Environmentalists are not hypocrites

The other day, I read an article in the Christian Science Monitor that really ticked me off. Provocatively titled "Are environmentalists hypocrites?", it points out that wealthy people and wealthy nations are more likely to profess concern about the environment and favor laws to protect it—but they also consume more, thereby causing more damage to the environment. So basically, the argument goes, anyone who claims to be an environmentalist is too busy focusing on the mote in their neighbor's eye to deal with the log in their own.

Now, the article goes on to point out that it's really a misconception that poorer folks, and poorer nations, aren't concerned about the environment. They spend less energy focusing on environmental issues, sure, but they spend less energy on all types of political issues, because they're spending a lot more on just trying to survive. It notes that people in India and Latin America are more worried about global warming than people in "developed nations"—which makes sense, since they'll suffer much more as a result of rising sea levels. Likewise, in the United States, lower-income voters are most concerned about issues like water—which also makes sense, because guess where the water supply is most likely to be unsafe?

But nonetheless, the central "conundrum" remains: rich environmentalists cause more environmental problems than non-environmentalists. Except...do we, really?

Consider the opening paragraph of the article:

A common charge against environmentalists is that they’re hypocrites. They tell us to reduce our carbon emissions, the typical argument goes, yet they fly planes all over the world. They condemn Big Macs, yet they buy raspberries imported from a different hemisphere. They sneer at our plastic shopping bags, yet every year they buy a new iPhone.

Well, maybe I'm not exactly a typical environmentalist, but the last time I took an airplane anywhere was to my grandmother's funeral in Florida seven years ago. I don't buy imported raspberries; I grow my own, which is considerably cheaper as well as more eco-friendly. And as a late adopter, I've never even owned an iPhone—or any smartphone at all. And I make all these choices, at least in part, because I'm an environmentalist, and I want to live my live in a way that causes as little harm as possible.

I think the biggest problem with this "environmentalists damage the environment" problem is that it's comparing apples to imported bananas. It's true, as I determined back in 2011, that I have a bigger ecological footprint than a fictional character living in Botswana, but that's not because her lifestyle is more eco-friendly than mine; it's because the Ecological Footprint Calculator also factors in "societal impacts," such as roads and public services. Compared to other Americans, my footprint is considerably smaller than average. The recently retooled calculator puts my personal footprint at 1.6 Earths, while the average American's is a whopping 5 Earths. (In fact, according to the calculator, I'm even doing better now than the average person in South Africa or Brazil.)

So yes, Americans are more likely to be environmentalists than, say, Brazilians. And yes, Americans also consume more, on average, than Brazilians do. But it's a logical fallacy to conclude from this that environmentalists consume more than non-environmentalists. American environmentalists consume less than Americans who aren't environmentalists, and Brazilians who aren't environmentalists consume more than Brazilians who are (and, if the Footprint Calculator is to be believed, more than some Americans who are, as well). Compared to their peers, environmentalists consume less—even if they're richer.

It may seem like I'm undercutting the whole concept of ecofrugality with this argument, since the whole point of it is that if you consume less to save money, you will automatically live a greener life (and vice versa). Surely this implies that poor people are greener by default.

But here's the thing: there's no rule that, as you make more money, you must consume more. You can have plenty of money in the bank and still wear thrift-shop clothes, walk or bike to work, and eat low on the food chain. Plus, you can afford to make the few green choices that actually do cost you more money, like eating organic, as well as the ones that cost you money up front but save money in the long run, like using LED bulbs. And this, at least in my experience, is exactly what environmentalists typically do as their wealth increases.

In fact, because ecofrugality cuts both ways, there's a case to be made that being an environmentalist can actually make you wealthy. Think about it: if you care about the environment, you'll choose to consume less in a variety of ways (drive less, eat less meat, use less electricity, etc.). Because you're consuming less, you'll also save money. And the more money you save, the richer you'll become.

Maybe for Earth Day 2019, we should forget all about focusing on a specific issue, like plastic use or renewable energy. If we really want to get as many people involved as possible, our theme should be, "Save the Earth and get rich!"