Nope, it's not! It's more than the bare minimum I need, and also larger than an appropriate moderate size (let's not shift the goalposts here) because - unlike a vehicle - operating a larger-than-appropriate home is _barely_ more polluting, and no less dangerous, so my indulgence has negligible negative externalities.

Thanks for playing! Wanna try again?

---

For anyone else reading this, the issue that monkeyelite's comment had was the false equation of "it is good to prosocially take others' safety and comfort into account when making choices about personal behaviour and consumption" with "one can never use or consume any more than the bare minimum". This is a classic approach that the American right uses when criticizing any prosocial policy - the immature that the only choices are selfish indulgence and bare austerity. It's possible to be comfortable and even lavish while being a considerate member of society. Using/consuming/polluting less is always good _in isolation_, but can and should be measured against the benefit that it accrues to you _and_ the externalities imposed on society.

The obvious counter-argument there is "I don't care about other people, I want my big truck, and I don't care (or, I actively like) that it endangers other people". Which, well - if that's your viewpoint, you're welcome to hold it, and others are welcome to judge you for it.