>but money in general is a license to buy stuff that has environmental impacts I've had the same thought for a while, and when extrapolate thought to extremes,

>but money in general is a license to buy stuff that has environmental impacts I've had the same thought for a while, and when extrapolate thought to extremes, the money I spend on "premium" / "socially responsible " or however branding used to justfy goods that support advanced economy producers with high consumption habits "feels" like it would contribute to net contribution over say, some sweat shop owner/worker in ASEAN making margins, and spending their wages on essentials. Then again past certain point, essentials turn into big QoL items like new concrete housing. Ultimately, you can only do embodied energy calculation that factor in so many degrees of seperation, but (IMO) merely spending less money on things = contributing less money for recirculation used consume more things. But on large enough scale, that's also how growth stalls and economies stagnate.