I don't see hypocrisy, I see disingenuous criticism. Driving a Tesla is objectively less bad for the environment than driving a Range Rover. So if you buy a Tes

I don't see hypocrisy, I see disingenuous criticism. Driving a Tesla is objectively less bad for the environment than driving a Range Rover. So if you buy a Tesla, you are using less carbon than your peer rich folks. But if you are rich, you by definition command a greater share of society's resources, which means more energy and more carbon emitted. You live in a bigger house. Plus a summer villa and a mountain chalet. And a large formal garden with thirsty plants. And a pool. Of course you have more furniture, more clothes. Cars and boats, maybe a plane. You play sports requiring high-tech equipment and expensive-to-maintain facilities. You travel for leisure, and when you travel, you pay to have lots of elbow room, spending carbon to transport empty air. You go in person to plenty of concerts, conferences, matches, performances and get-togethers. You eat an enormous variety of fresh, healthy food which is transported, stored, and prepared in exceedingly inefficiently small batches. Et cetera. The fact that rich emit more carbon than the poor has nothing to do with the fact that the rich are evil or hypocritical, but simply with the fact that they are rich and spend more money. If you were rich, you would emit more carbon too. And if you lined up billionaires against the wall, confiscated their billions and gave them to the poor, the now less-poor would immediately start emitting more carbon.