Top 10 per cent of consumers cause trillions in environmental damage
Environmental science image: Unsplash
Those who consume the most also cause the most damage. The 10 per cent of the world’s population who consume the most cause up to $5.7 trillion in environmental damage annually, according to new research from Leiden University.
It was already known that the richest 10 per cent of the world’s population is responsible for at least two-thirds of global warming. But new research at Leiden University shows that their negative impact extends far beyond the climate alone. The study, published in Communications Sustainability, highlights where the greatest gains can be made.
Lead researcher Inge Schrijver and her colleagues Rutger Hoekstra and Paul Behrens looked at the top ten per cent of consumers. This group largely overlaps with the wealthiest individuals. In a wealthy country such as the Netherlands, a significant proportion of the population falls into this category: with an annual income above 45,000 euros, you belong to the global top ten per cent.
In total, that top 10 per cent causes annual ecological damage worth between 1,700 and 5,700 billion dollars (1,500 to 5,000 billion euros). By way of comparison: in 2026, the Netherlands will spend 27 billion euros on defence. The total value of the Dutch economy in 2025 was just over 1,130 billion euros.
A one-size-fits-all approach is, in Schrijver’s view, less efficient
‘Don’t make people who consume less pay for the lifestyles of others’
‘The behaviour of that ten per cent, such as frequent air travel and large cars, is causing the damage,’ says Schrijver. ‘So there is an opportunity for policymakers to make a difference.’ The finding that these consumers cause a “disproportionate” amount of ecological damage, according to the researchers, makes it clear once again that not everyone should bear the same responsibility when it comes to solutions.
A one-size-fits-all approach is, in Schrijver’s view, less efficient. ‘It is also less fair,’ she says. In that case, people who consume less end up footing the bill for others’ lifestyles. ‘Whereas you see that there is more support for policies if they are fair.’
And whether anyone pays for it or not, the damage is real, said co-author Behrens in an interview with the University of Oxford, with which he is also affiliated. ‘Currently, the costs are borne by ecosystems and by communities facing drought and pollution.’
Figures are almost certainly an underestimate
The reason the researchers do not cite a single specific figure is that environmental damage is difficult to calculate precisely. Climate damage, for example, is the sum of how much governments must invest to combat global warming. Nitrogen damage concerns the valuation of clean water. And biodiversity damage is expressed as an estimate of how much value people attach to the nature around them. That value varies greatly from place to place.
The figures are also almost certainly an underestimate. The researchers included only four of the nine planetary boundaries in their calculations. The study also focuses specifically on consumption. Assets, such as investments in polluting industries, remain out of the picture. The dataset used dates from 2017, as that was the last time global data was compared. Although the trend has remained the same, the figures are now significantly higher.
‘Actually, the value of nature should be infinite’
Uncomfortable, but the best possible way
Schrijver understands that it can be “uncomfortable” to express nature and the environment in monetary terms. ‘Actually, the value of nature should be infinite,’ she states. Yet there is certainly value in translating it into dollars or euros. It is simply an effective way of showing the total negative impact consumers have on all of nature and the living environment.
According to her, the research also offers a new perspective to policymakers. ‘The cost of the damage is many times greater than the amount of money that governments are required to spend on climate and biodiversity funding,’ she says. ‘If the polluter paid and that money went towards solutions, that would make a huge contribution.’ Although it is not just about money, Schrijver acknowledges. ‘The most important thing is that we prevent damage. Stricter guidelines and regulations remain necessary.’
The paper ‘Environmental damages of the top ten percent consumers exceed global climate and biodiversity funding gaps’ was published on 18 June 2026 in Communications Sustainability.