For example, you can have a high standard of living without owning a car (and all the 'consumption' that goes along with that), in cities that have good public transport, and a good infrastructure/environment for walking and cycling. In much of the US, that's difficult or impossible.

And Europeans are hardly ascetics. It’s fair to assume that in both places, if people had more means to consume they would.

Yes. But my point is that not all consumption can be considered equal in terms of the wellbeing and quality of life that it provides.

For example, if I was spending $5000 per year on car payments and fuel for my commute to work, that's a lot of 'consumption'. But it isn't something that makes me happy or feel fulfilled.

On the other hand, suppose I live in a city where I can walk, cycle, or ride a tram to work. My quality of life might be equal or better - yet I'm consuming $5000 less.

The humidity is the main attraction to the show and cares little for shade, peachtree, sycamore or otherwise.

Not the parent commenter but why do you think they would if they could?

Consumption habits across borders aren't as obvious to me because of advertising, culture, etc.

I'm not a fan of cars. It'd be nice if they were toys for the rich and Australian cities were built around everyone walking around or catching public transport.

Living centrally in Paris, London etc is not cheap.

On top of that, it does not account for things you may need in one nation but not in another. E.g. cars spring to mind. In the US you need a car in most places even the bigger cities, to get to work for example. In a lot of places in the EU you don't.

The "I don't need it" argument only goes so far. You can't go shop a lot of groceries. You can't transport bigger items. You can't go on a road trip. You travel according to whatever public transport affords you.

I might just as well say "I don't need it" in regards to healthcare. You don't need it until you do, but then you can't afford it.