Sustainability Inflation: Do Green Policies Quietly Increase Cost of Living for the Urban Poor?

Abstract

Sustainability and green policies are generally presented as solutions for environmental protection and long-term human welfare. However, this research explores a rarely discussed and uncomfortable reality: whether sustainability initiatives unintentionally increase the daily cost of living for the urban poor. The study focuses on the conflict between environmental responsibility and economic affordability, especially for low-income families living in urban areas. Instead of relying on official data or secondary sources, this paper is built on student-led field observations, informal conversations, and lived experiences of economically weaker sections in the city. As a student researcher, the students conducted informal surveys and discussions with urban poor households such as street vendors, domestic workers, daily wage labourers, auto drivers, sanitation workers, and small shop owners living in rented rooms or informal settlements. The discussions were not structured interviews but everyday conversations about expenses changes in prices, and difficulties in adapting to new “green” rules. This approach allowed genuine responses, free from technical language or policy influence. One major observation was that many urban poor individuals were not against sustainability itself. However, they felt that green policies were designed for people who could afford choices. For example, bans or restrictions on older vehicles were seen as environmentally necessary, but for poor auto drivers or delivery workers, replacing vehicles was financially impossible. Electric vehicles were viewed as “rich people’s sustainability,” not a realistic option. Charging infrastructure, battery replacement costs, and lack of resale value created fear rather than hope. The study also found that energy-saving policies sometimes increased expenses instead of reducing them. Poor households were encouraged to use energy-efficient appliances, LED lights, or cleaner cooking fuels. However, the upfront cost of such products was a major barrier. Many families continued using older appliances or unsafe alternatives because they could not afford the “initial investment” required for sustainability. In some cases, prepaid smart meters created anxiety, as families feared sudden disconnection if balance ran out, leading to more cautious but stressful energy use. The analysis suggests that sustainability without affordability can deepen urban inequality. When green choices are expensive, they become privileges rather than rights. The research does not argue against sustainability but emphasizes the need for inclusive design. Policies must be grounded in real-life economic conditions, especially of the urban poor, who are often the least contributors to environmental degradation but the most affected by policy changes. In conclusion, this study highlights that true sustainability must balance environmental goals with social justice. If green policies increase the cost of survival for the poor, they risk losing public trust and long-term effectiveness. Sustainability should reduce hardship, not redistribute it downward. The findings call for a people-centered sustainability model, where affordability, dignity, and participation of the urban poor are central to environmental action.