As global efforts to mitigate climate change intensify, attention increasingly turns to the disproportionate environmental impact of the world’s wealthiest individuals. Recent studies reveal that the top 10% of high-income earners are responsible for a significantly larger carbon footprint than the majority of the population. Addressing this imbalance is critical if the world is to meet ambitious climate targets. Emerging research suggests that a multi-faceted approach—combining economic regulation with behavioral nudges—may offer the most effective path forward in curbing emissions tied to affluent lifestyles.
One of the most direct strategies proposed involves imposing higher taxes on luxury items whose carbon footprints are notoriously large. These include private jets, yachts, and large sport utility vehicles, which by nature consume vast quantities of fossil fuels per unit of use. Oswald and colleagues (2023) emphasize that levying steep levies on such goods could disincentivize their ownership or frequent usage among the rich, nudging consumption patterns toward sustainability. Similarly, Gössling and Humpe (2024) point to supplementary fees on carbon-intensive activities—such as docking and landing charges for private jets and yachts—as economic deterrents designed to internalize their environmental costs.
Beyond taxation on specific goods, more systemic approaches have gained traction. Buch-Hansen and Koch (2019) advocate for policies that impose caps on wealth or income, limiting the overall emissions that can be attributed to the world’s financial elite. Complementing this perspective, Starr and co-authors (2023) advance the notion of progressive climate taxes on income and assets rather than consumption alone. These policies recognize that affluent individuals tend to have larger ecological footprints by virtue of their resource-intensive lifestyles, which voluntary or market-driven interventions often fail to penetrate effectively.
The rationale underlying wealth caps and progressive taxation lies in the clear, empirically documented correlation between wealth and ecological impact. High-net-worth individuals often maintain lifestyles involving larger homes, frequent air travel, and higher energy consumption—behaviors not easily curtailed by simple nudges or incentives. Moreover, Buch-Hansen and Koch point out the additional societal benefit of such redistribution policies: limiting the capacity of the wealthy to project their consumption patterns as aspirational norms, which can perpetuate unsustainable social practices (Frank, 2020).
While economic regulations can set hard limits, behavioral science offers subtle but powerful tools to reshape motivations. Nudging strategies aim to gently steer decision-making without overt coercion. For example, Chroufa and Chtourou (2024) have recently explored how framing sustainable investment options as prestigious, exclusive choices can appeal to the status-conscious affluent. This social signaling leverages status-driven motives, potentially transforming eco-friendly financial behaviors into markers of elite taste and responsibility—driving behavior change from within.
Notably, high socioeconomic status (SES) individuals’ role as social models can go both ways. Nielsen et al. (2021) reveal that their choices influence wider consumption norms and societal perceptions. A historical example is the adoption of electric vehicles, where early endorsements and purchases by elites helped rebrand these cars as desirable status symbols rather than fringe alternatives (Ashmore et al., 2018). This dynamic suggests that leveraging social influence through thoughtful nudges could help multiply the impact beyond the individual to entire communities.
Empirical studies of affluent individuals’ climate behaviors paint a nuanced picture. A pan-European investigation by Umit et al. (2019) found that wealthier individuals are quick to adopt energy-efficient technologies, such as heat pumps or solar panels, given their capacity to absorb upfront costs without lifestyle compromise. However, they tend not to engage as much in energy curtailment behaviors—simply using energy efficient devices but continuing higher-than-average consumption levels. This pattern underscores a critical challenge in behavioral climate policy design.
Attitudes toward climate policies among the rich vary considerably depending on the measure. Moorcroft and colleagues (2025) highlight that while wealthy individuals are not universally resistant nor fully supportive, their opinions fluctuate based on specifics. For instance, Nielsen et al. (2024) report that the wealthiest 10% in Denmark, the United States, Nigeria, and India are more willing than other income groups to adopt electric vehicles and reduce red meat consumption. However, distaste remains for air travel reduction in some countries, notably Denmark and the US, despite aviation accounting for a large fraction of their carbon footprint (Otto et al., 2019).
Despite the clear need to address emissions from affluent consumers, few policies have been explicitly targeted at this demographic. Measures such as Norway’s vehicle emission taxes and flight ticket surcharges incidentally impact high-income groups but do not represent deliberate targeting strategies (Carpenter and Antich, 2022). This policy gap reflects a broader research void regarding designing and testing nudges aimed at wealthy individuals, an oversight given their outsized environmental impact.
New data from the United Kingdom offers promising insights into the potential role of nudges aimed at the top income brackets. Moorcroft et al. (2025) found that wealthy citizens perceive themselves as having greater influence over others’ climate behaviors and local policy decisions compared to less affluent groups. This self-perception indicates that nudges which encourage pro-environmental actions among the wealthy could reverberate through their social networks, amplifying effects far beyond individual behavior change—a potential lever for cascading societal impact.
Yet political feasibility remains a thorny issue. Can wealthy individuals be expected to voluntarily accept interventions steering their consumption to lower emissions? The political clout of the rich raises legitimate concerns about resistance to regulation or behavioral guidance. However, optimism emerges as studies on green nudge acceptability indicate that factors such as environmental concern and implementation method outweigh income in shaping support (Sivonen et al., 2025; Grelle et al., 2024). Additionally, research suggests that wealthy individuals often prefer broader policymaking-level interventions to bear the burden of change rather than personal voluntary shifts alone (Moorcroft et al., 2025).
In stark contrast, carbon taxes encounter well-documented political backlash, frequently attributed to perceived or real negative impacts on household finances. The “gilets jaunes” protests in France vividly illustrate how fuel price hikes sparked widespread discontent (Beiser-McGrath and Bernauer, 2019). Even affluent groups that generally favor climate policies tend to withdraw support when faced with policies that directly affect their pockets (Beiser-McGrath and Bernauer, 2024). Consequently, any taxation approach, whether on luxury goods, overall income, or assets, will likely face entrenched resistance absent carefully designed accompanying measures.
This dynamic opens the door to innovative policy blends. Many green consumption behaviors, such as adopting electric vehicles or installing heat pumps, entail high initial costs but yield long-term financial benefits. Wealthier consumers can more readily absorb upfront expenses. Therefore, pairing behavioral nudges that highlight economic savings with progressive carbon taxes could soften opposition by clearly communicating the net financial advantage over time. Policy packaging—combining taxation with educational campaigns or nudges—has demonstrated improved acceptability in multiple contexts (Beiser-McGrath and Bernauer, 2024; Wicki, Huber and Bernauer, 2020).
Ultimately, addressing the climate footprint of the wealthy requires a coordinated, multi-pronged strategy. Regulatory measures like taxes and wealth caps impose needed hard environmental limits, while behavioral interventions reconfigure the social and psychological drivers of consumption among affluent groups. By reshaping status incentives and normative behavior around sustainability, nudges promise a cultural shift that can normalize low-carbon lifestyles within high-income circles, thereby generating lasting change.
Though challenges persist, including political feasibility and precise policy design, the emerging evidence invites targeted research efforts to refine and operationalize behavioral climate policy aimed at top earners. Given their disproportionate environmental footprint and influence over social norms, the potential payoff from effectively nudging the elite toward sustainable choices is enormous. As such, the case for “nudging the rich” not only grows stronger scientifically but also signals a critical frontier for climate action in the coming decade.
Subject of Research: Behavioral and regulatory strategies targeting high-income individuals to mitigate climate change through reduced carbon footprints.
Article Title: Nudge the rich! The case for targeting the top 10% in behavioural climate policy.
Article References:
Koi, P., Sivonen, J., Härmä, V. et al. Nudge the rich! The case for targeting the top 10% in behavioural climate policy. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1559 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05886-6
Image Credits: AI Generated
