The Richest 10 Percent Are Causing Trillions in Environmental Damage

The people causing the most environmental damage may not be limited to billionaires with private jets and superyachts. A new study suggests the world’s top 10% of consumers are responsible for trillions of dollars in environmental damage every year.

The more surprising detail is who qualifies for that group. According to reporting on the research, an annual after-tax income of roughly $27,000 can be enough to place someone in the global top 10%.

Scientists Put a Price on Environmental Damage

Researchers at Leiden University’s Institute of Environmental Sciences attempted to calculate the monetary cost of environmental damage linked to the world’s highest-consuming households. Inge Schrijver worked on the research alongside Rutger Hoekstra and Paul Behrens, while acknowledging the difficulty of assigning a financial value to nature.

“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 study, published in Communications Sustainability on June 18, 2026, estimated that the global top 10% of consumers cause between $1.7 trillion and $5.7 trillion in environmental damage each year, measured in 2017 dollars. That works out to roughly $2,300 to $7,500 per person.

Four Planetary Boundaries Were Included

The researchers examined four areas where human consumption places pressure on Earth’s systems. Their model covered climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical cycles and freshwater use.

The study examined Brazil, China, Egypt, Germany, India and the United States. The authors estimated that the top 10% of global consumers are responsible for between one-third and two-thirds of the overshoot of individual planetary boundaries.

The categories included:

• Climate change: Damage associated with greenhouse gas emissions and rising temperatures.
• Biosphere integrity: Losses connected to declining biodiversity and damaged ecosystems.
• Biogeochemical cycles: Environmental disruption involving nitrogen and phosphorus.
• Freshwater use: Pressure placed on freshwater resources.

The figures are estimates rather than actual invoices. Their purpose is to place a financial value on environmental harm that is currently absorbed by wider society.

Biodiversity Loss Was the Biggest Cost

One of the study’s most striking findings is that climate change was not the largest source of estimated damage. Biodiversity loss accounted for between 47% and 56% of the total, while climate change represented between 36% and 45%.

Nitrogen contributed around 6% to 8%, while phosphorus and freshwater use each accounted for less than 2%. The calculations suggest that the destruction of ecosystems and the loss of living species carry a massive economic cost.

Why That Finding Stands Out

Climate change dominates environmental debates, political promises and corporate targets. Carbon taxes, emissions pledges and offset schemes have all attempted to put a price on part of the problem.

Biodiversity loss has no equivalent global system. The researchers used price data from the Environmental Prices Handbook to estimate the damage, although they acknowledged that putting a monetary value on nature remains deeply contested.

The Global Top 10% Is Bigger Than Many Think

The estimated income threshold of roughly $27,000 after tax changes how the findings may be viewed. The group responsible for a large share of environmental damage includes far more than billionaires and corporate executives.

More than half of the population of the United States falls within the global top decile, according to figures cited in reporting on the study. Around 40% to 45% of people in the European Union also fall into that group.

More than 60% of the world’s top 10% live in the United States or the European Union. The category can include nurses, teachers and office workers whose lifestyles appear relatively ordinary within wealthy countries.

The Environmental Costs Vary Widely

Being in the global top 10% does not mean everyone has the same environmental footprint. The study found a dramatic difference between the estimated impacts of high-consuming groups in the United States and India.

For a person in the top 10% in the United States, estimated annual environmental damage ranged from $19,000 to $63,000. For someone in India’s top 10%, the figure ranged from $410 to $1,400 per person.

The difference reflects major variations in consumption and resource use. The same broad income category can therefore contain people with dramatically different environmental footprints.

Investments Can Cause Half the Impact

For the highest earners, roughly half of emissions can come from investments rather than personal purchases. Pension funds, investment portfolios and company shares can direct money toward industries with major environmental consequences.

Paul Behrens told Time that the top 10% hold influence beyond their personal consumption. “The top 10% are important not only because they cause the most damage but also because they hold the most leverage to reduce it,” he said.

He added that investment decisions help determine which industries expand and what choices become available to everyone else. The study therefore argues that environmental action cannot rely entirely on people changing small daily habits.

Where the Biggest Leverage Exists

Financial decisions can influence energy systems, infrastructure and the companies that receive funding. The researchers point toward several areas where wealthier groups can exert influence:

• Investment portfolios: Capital can support industries with lower environmental impacts.
• Pension funds: Retirement investments can influence which projects receive financing.
• Corporate decisions: Business leaders can shape products and systems available to consumers.
• Tax policy: The study suggests climate investments financed through a wealth tax on the top 1% could also reduce wealth inequality.

Behrens argued that the top 10%’s power to reduce emissions could exceed their share of the damage. That places significant responsibility alongside significant financial influence.

Nobody Is Actually Receiving a Bill

The figures should not be mistaken for invoices that governments are preparing to send. Nobody in the global top 10% is currently being billed for the calculated environmental damage associated with their consumption.

The study instead attempts to measure harm that is already being absorbed elsewhere. Climate impacts, ecosystem damage and pressure on natural resources can affect communities that played a much smaller role in creating those problems.

The Estimates Have Real Limits

The gap between the study’s lowest and highest estimates is substantial, with the top figure more than three times larger than the bottom one. That uncertainty reflects the difficulty of converting ecological damage into monetary terms.

The research also examined six countries rather than the entire world, and its figures are based on 2017 dollars. Schrijver has made clear that nature cannot be fully reduced to a price, but the researchers argue that assigning a cost can expose damage that otherwise remains hidden.

The Damage Could Help Fund Environmental Solutions

The estimated environmental costs exceed major international financing gaps for climate and biodiversity action, according to the source material. Schrijver said directing money toward solutions could make a significant difference.

“The damage bill is higher than the money needed internationally for climate and biodiversity funds,” Schrijver said. She stressed that preventing environmental damage remains more important than attempting to pay for destruction after it has already occurred.

“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.”

The Planet Does Not Send an Invoice

The study does not provide a final price for environmental destruction, and its estimates will continue to face debate. Its central finding, however, exposes a cost that modern economies often leave off the balance sheet.

A damaged ecosystem or disappearing species does not arrive with an invoice attached. The consequences move elsewhere, while the people with the greatest financial influence continue to hold enormous power over which industries grow and which ones begin to change.