Thoughts on Income, Wealth, and the End of the World

So I've been taking a break from the endless home improvement projects around here. And since the weather is cold (no bike rides), and my Denver Broncos are out of the playoffs (less motivation to watch football), and I can't stomach any more sappy Christmas movies, I've had plenty of time to waste cruising the interwebs collecting interesting tidbits of information, and letting them all stew in this little brain of mine. Consider yourself warned!

Now, originally, I was gonna provide links to all of the articles that caught my eye, but I couldn't find them all, so you're spared the reading assignment. You'll just have to take my word for it that this mishmash of facts and information, which seems to have congealed in my little brain, actually came from genuine sources - not just something I pulled out of mid-air.

So first, (OK, I did actually find a source for this one, though it wasn't the same article I originally read) I read that researchers from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography have calculated that climate change poses a 5% chance of human extinction by the year 2100.

Um.... let that sink in for a moment...

That is a truly terrifying statistic! 5% is like 1 in 20... and they're not merely saying there's a 5% chance of significant climate change... they're saying there's a 5% chance that 82 years from now there will be no more people left on the planet. Like extinct, dead, nada, zippo, zilch, good bye, stick a fork in the human race, we're done for.

Now, the Scripps Institute is not some sort of fringe organization... and they're not using crazy Guy McPherson assumptions either. Their numbers are coming straight from the IPCC, whose predictions are broadly considered to be very conservative among climate change scientists.

OK... so here's the next little tidbit - this is the one I really wish I could find the source for, but somehow I seem to have lost the link. Anyhow, I read about a study where they looked at a large group of people and calculated what their "carbon footprints" were - meaning how much carbon dioxide they emitted through their day to day activities. They then gathered all sorts of demographic data about said group of people - things like age, religion, race, political affiliation, marital status, and a whole slew of other stuff.

Interestingly enough, of all the demographic categories they looked at, the one that had the SMALLEST correlation with their carbon footprints was... wait for it... whether or not they considered themselves to have a "green" lifestyle! In other words, they could find little measurable difference in the carbon footprints of people who said they were concerned about the environment and trying to live in an ecologically friendly manner, and those who thought that global warming was a hoax.

The demographic category which had the strongest correlation to carbon footprint? You guessed it, income. Their basic conclusion was that wealthy people just lead high carbon lifestyles. They live in big houses, drive big cars, fly all over the world, and just generally emit a whole bunch of CO2. And even when wealthy people said they were concerned about the environment and trying to "live green," they generally weren't willing to make the sorts of changes that would really have a meaningful impact.


OK... next piece of data. This one came from a presentation given by Kevin Anderson, a respected climate change scientist. It's no secret that people from different parts of the world have very different carbon footprints. Yes... we here in the US are the worst offenders. But here's the tidbit that struck me: within each individual country, it is the top 10% (economically speaking) who do the vast majority of the emitting.

This graphic wasn't from Anderson's talk, but it illustrates the point he was making

Now, here's the final little tidbit. (And I do have the link for this one.) It was an interesting little article about a personal finance blogger by the name of Derek Sall who has come up with a somewhat unconventional way to determine your personal wealth. He says it has nothing to do with your income per se, and everything to do with how long you could last if you lost your job tomorrow. Here's his little "Wealth Scale."

• Less than a month: Broke
• 1-3 Months: Teetering
• 3-6 Months: Satisfactory
• 6 Months - 2 Years: Well Off
• 2-5 Years: Wealthy
• 5 or more Years: Ultra Wealthy

You can probably guess that he's preaching to the choir here, but I did find it somewhat amusing that according to Mr. Sall, I am in the Ultra Wealthy category! Not bad for someone who, judging by income alone, would be considered barely above the poverty level. 

OK... so that's what's been sifting around in my brain the past week or two... and when you put all that together and stir, here's what I come up with.

Saving humanity from climate change cannot be achieved via the Great Green Guilt Parade. Instead, we ought to focus on teaching people to live beneath their means. 

Crazy as it might seem, that little revelation gave me quite a bit of hope. I have long believed that the moralistic approach to environmentalism was a losing game. It's not that I don't think it is immoral to leave future generations a planet that's uninhabitable, I just think that when push comes to shove, moralism has a pretty poor track record in terms of actually changing human behavior.

But if the goal is learning to live happy, contented lives on less money - rather than all of this "greener than thou" nonsense - I think there's a much greater chance of success. I mean, think of the possibilities! All we have to do in order to save humanity is convince people to work less, rest more, save their money, and enjoy being "Ultra Wealthy." Sounds like a recipe for a much healthier and happier society, if you ask me - that is certainly my own experience when it comes to living with less.

So what do you think? Can frugal living save the planet?