[The Best American Science and Nature Writing (2018)]
In “Wealthier People Produce More Carbon Pollution-Even the 'Green' Ones,” David Roberts highlights the presence of wealthy people in considerations of climate change and carbon emissions. He makes it clear that although wealthy people often describe themselves as ‘Green’ or ‘environmentally friendly,’ their carbon footprints do not match their good intentions.
Scientists discovered that “the variables that most predict carbon footprint are “per capita living space, energy used for household appliances, meat consumption, car use, and vacation travel” (135). Roberts argues that the energy used to produce to the lifestyles of wealthier people are far greater than their relatively small attempts at recycling and buying organic produce.
What reactions did you have to the article? Why?
33 comments:
I have to say, this article did not surprise me. Some would say it is common sense to realize that the wealthier you are, the more your carbon output will be. Just think of the multiple cars that celebrities own, the private jets that they use, and the multiple houses that they have that are all heated and using gas. Travelling also negatively impacts the environment, which is also mentioned in the chapter. David Roberts writes, “The variables that...predict carbon footprint are ‘per capita living space, energy used for household appliances...car use, and vacation travel’” (135). Those with lesser incomes use public transportation, which lessens your carbon footprint, and usually share cars within one family. Vacations are rare, if even possible for lower class incomes. Carpooling also saves on carbon outputs, but there is no reason for rich people to do so. It’s very disheartening to realize that no matter what a few people do to reduce their carbon footprints, because of the majority of people not reducing, it will in the long run have little to no effect in saving our environment.
What was said in this article didn’t really surprise me. I knew that celebrities and rich people contribute to carbon emissions more than others due to their lavish lifestyle. I find it ironic that there are so many celebrities advocating for global climate change, yet they are the ones who contribute the most to it. Due to our current society and how we choose to live, I understand that it is hard to be completely green, but everyone could find a way to decrease their footprint if they really wanted to.
-Kayla P
I was not surprised by the reading either. When you have more monetary resources, of course you'll buy things that will be able to use more energy, that's why they're more expensive. If celebrities really want climate change they should be advocates themselves and follow the protocol they're setting out for the general public, because like the book said, the general public combined is not what does the true damage honestly.
This article had both expected and unexpected attributes. The unexpected include the fact that the wealthy who make more money are producing the most carbon output when most of them are the biggest advocates for stopping global warming. Seeing as these people are wealthier they have access to more things that could essentially contribute to a lesser carbon output on their part yet they do the opposite.They could be contributing to research funds and purchasing the things needed to make the change that people of lower and middle class cannot. The expected however contradicting my statement is that they are obviously producing more carbon output due to their means of transportation. Wealthier people can buy more expensive cars which reduce gasoline consumption and the pollution that comes with that but the fancy foreign electric cars have just as bad if not worse of. an impact and they also travel via private jet releasing who knows how many harsh toxins amongst many other things.
Nothing really surprised me while reading this. Global warming is a topic that most people rich, middle class, or poor really don't want to talk about. The article simply gets to the point that every professional has been saying for years, to s reduce global warming would take a large shift in culture, lifestyles, industries, etc.
Chris W.
What reactions did you have to the article? Why?
This article confused me at first because I wasn't sure how wealthy people who were ALSO eco-friendly could still have larger carbon footprints then those who were less fortunate than them.To me, it seemed that BECAUSE of their wealth, they would have the ability to support more eco-friendly lifestyle habits like paying for recycling versus the cheaper alternative of regular trash collecting. But, the article ended up proving me wrong. Although the eco-friendly wealthy people are able to reduce their carbon footprints, they cant reduce it nearly as much as their counterparts. All of their efforts end up being covered by the effects of their wealth and status. They tend to require more energy for the larger homes that they live in, the appliances that go in them, their food consumption, and travel needs.
-Chaianna Curry
It definitely isn't surprising that wealthier people would have higher carbon outputs than less wealthy people. On one hand, it's understandable due to the fact that they own more and larger vehicles and houses, etc, so they have more output and should pay a larger price than a person with a smaller income would. On the other hand, sometimes, the climate change discussion is often simplified to the idea that it is a problem caused by only the wealthy, and only they can solve the problem, when most likely in the future, everybody will have to give up something to ensure the overall health of the Earth.
-Will A.
I would have been more surprised if i read this last week before i witnessed an argument among friends about the pollution caused by mass livestock farming. That argument also gave me background context when the author was talking about quitting meat without explaining why. Otherwise i very much agree with some of the things brought up by the author,especially with the fact that if all America as a whole worked together equally to lower carbon emissions to help control climate it just wouldn't do as much as it is advertised. Especially in america where media is trying to get people to "go green", to be able to properly do it takes alot of money (to get that "green" Electric car) that took alot of the pollution that would have been saved to make; and disciplinary determination to stick with a lifestyle completely abnormal to a basic american. To make things worse this article focuses on the rich/wealthy people which barely makes up less than 8% of americans, very far from the average.
I didn't really have that big of a reaction to reading the article. It makes sense that those who have more carbon emission producing items will produce more carbon emissions. It seems obvious to me. I don't believe we should crucify the wealthy just yet based on their carbon emissions though, because regardless of how much they produce, it is still better than if they did not try to be eco-friendly.
-Tyler B.C.
Nothing really surprised me while reading this article. Global warming is a topic across all classes that most people really don't talk about. In the end of this all everyone will have to give something to change the climate change issue. It won't just be one class that is giving things to help ensure the health of our world, regardless if one class has done more damage or not. Everyone in the world should be advocates for climate change if it is what they believe in.-Mikayla Kinnard
It makes sense that people with more money make a bigger impact on the environment because of the fact that they have more, but also that means that they should be more aware of what they do because they can buy more.Because everything they have is bigger or extra they should find the best ways possible to make their life styles more economy friendly.
I thought this would be pretty obvious. It's not to villianize the wealthy, but there are quite a few with access to fancier property, expensive vehicles, can consume more products, and more energy casually. Even when living modestly, which i can t speak for every wealthy person that for some reason would actually want to live modestly, or when there are the ones who try being eco friendly, there is a large difference between having the choice to be able or unable to live in a way that causes that massive emission and being unable to match that entirely.
-Andrew H.
Don't like to play the blame game, but it's no surprise to me that people with the most money and most control of businesses are producing the most carbon pollution. Some could care less and since the buildings that output the pollution aren't in their area so its not of immediate impact to them. On the flip side there are also many wealthy people that are pushing the green initiative to help control global warming. They have more money to make a difference and care enough to do something about the issue. Anyways, I still think that we all should help to preserve are planet and if we can't depend on the wealthy to help, we can still put in an effort to keep Earth green.
After reading this article based on who leaves the biggest carbon foot print, I wasn’t surprised nor taken back by the statements. It kind of makes since that they would tend to have a bigger carbon foot print than that of people who have less wealth. The wealthier tend to invest in more expensive energy producing things, which ultimately affects the earth. However, with this being said not only do wealthier people cause carbon pollution, we all have a part in this problem. I just feel like we should all contribute the same amount we put out.
-Nia M.
This reading was one of the few things I have read in my life when I agreed with every point the author was making regarding the main topic of discussion. The science behind the facts make a lot of sense and are very hard to refute in my opinion. I do not solely blame wealthier individuals and families for climate change I doo feel they could try to do more given their resources and role they in not only climate change but environmental changes as well.
Torian H
I was not surprised by the article. While nobody wants to point fingers, the wealthy typically live an extravagant lifestyle. As the article discusses, the wealthy might intend to be "green," but they also have the ability to fly frequently, own larger homes, and drive lavish cars that give off carbon emissions and take in large amounts of energy. Despite this, the wealthy could help in investing some of their wealth into research on global warming, or they could simply advocate for greener policies. By putting monetary resources towards this, they could reduce spending on carbon-polluting activities. Overall, the fault is not simply the wealthy; we all could help by becoming more eco-friendly, but not all of us have the money and resources to make as great of an impact.
The argument proposed in this article made complete sense. In the real world from my personal experience most wealthy people invest in organic food which gives them a sense of being "green". When in reality wealthier people easily have a larger carbon footprint than those of lower economic classes. Wealthier people tend to have many cars which means more gas to fill which means more fossil fuels being mined. They tend to own larger houses which require more electricity which is powered by a power plant burning fossil fuels and emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. While wealth and the size of ones carbon foot print don't have to correlate in many cases they do.
This article did not come as a surprise to me. Wealthier people will obviously have more than people who are not wealthy. They will use the resources that they have which will leave a larger carbon footprint than people that do not have the same amount of resources. While many wealthy people advocate for the fight against global warming, they are also partly to blame.
I wasn’t caught off guard or shocked by what I read in the article. I do believe that when people get wealthy and have resources they can become blind to the many negative impacts and more specifically, the carbon footprints that can be left behind them. I think it is incredible that things like one’s socioeconomic status could play such a role in something so effective and detrimental, like carbon emissions. I also think it's interesting how this author, Vox chose to approach writing this type of article that approaches factors and occurrences no one likes to address, due to the many social statuses that exist and allow access to power. The author addresses this conversation by in other words saying, “I don’t mean to be rude, but I want to address some lifestyle experiences and decisions that could be causing the exact things, that people of their same economic status try so hard to prevent from happening”. Sometimes it may be hard to convey the tough news, but it still needs to be said, and I appreciate the author for doing this.
I had an indifferent reaction towards this article. Saying "wealthier people produce more carbon pollution" is stating the obvious. They have the means to obtain and do more causing their ecological footprint to be larger. It is unfortunate that contributions of the wealthy that are "green" have a low impact; however, I am grateful for the contribution nonetheless.
-Jacqueline S.
Reading this article had initially puzzled me. I did not understand how wealthy people were able to claim that they were environment-friendly, yet they had larger carbon footprints than a vast majority of American homes. Once I read a bit more into this article, I realized that given that wealthy people tend to have a more expensive lifestyle, they tend to use up more energy than common Americans. The wealthy have a responsibility to incorporate eco-friendliness into their lifestyles.
-Connor Woolfolk
Reading this article had initially puzzled me. I did not understand how wealthy people were able to claim that they were environment-friendly, yet they had larger carbon footprints than a vast majority of American homes. Once I read a bit more into this article, I realized that given that wealthy people tend to have a more expensive lifestyle, they tend to use up more energy than common Americans. The wealthy have a responsibility to incorporate eco-friendliness into their lifestyles.
-Connor Woolfolk
I thought it was very interesting that wealthy people often have a larger carbon footprint but they emphasize the solutions that don't actually work as well as many others they aren't very conscientious about. I don't know what to make of this. I can't tell if this is just a way to feel like they have achieved a moral high ground, or if they have actual good intentions but just haven't done the research. I also think it's important for me to mention I know some of those people have done research and know what they are talking about, but I think this evidence suggests that not all of them have, or if they have they just don't care about actually solving the problem. -Noah Jones
I didn't feel any type of way after reading this. However, People with more money can buy and spend more. When it said in the book " there are many, many good reasons to live in a more environmentally friendly lifestyle". -laurel white
This article to me wasn't anything too surprising. I always figured that the richer had a higher chance to create more carbon pollution. Like the article says, "with wealth comes opportunities for consumption" (136). That's why so many people, including myself, seem to give the richer a tougher time in regards to climate awareness and environmentalism. They play a huge role and how things are, and have the power to change some things. Those who try are in the right mindset, regardless of if their attempts are futile.
Jalen W.
There wasn’t anything surprising to me in this article. It makes complete sense that wealthier people have a bigger carbon footprint. Many wealthy people live lifestyles that consume a lot of energy such as multiple cars, heat to warm over-sized houses, and electricity. One this that really stood out to me in this article was the question: “Are people who are concerned about global warming obliged to reduce their carbon footprint?” (p. 133) It seems like the answer is no. Even though the wealthy preach about green or eco ways of living, they don’t make a big impact of the issue of global warming. Therefore, why even try? What’s even the point of saying you’re eco-friendly.
-Carah F.
It is interesting to me how we all can be ignorant of how we can harm ourselves, each other, and the environment. We all have our moments where we want to be able to stand on the higher moral ground, and yet we deceive ourselves in the process. The wealthy are placed in the spotlight and are infamous for their big carbon footprint; however, the rest of us are not the most conscientious of the environment either.
Unfortunately, my reactions to this article were minimal and highly expected. The gluttony of our society has been putting stress on more than just our environment for a very long time. The wealthy always tend to indulge, but with the hierarchy and value uplifting that type of behavior, it makes this a difficult issue to face.
~ Eboni Gardner
I never felt a certain way after reading this. It actually makes sense. Wealthier families tend to buy and use more energy than lower income families, leading to them having a larger carbon footprint. Although some fight for MORE green energy, it leaves a small impact because of their lavish lifestyle. Its sad that many people want to become rich and live and great life, but they never think of how much of a footprint they'll obtain.
After reading this article, I was a bit surprised but also not so much. It my mind, I thought that those who had more than me and obtained more power, especially with a strong fan base would use their privileges for good use, by giving back to the society. Even though, not everyone has the mindset of "giving back to the community" such as some, it's crazy how some who obtain most wealth such as our fellow celebrities would be more "for" the community and the environment to not only support their image, but would not be selfish and look out for others who are not like them.. or use their wealth to help, to become eco friendly. It was very surprising to me, that a lot of our celebrities/ wealthy people have a very large carbon footprint, when there are ways to reduce that to help out our environment and find solutions to environmental problems such as Global Warming. I honestly feel as if, the wealthy should contribute more to eco-friendly factors and problems to potentially save our environment, ecosystems, and even our planet by implementing more of the consideration of our planet into their lifestyles, it can be as easy as recycling or using recycled plastic bags. But implementing this into their lifestyle, is a must!
The article is really enlightening because celebrities will post on their social media advocating to save the planet, yet they're leaving the biggest carbon footprint. They are just advocating for a trend while they could actually afford to be more environmentally conscious and give to causes that help the Earth.
-Deja Lane
This article was not very surprising to me, due to the fact that the wealthy have more means to cause pollution to the environment than a person who is poor. The difference is that less wealthy people are not capable of being able to cause much pollution unlike wealthy people like celebrities. For example, some celebrities when they travel, they fly on a private plane rather than flying commercial, which causes much unneeded damage to the environment. If the wealthy had less money than they would not be able to cause much pollution, which is why I was not surprised by the article.
This article made me have the same feelings I’ve been having about this situation. It’s crazy to me how people who have a lot of money and who can change the world literally tend not to. It’s true that some celebrities have organizations and earth aware groups but I simply believe they have those to make them look better as people because at the end of the day we still see them on tv littering and buying serval high polluant cars. They basically contradict themselves often.
Post a Comment