lukpac wrote:I'd say it's only hypocritical if they condem everyone else for "not doing their part." I think most of us are probably like that (doing some things to help but blowing it in other ways).
I can't disagree with that sensible point of view. But I would perhaps take it one step further...these types of largely symbolic (IMO) actions, such as declining the leather seat option, should be motivated by a sense of altruism (not by wanting to gain favor with others), and should therefore be done quietly and privately. Calling attention to those actions, even without specifically condemning anyone else, can be viewed as hypocritical, especially if you're "blowing it" in a
lot of other ways.
Here's a (very extreme) example - Al Capone was much loved in Chicago because of all his well-publicized charitable works, and they weren't just symbolic - they really did help a lot of people. Yet, IMO, those actions were clearly hypocritical.
lukpac wrote:Another thing to think of is some of these people are *way* more anal than you could imagine - the ones with the big houses have probably spent several times more than the average person to ensure every aspect is "eco-friendly".
Hmmm...I admit that I don't hang around with anyone that would have their house profiled in a magazine, but my peers have generally sunk every dime they have into buying and furnishing their house, with very little left over for "eco-friendly" improvements. About the only "conservation" issues they concern themselves with are the utility bills...and if they were rich, they wouldn't even care about those.
With regard to the hybrid cars, here's a classic
cartoon from the New Yorker.
