The environmental damage bill racked up by the highest-consuming 10% of the world’s population has reached up to $5.7tn a year – larger than the economy of every country except the US and China, a study has found.

Mega-consumers in this group are concentrated in the global north, accounting for more than half the population of the US and 40-45% of people in the EU.

The damage tally, which one researcher described as “bonkers”, also exceeds global funding gaps for tackling the climate and biodiversity crises, highlighting how economic priorities remain skewed towards running down the Earth’s life-support systems.

The most destructive forms of consumption were linked to two main areas: food – particularly red meat, a primary driver of deforestation – and energy, including flights and heating and cooling homes, which typically rely on burning of fossil fuels, such as gas, oil and coal.

The $5.7tn figure, published in a paper by researchers at University of Oxford and University of Leiden, was calculated by using estimates of the monetary impacts of climate disruption, biodiversity loss, nutrient pollution and freshwater use.

The study found that the average annual environmental damage bill for someone in the global top 10% ranged from $2,300 to $7,500. This figure rose to $19,000-$63,000 for those in the US.

High-consuming households in emerging economies are catching up. The average environmental damage bill for the top 10% in China has overtaken that of the top 10% in Germany, the report says.

Biodiversity loss accounted for the largest share of the global damage bill, making up 47-56% of the total. The climate emergency was responsible for a further 36-45%.

The authors said the findings strengthened the case for addressing the biodiversity and climate crises together, rather than treating them as separate policy challenges.

The paper, published on Thursday in Communications Sustainability, cautions that the true environmental cost by this group is likely to be even higher. The calculations cover only four of nine planetary boundaries and reflect direct consumption alone, excluding the likely greater impacts of investments.

“If anything, these numbers are conservative. The bill leaves out the emissions tied to wealthy people’s investments,” said Paul Behrens, a British Academy global professor at the Oxford Martin school and a co-author of the study.

“Research has shown that a large proportion of a rich person’s carbon footprint comes from what they own, not how they live; meaning their stocks, bonds and other assets.”

A Greenpeace study last week estimated that the assets owned by the world’s richest 1% – often invested in greenhouse gas-intensive companies – were associated with a quarter of global emissions and caused nearly $1tn of climate damage each year.

The new report concludes that governments could target this high-consuming groups through taxes on luxury goods, wealth and carbon, reducing emissions and pollution while raising revenue to support sustainability transitions and reducing inequality.

“The scale of the damage bill illustrates the potential revenue if polluter-pays principles were applied to high-consuming groups,” the authors said.

Behrens said: “The top 10% are important not only because they cause the most damage but also because they hold the most leverage to reduce it.

“They often have outsized agency, not only individually as consumers but also as investors, employers, trend makers, and market shapers. Their power to cut emissions is even larger than their share of them.

“The people in the top 10% should be braver and more courageous in making sure we have a future we can … thrive in.”