3 ms·
That’s an oversimplification, if nothing else because you can spend money to save money. Likewise you can make a monetary expenditure to prevent other more envi
by ironmagma 6y ago
That’s an oversimplification, if nothing else because you can spend money to save money. Likewise you can make a monetary expenditure to prevent other more environmentally costly expenditures.
- tonyedgecombe 6y agoIt's not a bad approximation. More flights, bigger houses, bigger cars, more toys, faster computers. They all cost more and all have a bigger environmental impact. There are a few things where spending will decrease your emissions, loft insulation, possibly replacing your petrol car with an EV, definitely replacing it with an e-bike. Even if there are savings made what do people do with their reduced energy costs? Mostly buy more products/services.
- ironmagma 6y agoTo some extent yes, but that is different from the claim, which is about "all money." But also, you're neglecting things like cheaper parts tending to be worse for the environment. Comparatively expensive wood, for instance, would likely cause fewer problems than cheaper plastics. Plus, that's true by virtue of the cheaper parts breaking sooner and needing to be replaced. It's certainly not a universal that luxury goods are eco-friendly, but it is true that eco-friendliness is a factor that requires a premium to be paid for it.