World’s highest-consuming 10% cause up to $5.7 trillion a year in environmental damage - more than the global climate and biodiversity funding gaps combined

The environmental damage caused by the world’s highest-consuming 10% of people is worth $1.7 trillion to $5.7 trillion a year. At the central and upper estimates this is several times more than the international community has committed to spend on climate action and biodiversity conservation combined, and is on the scale of the funding estimated to be needed globally to address these crises.

This finding, published in Communications Sustainability, puts a price on the harm this group inflicts across four planetary boundaries: climate change, biodiversity loss, nutrient pollution, and freshwater use.

The average annual damage bill for a person in the global top 10% is $2,300 to $7,500. In the United States, where per-person impacts are highest, the figure rises to $19,000 to $63,000 - equivalent to 6–20% of their income or 0.8–3% of their wealth. More than 60% of the global top 10% live in the US and EU. In the EU 40-45% of the population falls within this highest consuming group, and in the US it is over half the population. 

Biodiversity loss is the single largest contributor to the global damage bill, accounting for 47–56% of the total. Climate change accounts for 36–45%. The finding underlines recent calls to tackle biodiversity and climate crises together rather than treating them as separate policy challenges.

The figures are likely conservative. They cover only four of nine planetary boundaries and reflect direct consumption alone. For the highest-income individuals, roughly half of emissions come from investments rather than personal consumption - impacts not captured in this analysis.

The scale of the damage bill illustrates the potential revenue if polluter-pays principles were applied to high-consuming groups. The researchers note that environmental taxation focused on luxury consumption rather than basic goods tends to be more progressive and more effective at reducing emissions, though they stress that pricing is one tool among several and does not justify or compensate for the damage itself.

Read the full study: Environmental damages of the top ten percent consumers exceed global climate and biodiversity funding gaps

Key findings

• The top 10% of global consumers cause $1.7–$5.7 trillion in annual environmental damage, exceeding current international climate and biodiversity financing commitments several times and comparable to estimated global funding needs.

• Globally, biodiversity loss accounts for 47–56% of total damages; climate change accounts for 36–45%

• The top 10% of US consumers face an annual damage bill of $19,000–$63,000 per person, equal to 6–20% of income

• The figures are conservative: they cover four of nine planetary boundaries and exclude investment-linked emissions

Quotes

Paul Behrens, British Academy Global Professor at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, and co-author of the study:

“The top 10% are important not only because they cause the most damage but also because they hold the most leverage to reduce it. 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 as normal. They often have out-sized agency, not only individually as consumers, but also as investors, employers, trend makers, and market shapers. Their power to cut emissions is even larger than their share of them."

Lead author, Inge Schrijver, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, Netherlands:

“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%. 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.”

Background

The study combines consumption-based environmental footprints with prices from the Environmental Prices Handbook 2024 to estimate the monetary cost of damage across climate change (CO₂), biodiversity loss (mean species abundance loss), nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, and freshwater use. Prices were scaled across countries using GDP per capita. The underlying consumption data is from 2017, the most recent year for which globally comparable footprints are available.

Differences between countries reflect inequalities in consumption. The US has the highest per-person bill of any country studied; the lowest are in India and Egypt. The study examines six countries (Brazil, China, Egypt, Germany, India, USA) and global totals.

The authors emphasise that monetising environmental damage does not equate to commodifying nature, and that monetary figures capture only part of what ecosystems are worth. The purpose is to make the scale of concentrated environmental harm visible and to illustrate the revenue that could be generated if the polluter-pays principle were adopted.

— ENDS —

Notes to editors

Publication details

Journal: Communications Sustainability (Nature Portfolio)

Title: “Environmental damages of the top ten percent consumers exceed global climate and biodiversity funding gaps”

Publication date: 18 June 2026 16:00 GMT

• DOI: 10.1038/s44458-026-00079-x
• Link: www.nature.com/articles/s44458-026-00079-x

Authors and affiliations

• Inge Schrijver – Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, Netherlands

• Rutger Hoekstra – Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University, Netherlands

• Paul Behrens – Institute of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University; Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford; Wellbeing Research Centre, University of Oxford

Media contact

Sara Davis

sara.davis@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk

01865 287365

About Professor Paul Behrens

Professor Paul Behrens is a British Academy Global Professor at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford. His research focuses on food systems and environmental change, and has been featured in outlets including the BBC, The Guardian and Nature journals.

Background information for journalists

What does “environmental cost” mean?

These are not literal bills. The figures represent estimated economic damages linked to environmental impacts, calculated using established scientific pricing methods. Monetary valuation makes it possible to compare very different types of damage (climate, biodiversity, pollution, water) on a common scale.

Who are the top 10%?

The highest-consuming individuals globally, defined by expenditure rather than location. More than 60% are in the US and EU; around 2% are in India. The “top 10% within a single country” is a different, smaller group. For example, the within-country US top 10% has the highest per-person bill of any group in the study.

Do the authors propose a $5.7 trillion tax?

No. The figures show the scale of damage, not a recommended tax rate. Any policy would need to be designed in national or regional context. The authors note that environmental taxation is one tool among several, including regulation, public investment and shifts in consumption norms. They also stress that taxation does not justify or compensate for the damage.

Why put a monetary figure on environmental damage?

It allows different types of environmental harm to be compared on a common scale and connects them to economic and fiscal debates. The authors are clear this does not mean treating nature as a tradable commodity, and that monetary figures capture only part of what ecosystems are worth.

How reliable are these estimates?

The study presents lower, central and upper estimates to reflect uncertainty. The biodiversity component carries the widest uncertainty because it relies on transferring European willingness-to-pay studies to other contexts. Even under the most conservative biodiversity price, the core finding holds: a small group of consumers accounts for a disproportionate share of environmental damage.

Are these figures up to date?

They use 2017 data, the most recent year for which globally comparable consumption-based footprints are available. The pattern of inequality is expected to remain similar.

What’s not included?

The bill covers four of nine planetary boundaries. Land-system change, ocean acidification, atmospheric aerosol loading, stratospheric ozone depletion and novel entities are excluded because suitable data were not available. The figures also reflect direct consumption only, not investment-linked emissions. Both omissions mean the total is likely conservative.