Less Than Half of the Population Recognizes That the Wealthiest Pollute the Environment More, Study Finds

There is growing discussion today about how poorer populations disproportionately suffer from the effects of climate disasters caused by environmental degradation. This occurs despite the fact that the poorest contribute the least to pollution. In light of this dynamic, a study by the Brazilian School of Public and Business Administration (FGV EBAPE) analyzed how Brazilians perceive who is most responsible for environmental degradation. The study found that most participants believe that poorer people pollute as much as—or more than—the wealthy.

According to the lead researcher, Yan Vieites, the study is based on perceptions of ecological footprint, a concept that includes factors such as carbon emissions, water usage, and land use.

“Numerous studies show that wealthier individuals have a significantly larger ecological footprint than poorer ones. Although the magnitude of this difference varies across studies, the gap is consistently substantial. This is because wealthier individuals take more trips, consume more red meat, use more electricity in their daily lives, among other habits that clearly show the disproportionate environmental impact caused by those with more resources,” explained the researcher, posing the question: “But do people actually perceive this?”

Experiments on Public Perception of Ecological Footprint

To analyze how people perceive the relationship between lifestyle and environmental pollution, the study conducted four separate investigations, including surveys and experiments. The first study involved 339 participants and aimed to examine how people fail to recognize the inequality in ecological footprints between the rich and the poor, as well as to explore possible reasons for this misperception.

“In this phase, we asked questions like ‘Whose behaviors and lifestyles harm the environment more?’ and ‘Who contributes more to global warming?’” said Vieites, who emphasized that regardless of how the question was phrased, the result was the same: just over half of respondents believed that both groups contribute equally or that the poor contribute more.

To better understand why people think this way, the researchers asked participants to explain why they believed the rich or the poor were more responsible for environmental degradation. About 28.3% gave a correct explanation: that wealthier people have higher consumption patterns, which contribute more to their ecological footprint. However, 5% associated environmental pollution with lack of access to services like waste collection and sewage treatment.

Vieites found this particularly interesting, as it reveals a tendency to re-victimize populations already living in precarious conditions. “When people see a community without access to sewage treatment or garbage collection, some may perceive that group as more harmful to the environment,” he explained.

Some respondents also believed that behaving sustainably requires financial resources to purchase items like solar panels, electric cars, or organic food. As a result, 7.7% argued that because the wealthy have more resources, they are more sustainable.

“Another 10.3% of participants believed that higher-income individuals have more formal education and, therefore, greater environmental awareness,” added Vieites.

According to the researcher, this effect persists regardless of the social group being analyzed or how the question is asked. “On average, everyone underestimates the vast disparity between the contributions of the poor and the rich to environmental pollution, regardless of gender, social class, or political orientation,” he emphasized.

The study also conducted additional experiments to explore this perception in greater depth. However, according to Vieites, most people continue to underestimate the pollution gap between the rich and the poor. For the researcher, it is important to document the fact that those who pollute the most often do not see themselves as contributors to environmental degradation. If they did, they might use their resources to reduce consumption, for example.

“Moreover, this data helps create a pressure mechanism targeting wealthier individuals—especially in a context where social movements are already demanding that certain groups reduce their environmental impact. The research also informs public policy by identifying who pollutes the most and reinforcing the need for heavier environmental burdens on these groups,” he concluded.

Read the full study [here].