Wealthiest consumers to blame for trillions in environmental damage

(CN) — The top 10% of households’ rampant consumerism is causing more serious environmental impacts than ever, now reaching into trillions of dollars of damage each year. The largest share of that damage comes not from climate change, but from the loss of biodiversity, according to a study published Thursday.

Researchers from Leiden University and the University of Oxford estimated the top 10% of global consumers are responsible for between $1.7 trillion and $5.7 trillion in annual environmental damages tied to greenhouse gas emissions, species loss, nutrient pollution and freshwater use.

The findings, published Thursday in Nature’s Communications Sustainability journal, suggest a relatively small segment of the global population is responsible for environmental costs that rival current international funding commitments aimed at addressing climate change and declining biodiversity.

While climate change dominated between 36% and 45% of estimated damages, biodiversity loss ranged from 47% to 56%.

The researchers said the result highlights the growing need to address both crises together rather than through separate policymaking.

In order to arrive at the estimates, the researchers combined consumer spending data and environmental footprints with existing models that assign economic values to environmental harms. The analysis examined the U.S., China, India, Germany, Brazil and Egypt using 2017 data, the most recent year for which comparable global consumption data was available.

The study found stark differences existed between the countries.

Americans generated the largest per-person environmental damage estimates of any population examined. For consumers in the global top 10%, annual damages linked to their consumption ranged from roughly $19,000 to $63,000 per person. By contrast, the lowest per-capita impacts were found in India and Egypt.

More than 60% of the world’s highest-consuming individuals live in either the U.S. or Europe, according to the researchers.

“The top 10% are important not only because they cause the most damage but also because they hold the most leverage to reduce it,” said co-author Paul Behrens, a professor at the University of Oxford’s Oxford Martin School.

Behrens said affluent consumers influence environmental outcomes not only through their purchases, but also through investments, business decisions and social norms that shape broader consumption patterns.

Lead author Inge Schrijver of Leiden University said the monetary estimates should not be interpreted as placing a market value on nature itself.

“While I find it uncomfortable to put a price on the environment, as nature’s true value is infinite, showing total damage in money terms does show the size of both the damages and responsibility of the top 10%,” Schrijver said.

The authors argue the findings show the scale of revenue that could theoretically be generated through policies based on the polluter-pays principle, though they stress taxation alone cannot reverse these environmental damages. Preventing future damage remains the primary goal.

These estimates are also likely conservative, the researchers added.