Green Against Greed? Why Pro-Environmental Views Flourish Among the Culturally Privileged

Climate change and environmental degradation affect us all. Yet concern about these issues is far from evenly distributed. People’s willingness to prioritize the environment, make sacrifices for sustainability, or even believe in climate change varies sharply by social class.

Why is this the case? My new study, published in The British Journal of Sociology, uses detailed survey data to map how environmental attitudes vary across the social landscape. It offers not only a clearer picture of who holds what views – but also a new explanation: that strong ecological commitments among those rich in cultural capital reflect a form of symbolic asceticism, a distancing from money and the «flashy» and «tacky» lifestyles they associate with it.

Photo: Pixabay

The article challenges three leading explanations:

• The prosperity thesis says green concerns emerge once material needs are met. But the affluent aren’t the greenest.
• The ecological distinction thesis argues green lifestyles are a form of social snobbery. But this doesn’t explain the biggest differences between those rich in economic or cultural capital.
• The eco-habitus thesis claims a new deeply rooted ecological disposition has taken hold. But the evidence shows inconsistency, especially in political behaviour.

Instead, I propose that green attitudes among the culturally privileged reflect a sort of symbolic asceticism – a rejection of materialism, money, and the values associated with economic capital. This is an orientation found in their cultural tastes, where the emphasis is on refinement, culture in the narrow sense and the cosmopolitan – but not expensive equipment, cars or just plain excitement-seeking. In politics, the now well-established leftism of these groups has the same logic of attacking economic capital by endorsing parties and policies that would rein the power of money. 

When these groups take up strong pro-environmental views, it’s arguably not just to distinguish themselves from those “below” them, and possibly not even primarily that. Crucially, I argue, this environmentalism mark distance from those “beside” them – those whose privilege is built on wealth rather than culture.

Mapping environmental attitudes in social space

The study draws on data from Norwegian Monitor (2023/2024), a national survey with over 3400 respondents and 26 separate questions on environmental views. I use Multiple Correspondence Analysis to construct a “social space” defined by economic and cultural capital, and map how green attitudes are distributed within it.

The patterns are clear. People rich in cultural capital – those with higher education and a cultured background – are consistently more likely to:

• View environmental problems as serious and requiring drastic action
• Support preserving nature, even if it means limiting industrial development
• Back environmental organisations and let green concerns influence their voting
• Make lifestyle choices – like using public transport, eating less meat, or cutting back on flying – for environmental reasons

This holds even more so when environmental action comes at a material cost – whether personal or societal. It is those rich in cultural capital who are most willing to preserve nature at the expense of industrial development, support higher taxes on polluting goods, promote increased energy prices, or even give up certain goods themselves for the sake of environmental protection. While one might assume that such willingness to sacrifice stems from material security, the findings suggest otherwise: those with high economic capital are are not particularly supportive of such measures-

But there are limits

Some influential scholars have interpreted findings like these as signs of a fundamentally new way of being among the culturally privileged. Proponents of the theory of “eco-habitus” has argued that cultural capital groups have risen to the task of living sustainably. But if that were the case, we would expect their green proclivities to manifest far more consistently. Even among these groups, few say that climate change strongly influences how they vote – and even fewer say the same about environmental issues more broadly. Rather than reflecting a comprehensive ecological worldview or deep-seated “conversion,” pro-environmental attitudes appear selective, fragmented, and shaped by broader class-based dispositions.

Taking their admittedly many pro-green stances as signs of a fundamental ecological orientation not only overlooks the many gaps, but also risks casting cultural elites in an unduly flattering light. Their inclination toward environmentalism follows the same underlying logic that shapes many of their other choices: a symbolic distancing from material wealth and its various symbolic manifestations. This is evident in the tight link between pro-environmental attitudes and cultural tastes that, in themselves, have little to do with ecological concern – but share the same anti-hedonistic, ascetic orientation.

Taste, culture and climate

To further probe this connection, I constructed a scale of high-status cultural tastes – from liking classical music, modern jazz, or world music, to reading the culture section of newspapers or being interested in interrailing or Moroccan food. These tastes – markers of what might be called contemporary high-status culture – are tightly linked to the most pro-environmental views.

Statistical models show that these cultural preferences account for much of the observed link between class and ecological attitudes, particularly among those rich in cultural capital. That pro-green stances are so closely aligned with tastes that have no obvious connection to environmentalism suggests that something more than prosperity is at play – but also something less than a fully formed ecological habitus.

Why this matters

As societies confront the climate crisis, we often assume that everyone will – or should – care equally. But concern about the environment is patterned by class, culture, and symbolic boundaries.

Understanding this helps explain why environmental politics is often divisive. If green views are entangled with cultural capital and symbolic opposition to wealth, then policies that ask people to sacrifice – whether through taxes, consumption limits, or lifestyle change – will resonate unevenly across the social spectrum.

This study suggests that environmental concern is not simply a function of material comfort or moral virtue. It reflects a deeper logic of class distinction: one in which ecological concern becomes a way of opposing not only inequality, but the very values and symbols of economic power.

Magne Paalgard Flemmen

Professor of Sociology, University of Oslo

m.p.flemmen@sosgeo.uio.no