Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Perspective
  • Published:

The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions

Nature Energy volume 6, pages 1011–1016 (2021)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

People with high socioeconomic status disproportionally affect energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions directly through their consumption and indirectly through their financial and social resources. However, few climate change mitigation initiatives have targeted this population segment, and the potential of such initiatives remains insufficiently researched. In this Perspective, we analyse key characteristics of high-socioeconomic-status people and explore five roles through which they have a disproportionate impact on energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions and potentially on climate change mitigation, namely as consumers, investors, role models, organizational participants and citizens. We examine what is known about their disproportionate impact via consumption and explore their potential influence on greenhouse gas emissions through all five roles. We suggest that future research should focus on strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by high-socioeconomic-status people and to align their investments, organizational choices and actions as social and political change agents with climate change mitigation goals.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Five roles through which people of high SES can influence GHG emissions.
Fig. 2: Links from SES to actions with high climate footprints.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impactsof global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) In Press.

  2. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18452–18456 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Frank, R. H. Under the Influence: Putting Peer Pressure to Work (Princeton Univ. Press, 2020).

  4. Nielsen, K. S. et al. How psychology can help limit climate change. Am. Psychol. 76, 130–144 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Creutzig, F. et al. Beyond technology: demand-side solutions for climate change mitigation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 173–198 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Capstick, S. et al. UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2020; 62–75 (UNEP, 2020) https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/34432

  7. York, R. Environmental consequences of moral disinhibition. Socius https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023117719612 (2017).

  8. Werfel, S. H. Household behaviour crowds out support for climate change policy when sufficient progress is perceived. Nat. Clim. Change 7, 512–515 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Supran, G. & Oreskes, N. Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 084019 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lamb, W. F. et al. Discourses of climate delay. Glob. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1017/sus.2020.13 (2020).

  11. Oswald, Y., Owen, A. & Steinberger, J. K. Large inequality in international and intranational energy footprints between income groups and across consumption categories. Nat. Energy 5, 231–239 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chancel, L. & Piketty, T. Carbon and Inequality: from Kyoto to Paris (Paris School of Economics, 2015) http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/ChancelPiketty2015.pdf

  13. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T. & Steinberger, J. K. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 11, 3107 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wright, E. O. Understanding Class (Verso Books, 2015).

  15. Farah, M. J. The neuroscience of socioeconomic status: correlates, causes, and consequences. Neuron 96, 56–71 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell, K. E., Marsden, P. V. & Hurlbert, J. S. Social resources and socioeconomic status. Soc. Netw. 8, 97–117 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kartha, S., Kemp-Benedict, E., Ghosh, E., Nazareth, A. & Gore, T. The Carbon Inequality Era: an Assessment of the Global Distribution of Consumption Emissions among Individuals from 1990 to 2015 and Beyond (Stockholm Environment Institute and Oxfam International, 2020) https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/the-carbon-inequality-era-an-assessment-of-the-global-distribution-of-consumpti-621049/

  18. Anand, S. & Segal, P. Who are the global top 1%? World Dev. 95, 111–126 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Ravallion, M. Missing Top Income Recipients Working Paper No. 28890 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2021) https://www.nber.org/papers/w28890

  20. Gössling, S. Celebrities, air travel, and social norms. Ann. Tour. Res. 79, 102775 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Boyce, J. K. Inequality as a cause of environmental degradation. Ecol. Econ. 11, 169–178 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dietz, T., Shwom, R. L. & Whitley, C. T. Climate change and society. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 46, 135–158 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Robinson, M. & Shine, T. Achieving a climate justice pathway to 1.5 °C. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 564–569 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Knight, K. W., Schor, J. B. & Jorgenson, A. K. Wealth inequality and carbon emissions in high-income countries. Soc. Curr. 4, 403–412 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McCright, A. M., Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., Shwom, R. L., Brechin, S. R. & Allen, S. Ideology, capitalism, and climate: explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 21, 180–189 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Nielsen, K. S. et al. Improving climate change mitigation analysis: a framework for examining feasibility. One Earth 3, 325–336 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Hanna, R., Duflo, E. & Greenstone, M. Up in smoke: the influence of household behavior on the long-run impact of improved cooking stoves. Am. Econ. J. Econ. Policy 8, 80–114 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ivanova, D. & Wood, R. The unequal distribution of household carbon footprints in Europe and its link to sustainability. Glob. Sustain. 3, e18 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Ivanova, D. et al. Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 093001 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Gössling, S. & Humpe, A. The global scale, distribution and growth of aviation: implications for climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 65, 102194 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee, D. S. et al. The contribution of global aviation to anthropogenic climate forcing for 2000 to 2018. Atmos. Environ. 244, 117834 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Litman, T. in Car Troubles: Critical Studies of Automobility and Auto-mobility (eds McLaren, A. T. & Conley, J.) 199–218 (Ashgate Publishing, 2009).

  33. Wynes, S., Nicholas, K. A., Zhao, J. & Donner, S. D. Measuring what works: quantifying greenhouse gas emission reductions of behavioural interventions to reduce driving, meat consumption, and household energy use. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 113002 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gössling, S., Hanna, P., Higham, J., Cohen, S. & Hopkins, D. Can we fly less? Evaluating the ‘necessity’ of air travel. J. Air Transp. Manag. 81, 101722 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Oswald, L. & Ernst, A. Flying in the face of climate change: quantitative psychological approach examining the social drivers of individual air travel. J. Sustain. Tour. 29, 68–86 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Baert, S., Lippens, L., Moens, E., Weytjens, J. & Sterkens, P. The COVID-19 Crisis and Telework: a Research Survey on Experiences, Expectations and Hopes IZA Discussion Paper No. 13229 (SSRN, 2020) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3596696

  37. Jones, C. & Kammen, D. M. Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for U.S. households and communities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 4088–4095 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ahmad, S. & Creutzig, F. Spatially contextualized analysis of energy use for commuting in India. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 45007 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Milovanoff, A., Posen, I. D. & MacLean, H. L. Electrification of light-duty vehicle fleet alone will not meet mitigation targets. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 1102–1107 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hymel, K. M., Small, K. A. & Van Dender, K. Induced demand and rebound effects in road transport. Transp. Res. B Methodol. 44, 1220–1241 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Creutzig, F. et al. Fair street space allocation: ethical principles and empirical insights. Transp. Rev. 40, 711–733 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Heinen, E., Harshfield, A., Panter, J., Mackett, R. & Ogilvie, D. Does exposure to new transport infrastructure result in modal shifts? Patterns of change in commute mode choices in a four-year quasi-experimental cohort study. J. Transp. Heal. 6, 396–410 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ramakrishnan, A., Kalkuhl, M., Ahmad, S. & Creutzig, F. Keeping up with the Patels: conspicuous consumption drives the adoption of cars and appliances in India. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 70, 101742 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mattioli, G., Roberts, C., Steinberger, J. K. & Brown, A. The political economy of car dependence: a systems of provision approach. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 66, 101486 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Liu, Z. et al. Near-real-time monitoring of global CO2 emissions reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Commun. 11, 5172 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kastner, I. & Stern, P. C. Examining the decision-making processes behind household energy investments: a review. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 10, 72–89 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Bollinger, B., Gillingham, K. T. & Ovaere, M. Field experimental evidence shows that self-interest attracts more sunlight. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 20503–20510 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Fuller, M. C., Portis, S. C. & Kammen, D. M. Toward a low-carbon economy: municipal financing for energy efficiency and solar power. Environ. Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 51, 22–33 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Umit, R., Poortinga, W., Jokinen, P. & Pohjolainen, P. The role of income in energy efficiency and curtailment behaviours: findings from 22 European countries. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 53, 206–214 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Ameli, N. & Brandt, N. Determinants of households’ investment in energy efficiency and renewables: evidence from the OECD survey on household environmental behaviour and attitudes. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 044015 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sardianou, E. & Genoudi, P. Which factors affect the willingness of consumers to adopt renewable energies? Renew. Energy 57, 1–4 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Goulder, L. H., Hafstead, M. A. C., Kim, G. & Long, X. Impacts of a carbon tax across US household income groups: what are the equity-efficiency trade-offs? J. Public Econ. 175, 44–64 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Boyce, J. K. Carbon pricing: effectiveness and equity. Ecol. Econ. 150, 52–61 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Baiocchi, G., Creutzig, F., Minx, J. & Pichler, P. P. A spatial typology of human settlements and their CO2 emissions in England. Glob. Environ. Change 34, 13–21 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wolske, K. S. & Stern, P. C. in Psychology and Climate Change (eds Clayton, S. & Manning, C.) 127–160 (Academic Press, 2018).

  56. Alvaredo, F. The World Inequality Report (Harvard Univ. Press, 2018).

  57. Mormann, F. Why the divestment movement is missing the mark. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 1067–1068 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Bioy, H. & Stuart, E. Investing in Times of Climate Change: an Expanding Array of Choices for Climate-Aware Investors (Morningstar, 2020) https://www.morningstar.com/en-uk/lp/investing-in-times-of-climate-change

  59. Moran, M., Treacy, J. & Edey, G. Navigating the European ESG disclosure regime in a post-Brexit world. National Law Review https://www.natlawreview.com/article/navigating-european-esg-disclosure-regime-post-brexit-world (2021).

  60. Ashmore, D. P., Pojani, D., Thoreau, R., Christie, N. & Tyler, N. A. The symbolism of ‘eco cars’ across national cultures: potential implications for policy formulation and transfer. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 63, 560–575 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Nyborg, K. et al. Social norms as solutions. Science 354, 42–43 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Rinscheid, A., Pianta, S. & Weber, E. U. What shapes public support for climate change mitigation policies? The role of descriptive social norms and elite cues. Behav. Public Policy https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2020.43 (2020).

  63. Veblen, T. The Theory of the Leisure Class: an Economic Study of Institutions (Allen and Unwin, 1899).

  64. Domhoff, G. W. Studying the Power Elite: Fifty Years of Who Rules America? (Routledge, 2017).

  65. Sovacool, B. K., Baker, L., Martiskainen, M. & Hook, A. Processes of elite power and low-carbon pathways: experimentation, financialisation, and dispossession. Glob. Environ. Change 59, 101985 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Zweigenhaft, R. L. The role of elite education for white men, white women, and people of color in the US corporate elite. Who Rules America? https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/elite_education.html (2021).

  67. Vandenbergh, M. P. & Gilligan, J. M. Beyond Politics (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017).

  68. Vandenbergh, M. P., Dietz, T. & Stern, P. C. Time to try carbon labelling. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 4–6 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Acuto, M. & Ghojeh, M. C40 cities inside out. Glob. Policy 10, 709–711 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Alberro, H. Why billionaire climate philanthropists will always be part of the problem. The Conversation https://theconversation.com/why-billionaire-climate-philanthropists-will-always-be-part-of-the-problem-132383 (2020).

  71. Parag, Y. & Janda, K. B. Middle actors and socio-technical change in the energy system from the “middle-out”. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 3, 102–112 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Dietz, T. & Whitley, C. T. Inequality, decisions, and altruism. Sociol. Dev. 4, 282–303 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Meng, K. C. & Rode, A. The social cost of lobbying over climate policy. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 472–476 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Stokes, L. C. Short Circuiting Policy: Interest Groups and the Battle over Clean Energy and Climate Policy in the American States (Oxford Univ. Press, 2020).

  75. Skocpol, T. & Hertel-Fernandez, A. The Koch network and Republican party extremism. Perspect. Polit. 14, 681–699 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Mayer, J. Dark Money: the Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right (Anchor Books, 2017).

  77. Owen, A. & Barrett, J. Reducing inequality resulting from UK low-carbon policy. Clim. Policy 20, 1193–1208 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Newell, P., Daley, F. & Twena, M. Changing Our Ways? Behaviour Change and the Climate Crisis (Cambridge Sustainability Commissions, 2021) https://www.rapidtransition.org/resources/cambridge-sustainability-commission/

  79. Murray, L. Public Attitudes to Tackling Aviation’s Climate Change Impacts (10:10 Climate Action, 2019).

  80. Frank, R. H. Positional externalities cause large and preventable welfare losses. Am. Econ. Rev. 95, 137–141 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Mettler, S. & SoRelle, M. in Theories of the Policy Process (eds Weible, C. M. & Sabatier, P.) 103–134 (Routledge, 2018).

  82. Seto, K. C. et al. Carbon lock-in: types, causes, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 41, 425–452 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

K.S.N. was supported by the Carlsberg Foundation, grant number CF20-0285. T.D. was supported by Michigan AgBio Research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Kristian S. Nielsen

  2. Centre for Sustainability Studies, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

    Kimberly A. Nicholas

  3. Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change, Berlin, Germany

    Felix Creutzig

  4. Sustainability Economics of Human Settlements, Technical University Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Felix Creutzig

  5. Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Thomas Dietz

  6. Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Thomas Dietz

  7. Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

    Thomas Dietz

  8. Social and Environmental Research Institute, Shelburne Falls, MA, USA

    Paul C. Stern

Authors
  1. Kristian S. Nielsen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kimberly A. Nicholas
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Felix Creutzig
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas Dietz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Paul C. Stern
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristian S. Nielsen.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Energy thanks Dario Kenner, Daniel Welch and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nielsen, K.S., Nicholas, K.A., Creutzig, F. et al. The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions. Nat Energy 6, 1011–1016 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00900-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-021-00900-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing