A new global study has found that in wealthier countries, political conservatives are significantly less concerned about climate change — widening the climate divide between ideological groups.

Published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, the study analysed data from nearly 285,000 people across 54 countries over 30 years. Researchers observed a clear pattern: “The more respondents identified as politically conservative, the less they saw climate change as a serious problem and the less they perceived climate change as a threat to the environment and their country.”

While this link between conservatism and climate scepticism is not new, the researchers discovered that affluence deepens the divide. “It turned out that the degree of political polarisation was greater among wealthier nations,” the authors noted. In fact, there was “no example of conservative ideology being associated with more concern about climate change” across the data.

To explore the drivers behind this trend, the study examined three key national indicators: GDP per capita, average education levels, and per capita carbon emissions — with emissions calculated more on the basis of production than consumption. The latter was used to better reflect how tied a country’s economy is to fossil fuels.

Higher emissions, the study suggests, signal stronger vested interests in maintaining the status quo. These interests often fund misinformation efforts that “coach” conservatives to deny or downplay climate change. As a result, conservative politicians find greater political opportunities to resist climate policies and rally support around climate scepticism.

Education was another factor considered, based on the theory of “identity-protective cognition.” This idea suggests that people interpret information in ways that align with their political identities. Interestingly, higher education may strengthen this effect, giving people the skills to seek out information that fits their ideology while dismissing inconvenient facts.

“Another possibility is that educated people are simply more aware of the ideological position of their favoured political party, leading to greater political polarisation,” the researchers wrote.

The influence of wealth was also analysed through the lens of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs — the idea that people prioritise material stability before addressing broader, values-based concerns. Normally, increased wealth is associated with more progressive values, known as “post-materialism.” But the study suggests this doesn’t extend to climate change.

“In the climate change space, post-materialism implies a more problematic tendency to draw climate science into the suite of values-driven attitudes that describe and prescribe differences between the left and right side of politics,” the authors noted.

Rather than seeing climate change as a global crisis, affluent conservatives are more likely to view it through the lens of their political and personal values. This can lead to a stronger attachment to individual freedoms and scepticism toward government-led solutions.

The researchers warn that this deepening political divide has serious implications for climate policy and public discourse. Communication and policy efforts, they argue, must recognise that one side of the political spectrum is “less convinced of the urgency for action than the other.”

They suggest developing messages that use “conservative language and values,” as well as “political hacks that encourage conservatives to vote in pro-climate ways without violating their political loyalties.”