A new study has revealed how a minute number of people drive the largest aspect of environmental damage every year, there causing humongous financial implications on repairs. The study finds that biodiversity loss accounts for the largest share of global environmental damage, worse than climate change.
According to analysis published in the openaccess, peer-reviewed journal, Communications Sustainability, a relatively small share of the world’s population may be causing environmental damage on the same financial scale as the global effort needed to repair it.
The new study holds that the highest-consuming 10 percent of people generate an estimated $1.7 trillion to $5.7 trillion in environmental harm each year, several times more, at the central and upper estimates, than current international commitments for climate action and biodiversity conservation combined.
The analysis places a monetary value on damage across four major planetary boundaries: climate change, biodiversity loss, nutrient pollution, and freshwater use. The findings offer a stark measure of how heavily environmental pressures are concentrated among the world’s most resourceintensive consumers.
For each person in the global top 10 percent, the average annual damage cost ranges from $2,300 to $7,500. In the United States, where per person impacts are the highest, the figure climbs to $19,000 to $63,000.
That is equal to six to 20 percent of income, or 0.8 to three percent of wealth. The geography of high consumption is concentrated. More than 60 percent of the global top 10 percent live in the United States and the European Union.
In the EU, 40 to 45 percent of people fall into this highest-consuming group. In the United States, more than half of the population does. Biodiversity loss makes up the largest share of the global damage bill, accounting for 47 to 56 percent of the total.
Climate change follows at 36 to 45 percent. The pattern strengthens calls for biodiversity loss and climate change to be treated as connected crises, rather than separate policy problems. The numbers are probably conservative.
The study covers only four of the nine planetary boundaries and focuses on direct consumption. For the wealthiest individuals, about half of emissions come from investments rather than personal consumption, and those investment-related impacts were not included in the analysis.
The size of the damage estimate shows how much revenue could be raised if polluter pays principles were applied to high-consuming groups.
The researchers note that environmental taxes aimed at luxury consumption, rather than basic goods, tend to be more progressive and more effective at cutting emissions. They also stress that pricing is only one tool and does not undo or fully compensate for the damage itself.
British Academy Global professor at the Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, and co-author of the study, Paul Behrens said “the top 10 percent are important not only because they cause the most damage but also because they hold the most leverage to reduce it.
