It’s hard to get an objective handle on this. Everyone consumes food and clothes and transportation and housing, and it’s very difficult to evaluate the impact of our various choices proportionally. If someone lives in a small apartment and constantly throws out old phones and TVs, that looks very wasteful, and ties in to emotive Nat Geo covers showing mountains of e-waste. But someone who lives in a tastefully Spartan house might generate more waste in a single renovation than that other person would produce in ten lifetimes.
I always think about plastic shopping bags. It’s definitely better not to discard mountains of shopping bags, and we can change that regardless of anything else. However, the attention on that one thing is so disproportionate that millions of people end up thinking “I always use cotton shopping bags, so it’s OK if I replace my car a year or two early”.
I guess I’m saying, it’s hazardous to view ecology through the lens of lifestyle, because it wildly distorts the costs and benefits of things. If you wanted to give out letter grades for ecology, I suspect the best metric will always be to ignore specific choices and just look at income. Because ultimately, every dollar spent causes energy and resources to be consumed, and vice versa. But that needn’t be a depressing thing; it just means that you should focus 99% of your environmental concern on how you vote (or how you use your political power) rather than which brand of detergent you use.
