Greens Pollute the Most?

[norak]

According to NowPublic, wealthy inner-city suburbs pollute more:

People living in Australia's wealthiest inner-city suburbs are responsible for more than double the amount of greenhouse pollution than households in less affluent areas, because of their high levels of consumption....

The Consumption Atlas shows households in areas straddling the harbour in inner Sydney and the banks of the Brisbane River in Queensland are the country's biggest greenhouse polluters. These areas are closely followed by the inner suburbs of Canberra; Woollahra and Mosman in Sydney; Southbank and Docklands in Melbourne; and Fortitude Valley and Newstead in Brisbane. The lowest greenhouse polluting Australian households are in Tasmania, in the Derwent Valley, Kentish and Brighton areas.

So Southbank and Docklands are the highest polluters in Melbourne.

However, looking at the results of the 2004 election we find that the people who vote for the Greens tend to be wealthy inner-city people. Only in wealthy inner-city electorates do Greens votes reach double digits (i.e. over 10%).

In Melbourne (including the CBD, Southbank, Parkville, Kensington, Docklands, etc) 18.98% voted for the Greens. In Melbourne Ports (Williamstown, Port Melbourne, St Kilda, etc) it is 14.10% In Higgins (Armadale, Malvern, Toorak, etc) it is 11.35% and in Kooyong (Kew, Hawthorn, Balwyn, Canterbury, Camberwell, etc) it is 12.54%

All the other electorates farther from the city, and even in the Liberal mortgage belts, have single-digit percentages of Greens voters. E.g. Aston (4.86%), Ballarat (6.73%), Batman (6.93%), etc.

So what can we conclude from this? It seems as if Greens voters pollute the most.

 

[misfitforfaith]

So what can we conclude from this? It seems as if Greens voters pollute the most.

Nothing a very big over generalisation. You say inner city people are rich according to who? All these socio economic things are relative pal.
I am voting green and i dont fit your category so your categories be dammed!

 

[tigercub]

Nothing a very big over generalisation. You say inner city people are rich according to who? All these socio economic things are relative pal.
I am voting green and i dont fit your category so your categories be dammed!

Good point. I live in what is classified as 'inner city Brisbane' and I am in no way rich, and I do save water.

So ner.

 

[tgg]

I'm not rich, neither do I live in the inner-city area and I'm gonna be voting green as well.

So double-ner!!

 

[DavinMochrie]

I don't belong to any one club of pals, so like I am a swinging voter.

SO NER NER to all of you!

he he

 

[ebia]

According to NowPublic, wealthy inner-city suburbs pollute more:

So Southbank and Docklands are the highest polluters in Melbourne.

However, looking at the results of the 2004 election we find that the people who vote for the Greens tend to be wealthy inner-city people. Only in wealthy inner-city electorates do Greens votes reach double digits (i.e. over 10%).

In Melbourne (including the CBD, Southbank, Parkville, Kensington, Docklands, etc) 18.98% voted for the Greens. In Melbourne Ports (Williamstown, Port Melbourne, St Kilda, etc) it is 14.10% In Higgins (Armadale, Malvern, Toorak, etc) it is 11.35% and in Kooyong (Kew, Hawthorn, Balwyn, Canterbury, Camberwell, etc) it is 12.54%

All the other electorates farther from the city, and even in the Liberal mortgage belts, have single-digit percentages of Greens voters. E.g. Aston (4.86%), Ballarat (6.73%), Batman (6.93%), etc.

So what can we conclude from this? It seems as if Greens voters pollute the most.

Sure - people with more money buy more stuff.

And people with more money tend to choose inner city living.

And people with an interest in the environment tend also to choose inner city living.

You'll need to do a bit more work to demonstrate that they are the same people.