The richer everyone gets, the greener the planet will be in the long run
 

environmentalism is a luxury of the wealthy. why is this a surprise?

b/c it goes against the prevailing wisdom

Partial credit.

Eating organic, sustainable food, purchasing 'green' products for cleaning ones home, purchasing a Prius as opposed to a conventional car, well those things require more money. But I think you are wrong in making it out like you have to be a millionaire to consider the planet in ones life choices.

We have friends on very modest incomes who live their lives as green as possible for their budget. One needs to change your thinking about whats important.

I think food is the one area where the 'green' movement is really full of BS. Its a real nice rosy thought that everyone can eat organic produce grown within 100 miles of where you live. But thats not reality for folks of limited means living in Chicago in January. Don't get me wrong, my wife and I are total organic, eat local types. But not everyone can go into Whole Foods and drop $30 for veggies to make one meal.

The environmental movement is a legitimate goal for our society, but it can't simply be a fashion trend for those that can afford it. More attention needs to be paid to making 'green life' possible for those with less money, and without telling them, "Well, just use less". Poor folks are poor. They're tired of less.

Organic is BS. The you can only support about 15 people per acre without nitrogen fixing fertilizers. You can support about 150 people per acre with fertilizers. The latest techniques use sensors on the fertilzer truck, to only all the amount needed in the area, by looking at the health of the crop.

You want to feed the world? You cannot do it with 'organic' food.

red-beard is spot on. Look at the majority of the crop growing villages in Africa. No fertilizer=starvation. I'm on the fence about supplying them with fertilizer though, there are several downsides. One is becoming dependent on others for fertilizer over the long term to ensure stability in overcoming starvation. However, I hate to see starving people in the world.

Al Gore has lots of money.
He makes movies about green but doesn't practice what he preaches. How big is his utility bill every month for his mansion?
How much fuel does the private jet consume every time he goes somewhere?

His so called carbon footprint is bigger than that of some small towns.

From the article:

As their wealth grows, people consume more energy, but they move to more efficient and cleaner sources — from wood to coal and oil, and then to natural gas and nuclear power, progressively emitting less carbon per unit of energy.

Yeah - I don't see a lot of nuclear power in our future.

Regardless, the green movement is allied with anti-globalization, anti-capitalist types and even if this theory is true, those folks won't embrace it.

The Richer an economy is, the greener it can be. Think about basic sanitation in the US versus a third world country and the diseases associated with that, and the shortened lifespans.

I completely disagree with this article. Two points - while "richer" people might use "greener" technology, in an absolute sense, we use far more energy than someone in say, Africa, who burns wood to stay warm. Unless my energy is almost 100% green (which I don't see for a long time), that person burning wood in Africa is using much less fossil fuel on average than I am.

Second point - everybody seems to think that things would be better if the Chinese, North Koreans, Africans, etc. could just live like us. Guess what? There isn't enough energy in the world (at least not in any form that we could exploit anytime soon) to bring the world's people up to even "poor" in the US.

really?

what if they all put solar panels on their houses, like Gore did?

the sun puts out a LOT of energy and a pretty fair amt. is incient on the surface of our planet

red-beard's comment re organic food is a bit overdone but it is difficult to support a given popn w/o use of fertilizers - it can be done however -- and WAS and IS done in areas that do not use add-on type fertilizers. Instead, they rely on manure.

Nope, those are the number. The ratio is 10 to 1, and your manure doesn't change anything.

more specificity pls