News

Those who are well off in Canada are far bigger eco-villains when it comes to harming the environment than those in lower-income groups, The Globe's Martin Mittelstaedt writes today in his article Top earners leave larger eco-footprint

That's according to a study that is the first to try to quantify ecological damage done by Canadians based on income levels.

The study, by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, an Ottawa-based think tank with a left-leaning orientation, found that the wealthiest 10 per cent of the population have about 2.5 times the negative impact on the environment as those in the bottom 10 per cent.

The estimate was made using so-called ecological footprints, or the amount of land needed to create the goods people consume to support their lifestyles. For households at the top 10 per cent of the income ladder, earning about $156,000 annually after taxes and transfers, the footprint amounts to an average of 12.4 hectares per person. For households in the bottom tenth, living on an average of $11,500 a year, the footprint is only five hectares per person. The average Canadian uses 7.6 hectares.

Key reasons for the income difference include factors such as the large homes in the suburbs that can be afforded only by those who are better off, and the frequent use by upper scale earners of cars and light trucks for commuting, and air travel for vacations, leading to larger greenhouse-gas emissions.

The finding suggests that policies designed to reduce the size of a person's ecological footprint through steps such as carbon taxes or the former Liberal government's proposal of having each Canadian cut emissions by one tonne, should be readjusted to have different targets based on income levels, according to one of the study's authors.

"Most of the heavy lifting in doing something about the [environmental] problem will, just looking at the numbers, have to be done by families with higher incomes," said Hugh Mackenzie, an economist and research associate at the centre, which is issuing the study today.

Whether you agree or not, it's a provocative study, so we're glad that Mr. Mittelstaedt was online earlier today to answer your questions about it and about the issues it raises.

Your questions and Mr. Mittelstaedt's answers appear at the bottom of this page.

Martin Mittelstaedt has covered the environment, politics, and business for The Globe and Mail since starting at the paper in 1980.

He opened the paper's New York bureau, covering Wall Street and U.S. financial news from 1986 to 1990. He also was at Queen's Park during the tumultuous days of the Rae and Harris governments.

He has covered the environment since the late 1990s, writting extensively on global warming, toxic chemicals, pollution, pesticides, and nuclear safety.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Welcome, Martin, and thanks for joining us today to take questions from the readers of globeandmail.com on your fascinating story in today's paper about the study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

In your story, you quote Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, a Toronto-based activist group, who was one of the study's authors, as saying that Canadians "can absolutely be affluent and have a low carbon footprint."

Mr. Smith said high-income Canadians can still trim their footprints in steps, such as trading a suburban home for a high-end condo in the city, using carbon dioxide offsets to cover greenhouse-gas emissions from air travel, and purchasing high-end consumer items such as Vespas -- the fuel-sipping scooters -- for local travel.

It would appear to me that some of these are practical (offsets for example) while others are highly unlikely (we would depopulate the suburbs?).

Did either Mr. Smith or other experts you interviewed for this story have any other practical suggestions for what all Canadians can do to reduce their own carbon footprints?

Martin Mittelstaedt: There were a number of other suggestions.

One concerned the frequent use of air travel for business purproses. The experts questioned whether all these trips are really necessary and suggested many of them could easily be replaced by video conferencing and phones.

Another practical suggestion to reduce carbon footprints is to live close to where you work. The pitch here is that it would reduce the amount of pollution you cause and increase your quality of life by cutting the time of your commute.

The size of suburban homes was also an issue. In upper-income groups, the average household had only 3.5 residents, making them wonder why builders have such a big market for McMansions.

Darcy Meyer: The top 10% households are likely the ones that can respond and become more efficient more easily. With rising energy costs, these households can update to energy-efficient appliances and transportation (and already are in many cases).

The difficulty is that the other 90% are less able to respond by investing in efficiency and thus require support. That is why investment in public transport, active transport and retrofit support is needed to help them reduce their energy demand.

I won't argue that the top 10% of household shouldn't become more efficient. However, if the top 10% reduces energy usage by 20%, it isn't as effective as policy as one that allows the other 90% to reduce usage by 5%.

Martin Mittelstaedt: The authors of the study weren't making the case that being poor was a good idea because having less money meant having less of an impact on the environment, although the research clearly showed that income was the biggest factor determining the ecological footprint someone has.

What they believed is that those who produce the most greenhouse gases -- those who are well off -- have the most money and the most scope for achieving lower emissions.

Those at the bottom of the income ladder probably can't do much, especially if they rent and can't control their household use of energy.

Jason Schmidt, Saskatoon: I'm all for being "green." I recycle everything I can. I watch what I do.

But I often get frustrated when I see the carbon emissions from giant polluting factories and I worry about the development of the oil sands.

Isn't whatever I can do kind of like doing you know what into the wind in the face of the huge emissions from industry?

Martin Mittelstaedt: The point on how much industry produces is true -- roughly half the total greenhouse gas emissions are from industrial sources.

But I don't think that means typical Canadians should to nothing. On the contrary, protecting the environment is a shared responsibility that will be advanced by many small and large activities across the whole economy.

Ivan Patrick posted the following comment on your article earlier. Care to respond?

"I think Mr Smith's suggestion about trading a suburban home for a city high-end condo is ridiculous.

"It's just that easy? Hell, I've convinced my family of four, our employers and even all our friends to do the very same thing. In fact, in a year from now, 22,000 people from just this area alone are all moving to a more efficient "high end" condo in the city. We're just lucky that there are enough condos, jobs, schools, and even our doctors there too."

Martin Mittelstaedt: I think if you look at the skylines of major Canadian and U.S. cities, you'll see that there is a major trend away from suburban living to those "high end" condos.

One of the worries I'd have in the 'burbs is that high energy prices look like they will make it difficult for many people to afford living in huge homes requiring multiple cars for family members to commute to their jobs and schools.

Those people who move to the city can help their pocket books and the environment.

Erin Voegeli posted the following comment on your article. Care to respond?

"You don't have to be poor to live within your means. To consume what you require, not 10 times more than what you require is a choice. It has nothing to do with income."

Martin Mittelstaedt: Erin, you are correct in saying that a person's environmental footprint involves a choice.

But the researchers, when they divided the Canadian population in 10 groups by income, found that the average person's environmental footprint went up as income rose.

That is not to say that there aren't people at the top of the income ladder who are extremely frugal in their use of energy, and those at the bottom who might drive gas-guzzling cars, perhaps in part because they can't afford more fuel-efficient models.

J.J. posted the following comment on your article. Care to respond?

"I still have problems with the uniquely Canadian view of "rich." The vast majority think a family income of $100K or more is rich. For the record, it is not.

"People are always complaining about SUVs, big trucks, etc. If the government and industry wanted to control carbon emissions, they would lower the price of hybrids to make them more attractive to people.

"I will continue to drive my V8 SUV for now. I need it for towing my trailer which my family and I enjoy every summer.

"Canadians are all about equality. How many complaints have I read about the 'rich' getting health care before the 'poor'? That shouldn't happen because everyone needs to be treated equally.

"I wish that principle was used in taxation as well. Politicians love to pick on high-income earners as scapegoats for the country's problems."

Martin Mittelstaedt: For the record, J.J., the study defined being "rich" as being in the top 10 per cent of household incomes. These were households with an average pre-tax income of about $176,000.

Individuals living in these high-end households had about 2.5 times the ecological footprint as a person in the bottom 10 per cent, who live in households earning about $3,200 and with about $8,000 in income transfers through such things as social assistance and family allowances.

I think it would be far easier for people at the top to do something about global warming and other problems than those at the bottom of the income scale.

I also think the suggestion of making hybrids more affordable is a good one. Some models have a high sticker shock.

Midtown Bob: This whole environmental thing is really starting to bug me.

Why should I dim my lights when someone in Rosedale has three furnaces in their house or when two-thirds of the vehicles in that neighbourhood are SUVs?

Martin Mittelstaedt: I think everyone in society has some responsibility to do what they can on environmental problems.

The authors of the study figured people living in Rosedale and other high-income Canadian areas could afford more heavy lifting when it came to reducing energy use, and would be able to achieve greater results than those who are not well off.

I think they would argue for shared, but unequal, responsibility.

Jasmine Francis: What do the study's authors have to say to those Canadians who still dispute that global warming is happening and that humans are causing at least part of it with GHG emissions?

And if you think there aren't a lot of deniers, Mr. Mittelstaedt, you should read the comments on your article this morning, if you haven't done so already.

Martin Mittelstaedt: Jasmine, the study didn't address those in denial about global warming and accepted the science behind it.

We live in a society that is dedicated to science-based learning. To date, the evidence on global warming is quite strong and most experts believe the evidence from the so-called doubters is very weak.

In looking over comments on stories, I notice that there are many people who have curmudgeon-like views on global warming. All I can say is I'm expecting that they will be more surprised by events in the coming decades than I will.

Wayne Walker posted the following comment on your article. Care to respond?

"What we really need to do, rather than laying on the guilt, is to encourage the top income-earners to be leaders in environmental issues. Make it chic and fashionable and noble and smart to be energy conscious.

"Write more stories about people who are contributing to their community by using alternative energy sources and who are finding ways to make their homes and cars more energy-efficient. Carrots work better than sticks."

Martin Mittelstaedt: I think the authors of the study would agree without reservations to Wayne's assessment that top income-earners should lead and be praised for doing so.

One of the points the authors made in the study was that the former Liberal government's one-tonne challenge should have been tweaked because not everyone is equally responsible for the global warming problem and not everyone has identical resources to fight the problem.

Maybe for those less well off, it should have been a 500-kg challenge and for those earning more than $175,000 a year, it should have been a three-tonne challenge.

M. Clarke posted the following comment on your article. Care to respond?

"It's incredible how deeply offended and angry many of the posters here are at the suggestion that people should consume less and do so more responsibly.

"The prevailing attitude of 'I'm rich, it's my God-given right' makes me very pessimistic about the likelihood that Canadians will be willing to make any meaningful change toward slowing the current environmental degradation.

Martin Mittelstaedt: I think attitudes are changing. I think our society offers many opportunities for those who want to flaunt their income to engage in conspicuous consumption, while selecting things to buy that don't have a huge environmental footprint.

One of the authors pointed out that Vespas start at about $7,000. It's a lot for a scooter, yet a good purchase for the environment and mobility within an urban area.

I think a lot of the environmentally harmful consumption patterns just aren't cool any more and are likely to change in the years ahead.

Old Sam: I am just curious as to how they determined the size of the footprint?

Did they use the total size of the country and divide it up between the population based on income. This would explain the difference between us and China, India. They have way more people on less land. If so, this comparison seems disingenuous to me.

As for the comparison between the so-called rich and poor, many people live outside the city in this country because they feel it is a better lifestyle and more healthy then living in a smog-filled city.

Martin Mittelstaedt: Their definition of an ecological footprint was "biologically productive space in per-capita global hectares needed to provide the resources for a nation's total consumption and to absorb the waste that it generates."

That's a mouthful, but Old Sam raises a good question about the calculations.

In these comparisons, researchers try to standardize the amount of land needed across countries, so the footprint estimate isn't influenced by population size or the land area of an individual country.

So we're not bad by international standards because we live in a large country with a low population.

It is worth keeping in mind that these footprints are only estimates and highly dependent on the assumptions researchers make.

Jim Sheppard: Thanks very much, Martin. I'm sure our readers appreciated your insight and analysis on this fascinating subject.