3 ms·

Yup, this has always been the case. Also, if you have more money, you can and probably do travel more, which is also worse for the environment. You'll probably

Yup, this has always been the case. Also, if you have more money, you can and probably do travel more, which is also worse for the environment. You'll probably have a bigger house which uses more energy. You'll probably have more stuff which took energy to make. You'll likely eat out more, which involves transportation of you to a place to eat, other people there to prepare your food, ingredients to the place, waste from dishes, etc etc etc. And if you're wealthy, you'll probably want to not just have all that die with you, so you'll likely do one of the worst things possible for the environment and have a kid or three, who will go on to pollute the world for the next 100+ years.

zo1 12y ago
I wonder, you seem to have some sort of magical wand that conjures money and wealth out of nowhere, to support your argument. Bear with me: Those wealthy people that you so complain about spending their money, earned their money through some sort of market process. (Aside from obvious criminal behavior). Those market processes are the accumulated spending of (probably poor) individuals. i.e. The wealth was not generated and given to the rich in a vacuum. And here is your paragraph, rephrased to refer to those market masses instead of the targeted rich: All those individuals had money, they had to move around. They had a house/shack/apartment, that used energy (aside from hut-dwellers). They have stuff which takes energy to make, and use also. They also have to eat, which involves transportation to the place to eat, people to prepare it, ingredients to place, waste from dishes, etc etc etc. And if they're living (which they probably are), they'll probably want to have a few kids, which is one of the worst things possible for the environment and have a kid or three, who will go on to pollute the world for the next 100+ years.

zo1 12y ago

I wonder, you seem to have some sort of magical wand that conjures money and wealth out of nowhere, to support your argument. Bear with me: Those wealthy people that you so complain about spending their money, earned their money through some sort of market process. (Aside from obvious criminal behavior). Those market processes are the accumulated spending of (probably poor) individuals. i.e. The wealth was not generated and given to the rich in a vacuum. And here is your paragraph, rephrased to refer to those market masses instead of the targeted rich: All those individuals had money, they had to move around. They had a house/shack/apartment, that used energy (aside from hut-dwellers). They have stuff which takes energy to make, and use also. They also have to eat, which involves transportation to the place to eat, people to prepare it, ingredients to place, waste from dishes, etc etc etc. And if they're living (which they probably are), they'll probably want to have a few kids, which is one of the worst things possible for the environment and have a kid or three, who will go on to pollute the world for the next 100+ years.