd

"moving the most wealthy to technology and lifestyles with lower environmental impact" - that's a strategy that's new to me, and initially sounds smart, as I'd certainly rather that rich people had crazy cool low/zero-environmental-impact toys than gas-guzzling ones! However, isn't the net environmental impact of the 1% actually tiny compared to the activities of the 99%? So surely it's widely penetrating / mass adoption of low/zero-environmental-impact technologies by the 99% that will change the world? And of course as George Monbiot said... “(Population is) an important issue…most greens will not discuss. Is this sensitivity or is it cowardice? Perhaps a bit of both.” “…if we accept the UN’s projection that global population will grow by roughly 50 per cent and then stop. This means it will become 50 per cent harder to stop runaway climate change, 50 per cent harder to feed the world, 50 per cent harder to prevent the overuse of resources.” “Even if there were no environmental pressures caused by population growth, we should still support the measures required to tackle it: universal sex education, universal access to contraceptives, better schooling and opportunities for poor women. Stabilising or even reducing the human population would ameliorate almost all environmental impacts.”