Would you be willing to live beneath your means for the sake of the environment?

Hi!

Mine is a UK perspective.

We live in the smallest house possible and have an allotment instead of a garden, use natural elements for cleaning, washing and other housework and otherwise try to stay green.

Once all our outgoings are paid, most of what's left goes to local and international projects offering support in local communities.

With a school, sized community centre and a monastery to run locally, we help bring mental and physical well-being to ordinary folk through music and the arts, education and job development.

My personal view is that people need less at home when there are excellent shared community resources, so are happy to live in small eco homes and share, for example, a large communal swimming pool. Where there is no community spirit, often in the leafy suburbs in our neck of the woods, everyone seems to want their own swimming pool, tennis courts, gas-guzzling car etc.

Good wishes.

I joke about the fact that if I ever won the lottery I would buy up land around Upper Newport Bay and raze the houses and restore the habitat. More likely, I would work with an organization to identify tracts of land to purchase, such as inholdings in national forests, or buffer zones around areas such as the Sierra Nevadas. It would help if I'd buy lottery tickets more than once a year, I suppose, but I'd be willing to give up a huge chuck of my newfound personal wealth to live that dream.

As far as moving up, we have land in the desert and I would finally be able to built the straw bale home we've been designing for the last 4 years.

Already do in day to day living but we live three generationally, so our house is not small.

I would love to live in a small energy efficient house as long as it had some land to dig a lake and plant a wood around it. The space you have inside is nowhere near as important if you have space outside. In the UK the only real way to gain access to space is to own it. In other countries, there is still lots of wide open spaces, then you would only need enough to grow your own food and timber on for fuel. The smaller the house the easier it is to run/keep up. Ideal.

Probably not....I mean I currently live in a very frugal way, and am self sufficient in my use of energy and water, but it is more of an economic choice than any concern or the environment.

I don't believe in intentionally harming the Earth, like pouring oil in my backyard, littering, etc., but I live the way I do because I know how to be more self sufficient, and to save money. I like the aspects of solar engergy, water catchment, etc., so I won't have to pay anyone, but I am just as happy without electricity, as with.

I would move UP by getting a smaller GREEN house. At my age (I am a grandma) I don't need a large home to take care of. A small space to grow a garden and sit in the sun is enough.

Yes, I would love to use only what I need and I try my best to do so. Overconsumption is such a problem with our society, and often that consumption does not make anyone feel good. I've found that the happiest people are those who live the simplest lives.

Eric P:

Absolutely. We are living beyond our means. The Earth can no longer provide for us all. Soon or later the deficit that we are creating will come down to hunt us. Plus we are using the next generation resources.

Cesar

Sorry I refuse to worship the earth and nature. Preserving the earth as God intended yes.

No I wouldnt. I love extravagance and luxury, maybe because I haven't had much of it.

And be honest.. you wouldn't be able to either.

Sure lets all go to our employers and tell them to give us a pay cut too. Since we won't be needing it they can buy carbon credits.