Your central point, that it’s a collective action problem, is Heath’s main point, as I read his article. He points out that people do not live environmentalist lifestyles as evidence that they will not vote for making non-environmentalist lifestyles expensive, and thus Klein’s claim that democracy and local politics will help solve this issue is fundamentally mistaken.
And assume they use a lot of gas because they have ATVs. Which makes no sense at all. The mileage on those is actually not terrible, and they are typically not driven very long distances. Those motorcycles are even better than cars on fuel consumption.
While I agree that he doesn’t have sufficient information to conclude the amount of gas they use, it’s certainly fair to claim that their lifestyle is fossil fuel intensive, which was his claim. I have friends with guns; the amount of gunpowder consumption they require is better measured by how frequently they go to the range, not the number of guns they own. But it still seems fair to argue that using guns is a gunpowder-intensive hobby.
Even if everyone did it, the price of gas and coal would just go down, and other countries would buy it
He points out that people do not live environmentalist lifestyles as evidence that they will not vote for making non-environmentalist lifestyles expensive, and thus Klein’s claim that democracy and local politics will help solve this issue is fundamentally mistaken.
This is possibly true, but not necessarily so. We know nothing about these people’s political beliefs or what issues they care about. He’s making massive judgements about them from a single picture in a real estate listing.
Even if we are accepting the premise that people only vote in their self interest (they don’t), these people are clearly very wealthy. Increases in energy prices will have a lower impact on them.
it’s certainly fair to claim that their lifestyle is fossil fuel intensive, which was his claim. I have friends with guns; the amount of gunpowder consumption they require is better measured by how frequently they go to the range, not the number of guns they own. But it still seems fair to argue that using guns is a gunpowder-intensive hobby.
“intensive” is a pretty strong word. Clearly they use gas, but everyone uses gas. Just because they have ATVs and motorcycles doesn’t mean much. As I said, they get good mileage, sometimes better than cars, and they aren’t going to be driving them long distances. A single person with a long commute is likely going to use far more gas than them.
A single person with a long commute is likely going to use far more gas than them.
Which is why it might be relevant that this is in a suburb of Toronto—i.e. someone who lives here and works in the city probably has an hour-long commute.
Because they own a giant, expensive home, with a garage filled with expensive toys.
Which is why it might be relevant that this is in a suburb of Toronto—i.e. someone who lives here and works in the city probably has an hour-long commute.
Perhaps, but that is not what the article said at all. He was judging them entirely based on a picture of their garage, and the fact that they owned motorcycles and ATVs. He didn’t try to estimate how much gas they use per day. He looked at a photo and noticed it didn’t have the aesthetic of environmentalism.
Because they own a giant, expensive home, with a garage filled with expensive toys.
Wealth typically refers to one’s assets minus one’s liabilities; evidence of assets does not suffice to demonstrate wealth. My point was that you are putting forward a reasonable general claim that is not necessarily true—even if this particular home seller is underwater on their mortgage, similar people exist that are not and one would expect the latter group to be more likely—at the same time that you are criticizing Heath for putting forward a reasonable general claim that is not necessarily true—people who own multiple ATVs and motorcycles and live an hour from the city probably consume more gasoline than the average Canadian and are unlikely to be a strong supporter of the environmentalist political coalition.
Your central point, that it’s a collective action problem, is Heath’s main point, as I read his article. He points out that people do not live environmentalist lifestyles as evidence that they will not vote for making non-environmentalist lifestyles expensive, and thus Klein’s claim that democracy and local politics will help solve this issue is fundamentally mistaken.
While I agree that he doesn’t have sufficient information to conclude the amount of gas they use, it’s certainly fair to claim that their lifestyle is fossil fuel intensive, which was his claim. I have friends with guns; the amount of gunpowder consumption they require is better measured by how frequently they go to the range, not the number of guns they own. But it still seems fair to argue that using guns is a gunpowder-intensive hobby.
...other countries don’t count as everyone?
This is possibly true, but not necessarily so. We know nothing about these people’s political beliefs or what issues they care about. He’s making massive judgements about them from a single picture in a real estate listing.
Even if we are accepting the premise that people only vote in their self interest (they don’t), these people are clearly very wealthy. Increases in energy prices will have a lower impact on them.
“intensive” is a pretty strong word. Clearly they use gas, but everyone uses gas. Just because they have ATVs and motorcycles doesn’t mean much. As I said, they get good mileage, sometimes better than cars, and they aren’t going to be driving them long distances. A single person with a long commute is likely going to use far more gas than them.
Would you describe this as “necessarily so”?
Which is why it might be relevant that this is in a suburb of Toronto—i.e. someone who lives here and works in the city probably has an hour-long commute.
Because they own a giant, expensive home, with a garage filled with expensive toys.
Perhaps, but that is not what the article said at all. He was judging them entirely based on a picture of their garage, and the fact that they owned motorcycles and ATVs. He didn’t try to estimate how much gas they use per day. He looked at a photo and noticed it didn’t have the aesthetic of environmentalism.
Wealth typically refers to one’s assets minus one’s liabilities; evidence of assets does not suffice to demonstrate wealth. My point was that you are putting forward a reasonable general claim that is not necessarily true—even if this particular home seller is underwater on their mortgage, similar people exist that are not and one would expect the latter group to be more likely—at the same time that you are criticizing Heath for putting forward a reasonable general claim that is not necessarily true—people who own multiple ATVs and motorcycles and live an hour from the city probably consume more gasoline than the average Canadian and are unlikely to be a strong supporter of the environmentalist political coalition.
It seems Heath is talking about what Scott Alexander calls Moloch.