The world’s wealthiest 10% of people are responsible for between $1.7 trillion and $5.7 trillion worth of environmental damage every year, according to a new study led by the University of Oxford.
According to the study, Environmental damages of the top ten percent consumers exceed global climate and biodiversity funding gaps, which was published in the Communications Sustainability journal, the top 10% of global consumers is ‘disproportionately responsible for transgressing planetary boundaries, causing damages for which broader society bears the costs’.
This impact is valued at several times that of the level of funding experts estimate is needed globally to address climate action and biodiversity conservation.
On average, individuals within the top 10% generate environmental damage valued at between $2,300 and $7,500 per year, however, in the United States, where per-person impacts are most pronounced, this rises to between $19,000 and $63,000 annually.
More than three fifths of the world’s wealthiest top 10 live in either the US or the European Union, the report noted – in the US, this includes more than half of the population, while in the EU, it accounts for between 40% and 45%.
‘The most leverage’
“The top 10% are important, not only because they cause the most damage, but also because they hold the most leverage to reduce it,” commented Paul Behrens, British Academy Global Professor at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, and co-author of the study. “The capital they invest, from pensions to infrastructure, decides which industries expand, the firms they run set the choices for everyone else, and the lifestyles they pursue shape what people consider normal.
“They often have outsized agency, not only individually as consumers, but also as investors, employers, trendmakers and market shapers. Their power to cut emissions is even larger than their share of them.”
The biggest impact from the world’s wealthiest 10% is on biodiversity, the study found, accounting for between 47% and 56% of overall environmental costs. Climate change represented between 36% and 45%.
According to the researchers, these estimates are likely conservative, as they cover only four of the nine planetary boundaries and reflect direct consumption alone, rather than investments.
‘These costs highlight the mitigation responsibility of the top 10% and illustrate the potential revenue of environmental taxes if the polluter-pays principle is adopted,’ the report notes.
Damage prevention
“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%,” added lead author Inge Schrijver, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, the Netherlands.
“The damage bill is higher than the money needed internationally for climate and biodiversity funds. If the polluter pays and that money goes to solutions, it would make a huge difference. But it is not just about money. Most importantly, damage must be prevented. Apart from financial measures, stricter rules and regulations are crucial.”
As the study noted, among the countries analysed, the United States recorded the highest per-person environmental damage costs, while India and Egypt recorded the lowest. Read more here and here.
