He points out that people do not live environmentalist lifestyles as evidence that they will not vote for making non-environmentalist lifestyles expensive, and thus Klein's claim that democracy and local politics will help solve this issue is fundamentally mistaken.

This is possibly true, but not necessarily so. We know nothing about these people's political beliefs or what issues they care about. He's making massive judgements about them from a single picture in a real estate listing.

Even if we are accepting the premise that people only vote in their self interest (they don't), these people are clearly very wealthy. Increases in energy prices will have a lower impact on them.

it's certainly fair to claim that their lifestyle is fossil fuel intensive, which was his claim. I have friends with guns; the amount of gunpowder consumption they require is better measured by how frequently they go to the range, not the number of guns they own. But it still seems fair to argue that using guns is a gunpowder-intensive hobby.

"intensive" is a pretty strong word. Clearly they use gas, but everyone uses gas. Just because they have ATVs and motorcycles doesn't mean much. As I said, they get good mileage, sometimes better than cars, and they aren't going to be driving them long distances. A single person with a long commute is likely going to use far more gas than them.