At least it’s not Friday the 13^th—but on March 13, the U.S. will reach its Overshoot Day for the year 2025.

What is this Overshoot Day?

If everyone in the world lived like U.S. residents, humanity would have exhausted its annual ecological budget by March 13. For the remainder of the year, we would be depleting the planet’s resources faster than they can regenerate. March 13 is one of the earliest dates on the Overshoot Calendar, highlighting the disproportionate ecological footprint of the United States.

The U.S. is fortunate to be endowed with abundant regenerative resources—what we call biocapacity. Per person, it has more than twice the global average of these resources. Yet, despite this wealth, U.S. demand still surpasses what its ecosystems can sustainably provide. At its current rate of consumption, the country would deplete its entire annual regenerative resource budget by the end of June—within just six months. This is its Deficit Day. It’s important to note that some of this biocapacity is also essential for sustaining wildlife.

Both Country Overshoot Day and Deficit Day are critical because they reveal different facets of the same story: our relationship with the regenerative resources that underpin all economic activity. The planet’s regenerative capacity defines the limits of sustainable consumption—whether it’s food, fiber, timber, or even fossil fuels. Fossil fuel use, for instance, is constrained not by the amount of oil or coal remaining underground, but by the biosphere’s ability to absorb carbon emissions. Similarly, mining is limited not by the availability of minerals, but by how much of the biosphere we are willing to sacrifice for extraction and processing.

Why does it matter?

Ignoring resource security and pretending ecological overshoot doesn’t exist leads to self-defeating decisions. It channels investments into assets that will have little utility—and therefore little value—in the future we can already foresee.

This makes this year’s U.S. Overshoot Day particularly significant. Like most nations, the U.S. lacks robust resource accounting systems. Compounding this issue, the current administration is actively dismantling the scientific capacity of government agencies tasked with tracking climate and resource trends. At the same time, it is discouraging a transition away from fossil fuel dependence, further undermining the country’s long-term resilience. Clinging to resources with a shrinking future means investing in infrastructure that will become increasingly obsolete in a world shaped by climate change and resource constraints.

Ironically, the administration claims to prioritize environmental quality. In his March 4 speech to Congress, the president emphasized his commitment to improving air and water quality. Yet, simultaneously, his administration has proposed a 65% budget cut to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the very body responsible for safeguarding air and water. Additionally, there is a strong push to roll back environmental regulations, many of which are designed to protect public health and ecosystems. The administration has also been vocal about its support for fossil fuels and its resistance to renewable energy development.

What can you do?

Ultimately, the winners in a future shaped by climate change and resource constraints will be those who recognize the reality of these challenges and strategically direct their investments toward opportunities that will retain long-term value. This approach not only provides a roadmap for sustained prosperity but favors those who proactively prepare for the predictable shifts ahead.

Recognizing the realities of climate change and resource constraints is therefore not pessimistic—it’s empowering. With the right tools and mindset, we can build a robust and thriving future. As we’ve outlined through our “Power of Possibility” platform, the greatest economic opportunities lie with those ventures that create value while reducing global overshoot.

Here’s what you can do: Whenever you get caught in a conversation about climate change or the futility of environmental action, try this. Turn it into an inquiry. Ask your counterparts what kind of assets they believe are more likely to gain in value, and examine with them how that outcome will that be shaped by the trends of more climate change and increasing resource constraints. In other words, as cities, companies and countries invest in their development, which bets are more likely to be successful?

The good news is that we do not need to wait for others. Each household, city, company, or country can choose their own bets.

What’s not to like? Let’s build a thriving future.

The post March 13th: A Big Day for the U.S. appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

Humanity’s escalating ecological overshoot—demanding over 70% more from nature than ecosystems can regenerate—has led to climate disruption, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion, undermining global stability.

While climate change understandably dominates the environmental discourse, it is often framed as a “free-rider problem.” In this framing, individuals, businesses, and nations perceive that they are being asked to make sacrifices for the global good, leading to resistance rather than enthusiasm. For instance, the Californians who gives up their car to reduce CO2 emissions will not significantly lower the chance of their own house burning down in a wildfire.

Because free-rider problems suffer from misaligned incentives, they are notoriously difficult to address.

Global Footprint Network takes a different approach. Rather than focusing solely on carbon emissions, we address the broader challenge of ecological overshoot. Therefore, we use biocapacity as our lens.

This shift in perspective reframes the crisis as a resource security challenge—one that directly impacts the stability and resilience of cities, companies, and countries. Resource insecurity is a major consequence of climate change. A shifting climate will put increasing stress on agricultural systems, while the transition away from fossil fuels will disrupt the resource inputs that economies have long depended on. However, failing to transition away from fossil fuels will only accelerate climate change, ultimately forcing an even more abrupt and costly shift in the future.

Resource security is therefore deeply intertwined with climate change. Yet paradoxically, framing the issue around resource security makes solutions more actionable. While reducing carbon emissions is often perceived as an abstract, collective responsibility, ensuring reliable access to resources is an immediate and tangible concern for decision-makers.

By emphasizing resource security, we align environmental necessities with economic and strategic self-interest. People feel their “skin in the game.” This approach makes it clear that preparing for an overshoot-constrained future is not just an moral obligation but a pragmatic necessity—one that brings economic advantages, enhances resilience, and ensures long-term prosperity.

Moreover, we believe in the power of early wins. Demonstrating that enhancing resource security efforts yield clear, measurable benefits gets attention and encourages uptake. It signals opportunity to key stakeholders,  fosters momentum, and accelerates further engagement. This is why we prioritize practical examples that showcase immediate advantages, rather than starting with commons-based challenges like atmospheric pollution or deep-sea fishing, which often require broad international cooperation and long-term commitments. By focusing first on areas where individual actors can see direct gains, we create a positive feedback loop that builds enthusiasm and emphasizes one’s benefits rather than one’s sacrifice of taking action.

More resources:

• Global Footprint Network history
• Global Footprint Network offering
• Global Footprint Network communications approach

The post The Global Footprint Network approach appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

The administration has also made its disdain for ESG (environmental, social, and governance) assessments in the corporate world abundantly clear. It has shown contempt for corporate commitments to reduce dependence on fossil fuels and is even exploring ways to label ESG initiatives or corporate decarbonization strategies as “anti-competitive collusion.” This includes threats to subpoena managers and board members of companies pursuing such strategies.

One might question how a government with libertarian leanings justifies interfering with corporate intentions—unless, of course, those intentions are criminal. But the larger issue is whether such efforts benefit companies or society at large. We believe that ignoring the realities of ecological overshoot is not only counterproductive but also economically damaging. Companies that fail to prepare—particularly in terms of their product offerings—for the inevitable challenges of climate change and resource constraints are undermining their own futures.

In essence, the U.S. is spending public resources to blind itself to an unavoidable reality, recklessly undermining its ability to respond and prepare effectively for a trend inaction makes even more likely, if not certain.

The post 🎵 I love Paris… 🎵 appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

He was recognized for his leadership in implementing sustainability measures. As co-originator of the Ecological Footprint concept, and co-founder of Global Footprint Network with its widely known annual Earth Overshoot Day campaign, this award honors his contribution to measuring and responding to global ecological overshoot. The Nobel Sustainability Trust has entrusted the selection process to the . Prof. Volker Sieber of the Technical University of Munich (TUM) selection committee provided the laudatio, summarizing the reason for selecting Mathis.

Prof. Volker Sieber said:

Dear members of the Nobel family, distinguished guests,

​It is a tremendous privilege to stand before you today to celebrate the extraordinary achievements of Dr. Mathis Wackernagel, a visionary scholar, and dedicated advocate for our planet. Today, we recognize a man whose contributions to sustainability and resource management have changed the way we understand and handle our relationship with Earth. His life’s work, much like his character, is marked by an unwavering commitment to truth, understanding, and not less than humanity’s common future.

Born and raised in Switzerland, Mathis had early initiation and inspirations on and for his path to take. He was made aware of the limits of space to feed the people within the confined space of a country, Switzerland. While experiencing the first oil crisis in his childhood he realized the need and potential of renewable fuel, in him the hope for the fast implementation of these was raised and finally, he grew up surrounded by nature’s beauty, instilling in him a profound respect for our environment.

His academic journey began with obtaining a solid foundation in mechanical engineering at the ETH Zurich, where he learned the precision of engineering, the power of systems and the mathematical tools to work with them. These foundational studies set the stage for his pioneering insights and for the creation of a model that would ultimately reshape global discussions about sustainability.

But Mathis’s journey to global impact began in earnest during his doctoral studies at the University of British Columbia. It was here, under the mentorship of Professor William Rees, that Mathis would co-develop a concept that transformed a theoretical discourse into a tangible framework: the Ecological Footprint.

This concept, translates complex environmental impacts into a straightforward measure that anyone can understand: the amount of biologically productive land and sea area required to sustain the consumption habits and waste absorption needs of a person, a community, a country’s population or beyond. The Ecological Footprint is clear and relatable, simple yet profound—it illuminates our planet’s limits and shows how badly we’re pushing past them.

When Mathis and William Rees published their groundbreaking work, they did more than just add a new tool to the academic toolkit; they provided a way for all of us to see the world differently. For the first time, we had a measurement of humanity’s demand on nature, set against Earth’s capacity to regenerate. The numbers, stark as they were, spoke volumes: our planet’s resources were finite, and we were consuming them at an alarming rate. Through the concept of overshoot, Mathis demonstrated that humanity was already exceeding Earth’s sustainable boundaries—running, in essence, an ecological deficit. And in a world that constantly talks about climate change, we quickly lose the insight of the real problem. Mathis’ insight that overshoot is the overarching dynamic, and climate change just one of its symptoms points us to the right direction to go to the roots of today’s challenges and not just tamper with the symptoms.

The concept of the Ecological Footprint resonated across disciplines and boundaries. Today, it is one of the most widely used sustainability metrics in the world. Governments, businesses, NGOs, and individuals have embraced it as a fundamental tool for understanding and managing our environmental impact. The Ecological Footprint has become a lens through which policymakers and citizens can assess sustainability, guiding policies and fostering accountability.

In 2003, Mathis took his commitment further by founding, together with Susan Burns, Global Footprint Network, a research organization dedicated to advancing sustainability metrics worldwide. Under his leadership, this organization has become a trusted authority, partnering with countries, cities, and institutions worldwide, helping them to evaluate and monitor their ecological footprints and providing the basis for policy-making. Through this work, he has given leaders the tools they need to create smarter, more sustainable strategies for economic growth. And that is implementation at its best.

But what makes Mathis truly remarkable is not just his intellectual brilliance but his deep empathy for humanity and his strong believe that humanity can achieve the turning of the tide, in spite of political backlashes as we currently see not far from here. He recognizes that sustainability is not a goal we can achieve in isolation; it requires collaboration, humility, and a commitment to justice and fairness. In his work, Mathis emphasizes that sustainability is not simply about reducing consumption; it’s about creating a world where resources are used equitably, so future generations can enjoy a thriving planet.

When he is comparing our overutilization of the planet’s resources to a Pyramid, a Ponzi scheme he points right at the heart that it is our responsibility to end it, to be at the bottom layer, and not the one of any coming generation, of whose resources we live …

So, Mathis’ mission is not merely academic or professional; it’s deeply ethical. He challenges us all to ask ourselves difficult questions about our impact on the world and to take responsibility for our collective future to achieve impact in this world.

And here Mathis continues to inspire us. He reminds us that our actions matter, that every choice we make has a ripple effect on our planet. His life’s work calls us to examine our behaviors, our policies, and our values. He has shown us that sustainability is not a burden but a path to a more equitable and resilient world.

In a time when the environmental challenges we face can feel overwhelming, Mathis offers us hope and gives us motivation. His strong optimism and belief in our collective ability to effect positive change should be motivating us and help so it will become like a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Today, we honor Mathis Wackernagel—not only for his groundbreaking ideas and tireless advocacy but also for his spirit, which has inspired countless others to join the journey toward sustainability. He is a true pioneer, a guardian of our fragile planet, and a beacon of hope for all of us.

So, Mathis, on behalf of everyone here today I would like to thank you. Thank you for your vision, for your courage, and for your tireless dedication. You remind us that our choices matter, that each decision we make leaves a footprint, and that together, we have the power to chart a sustainable path forward. That is true leadership.

Congratulation on the award for leadership and implementation of the Nobel Sustainability Trust.

The other two awards this year go to Prof. Klaus Butterbach-Bahl and Prof. Jiuhui Qu for their outstanding contributions in the fields of agriculture and water, respectively. The picture shows from left to right: Prof. Akissa Bahari, former Minister of Agriculture of Tunesia (giving a Laudatio); Prof. Klaus Butterbach-Bahl, Awardee; Prof. Jiuhui Qu, Awardee; Peter Nobel, Chair of the Nobel Sustainability Trust; Dr. Mathis Wackernagel, Awardee; Prof. Michael Molls, chair of the selection committee; Prof. Volker Sieber, member of selection committee.

Prof. Klaus Butterbach-Bahl is a German biogeochemist and head of the Danish Pioneer Center for Landscape Research in Sustainable Agricultural Future Trends at Aarhus University. He also conducts research at the Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-IFU) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. His research focuses on quantifying the environmental impacts of agriculture, particularly in relation to greenhouse gases.

Prof. Jiuhui Qu is the former Director of the Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a Distinguished Professor at Tsinghua University, China’s leading university. He has developed a comprehensive technical system “from source to tap,” ensuring safe drinking water in both urban and rural areas while addressing water risks. This initiative has positively impacted more than 200 million people in China and around the world.

Dr. Mathis Wackernagel concluded: “It is an incredible honor to be recognized by the Nobel family. It is inspiring to see their new emphasis on the importance of sustainability, a dimension that, in 1885, had not yet been acknowledged as essential to humanity’s well-being. I am deeply moved by their decision to highlight overshoot—humanity’s overuse of our planet’s resources—as the core driver undermining both ecological and economic stability.” He added: “I am deeply touched by the Nobel family and the selection committee’s choice: to identify overshoot as the core driver undermining the biosphere’s ecological stability.

Apart from the three Awards, the Nobel Sustainability Trust bestowed two Sustainability Medals, one to the Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum for her previous work on sustainable cities, particularly when being mayor of Mexico City. The other medal was awarded to former UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon for his commitment to sustainable development, including chaperoning the Sustainable Development Goals, the UN’s agenda to 2030, into existence.

About the Awards

The Sustainability Awards recognizes distinguished individuals, organizations, or companies in different fields for their contribution to fostering, innovating, and implementing sustainable solutions for the well-being of our society, economy, and planet at present and in the future.

The TUM Institute for Advanced Study (TUM-IAS) oversees the two-stage competitive selection process. The selection committee consists of internationally renowned experts from academia and industry. The final award committee is composed of professors from TUM.

Here are further links:

• • Nobel Sustainability Trust
  • Award Ceremony
  • TUM Institute for Advanced Study
  • The Awards Committee
  • More on the Awardees (Nobel Trust)
  • More on the Awardees (TUM IAS)

(photo credit of event: Yiming Si; of Mathis Wackernagel’s picture: Nicholas Albrecht; of Klaus Butterbach-Bahl: Klaus Butterbach-Bahl; of Jiuhui Qu: CMG – China Media Group)

The post Nobel Sustainability Award Ceremony appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

On the tail of the recent biodiversity conference, COP16 in Calí, Colombia, Global Footprint Network and European Topic Center on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (ETC BE) are excited to announce their new publication “Exploring the societal factors enabling to halt and reverse the loss and change of biodiversity”, downloadable directly from here. Other ETC reports can be accessed here.

Starting from the premises that– despite international agreements – progress in halting and reversing biodiversity loss remains limited, the report emphasizes the need to address deeper societal drivers to achieve the EU’s 2030 biodiversity goals and ensure Europe’s ecosystems are on the path to recovery and sustainability.

Here is the report’s summary:

Since the latter half of the 20^th century, steady growth in human activities has increasingly impacted Earth’s biophysical systems, contributing to severe biodiversity loss in Europe and the 6^th mass extinction globally. This crisis, primarily driven by unsustainable production and consumption and consequent persistent overshoot, is both perpetuated by entrenched political and economic structures and deeply rooted societal behavior.

Despite international agreements like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (BDS 2030), progress remains limited, revealing a need for addressing primary anthropogenic drivers rather than mere symptoms.

This report aims to analyze societal factors that hinder progress in halting biodiversity loss, beyond reviewing the BDS 2030 and its targets. It explores human behavior, psychology, cultural aspects, and governance structures to outline needed collective action for biodiversity conservation. This is needed as this topic remains underexplored in contrast to climate actions. The report addresses guiding questions, such as what motivates collective action, how structural interventions can facilitate change, and maintaining long-term momentum.

Consultations with the European Environment Agency (EEA) and the European Topic Centre (ETC) experts, alongside literature reviews, identified eight societal barriers:

• knowledge gaps,
• a utilitarian mindset focused on economic growth,
• short-termism,
• governance challenges,
• social norms,
• perception of others, and
• selective information processing.

Five overarching levers for transformative change were highlighted:

• presenting alternative narratives,
• addressing power imbalances,
• enhancing knowledge,
• understanding societal acceptance, and
• equipping governance to handle complexity.

Three case studies further examined how barriers are managed, identifying key success factors for effective action: a shared vision-driven approach, an informed citizenry, sustained momentum, clear collaboration frameworks, broad alliances, evidence-based decision-making, and adequate biodiversity funding.

The report underscores structural interventions at policy and economic levels that can support all levers and success factors, thereby bolstering transformative change. Though exploratory, the findings offer preliminary insights into effective biodiversity strategies, emphasizing the necessity of addressing deeper societal drivers to achieve substantial progress. These insights are intended to aid researchers, policymakers, NGOs, and educators in fostering societal transformation and supporting biodiversity conservation in European and globally.

The authors

This report emerged through work with the European Environmental Agency (EEA) and its 2023-2026 Framework Partnership Agreement between European Topic Center on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (ETC BE) and the European Environmental Agency (EEA). Alessandro Galli and Serena Mancini as Global Footprint Network staff lead the task and the writing of the report, in collaboration with Nike Sommerwerk from Fresh Thought Consulting, and Sampo Pihlainen from SYKE.

Author and Global Footprint Network scientist Serena Mancini comments: “this report highlights that a bottom-up behavioral change, starting from individuals and groups, focused on reversing and restoring the nature crisis is possible and achievable. But to be effective, we need to first understand the societal barriers that hinder such process, and then identify and put in motion the factors that allow us to overcome those barriers. Clearly, top down policies from institutions addressing overshoot are also necessary. If they take into consideration the enabling factors and conditions for success, they will have a much higher chance to help shape systemic behavioral change.”

The bottom line is: We all can make the change and contribute to shift the societal perceptions from viewing humans as separate from nature to humans as part of nature, and thus continuing live and thrive on our planet.

The post What would it take to halt biodiversity loss? appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

On October 23, 2024, in the context of COP16, the UN biodiversity conference held in Calí, Colombia, Mathis Wackernagel was honored by the Colombian Congress with the “Gran Cruz con Placa de Oro” on recommendation of the honorable representative Julia Miranda.

​According to Colombian law, “La Gran Cruz con Placa de Oro”, may be granted to Parliamentarians, former Parliamentarians, Ambassadors, Ministers of State, Generals of the Armed Forces, Admirals, Marshals, Foreign Cardinals, Princes of Reigning Houses, and to national or foreign personalities whose categories are equivalent to those already mentioned. (Article 9: “La Gran Cruz con Placa de Oro, podrá concederse a Parlamentarios, ex Parlamentarios, Embajadores, Ministros de Estado, Generales de las Fuerzas Armadas, Almirantes, Mariscales, Cardenales extranjeros, Príncipes de Casas reinantes, y a personalidades nacionales o extranjeras cuyas categorías equivalgan a las ya mencionadas.”)

This event was led by the presidents of both chambers, Jaime Raúl Salamanca, Presidente de la Cámara de Representantes, and Efraín Cepeda, Presidente del Senado de la República de Colombia. It was also supported by Representante Julia Miranda Loroño, the governor of the Valle del Cauca, Dilian Francisca Toro as well as Senadora Aída Yolanda Avella. You can learn more about the ceremony and the rationale here.

In addition, one day later, on October 24, 2024, the Colombian House of Representatives decorated Mathis also with the “Orden de la Democracia Simón Bolívar“. He received the medal simultaneously with Margarita Marino de Botero, a giant of the environmental movement of both Colombia and the world. She was also one of the 18 members of the Brundtland Commission. More about the ceremony is presented here.

The post Colombian Parliament Honors Mathis Wackernagel appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

The awards will be bestowed upon these three winners on the first day of the Sustainability Summit: on November 20, 2024. It is the second year that the Nobel Sustainability Trust is handing out these awards. The other two awards this year go to Prof. Klaus Butterbach-Bahl and Prof. Jiuhui Qu for their outstanding contributions in the fields of agriculture and water, respectively.

Prof. Klaus Butterbach-Bahl is a German biogeochemist and head of the Danish Pioneer Center for Landscape Research in Sustainable Agricultural Future Trends at Aarhus University. He also conducts research at the Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-IFU) at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology. His research focuses on quantifying the environmental impacts of agriculture, particularly in relation to greenhouse gases.

Prof. Jiuhui Qu is the former Director of the Research Center for Eco-Environmental Sciences at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a Distinguished Professor at Tsinghua University, China’s leading university. He has developed a comprehensive technical system “from source to tap,” ensuring safe drinking water in both urban and rural areas while addressing water risks. This initiative has positively impacted more than 200 million people in China and around the world.

This is the second year that the Nobel Sustainability Trust is bestowing Sustainability Awards. Last year’s Awards went to Prof. Elena Bou (category: outstanding R&D in the field of Energy) and Lord Nicholas Stern (category: Leadership in Implementation).

The founders of the Nobel Sustainability Trust, established by members of the Nobel family, having observed the devastation of the world’s vital, natural and non-renewable resources with great concern, created this award to encourage people to take a stand for our future as a species on a life-sustaining planet. They then asked the Technical University of Munich (TUM) to run the selection process.

The awardees will be presented at the 4th Summit of the Nobel Sustainability Trust from November 20 to 21, 2024, held at the University of California in Berkeley, close to San Francisco, CA. Eligible for the award are individuals from science and industry, as well as organizations and companies that promote the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

The Sustainability Summit is open to the public. They only need to register here.

Peter Nobel, Chairman of the Nobel Sustainability Trust, said: “Solving natural resource scarcity, such as water, or adopting sustainable agricultural practices, involve not only scientific breakthroughs but also requires technological innovation, political efforts, and incentives from non-profit organizations. This is what we want to push forward through the Sustainability Awards. The NST is therefore proud of this year’s selection of the three distinguished researchers who all – on an international scale – have addressed the current and future environmental challenges linked to the climate crisis.”

Prof. Michael Molls, Director of the TUM Institute for Advanced Study (TUM-IAS), emphasized: “It takes interdisciplinary research and staying power to achieve sustainability. TUM focuses on interdisciplinary research and sustainability. Together with the NST, we can recognize outstanding results and implementations in science-led sustainability. The outstanding contributions of our three awardees in deepening research and development on sustainability topics and in sharing knowledge beyond their community reflect our mission.”

Dr. Mathis Wackernagel concluded: “It is an amazing honor being recognized by the Nobel family. I am deeply touched by their choice: to identify overshoot as the core driver undermining the biosphere’s ecological stability. I am deeply indebted to the Nobel family and their Sustainability Trust, to the TUM academic selection committee for their hard work, and to Prof. Ernst von Weizsäcker for generously nominating me for this prestigious award.”

About the Awards

The Sustainability Awards recognizes distinguished individuals, organizations, or companies in different fields for their contribution to fostering, innovating, and implementing sustainable solutions for the well-being of our society, economy, and planet at present and in the future.

The TUM Institute for Advanced Study (TUM-IAS) oversees the two-stage competitive selection process. The selection committee consists of internationally renowned experts from academia and industry. The final award committee is composed of professors from TUM.

Further information and links

• • Nobel Sustainability Trust
  • TUM Institute for Advanced Study
  • The Awards Committee
  • More on the Awardees (Nobel Trust)
  • More on the Awardees (TUM IAS)

(photo credit of Mathis Wackernagel’s picture: Nicholas Albrecht; of Klaus Butterbach-Bahl: Klaus Butterbach-Bahl; of Jiuhui Qu: CMG – China Media Group)

The post Nobel Sustainability Trust Bestows Sustainability Awards upon our Co-Founder Mathis Wackernagel appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

First published on Medium

Climate change is not the problem.

The future has never been more predictable. This is not a statement that national security experts often make, but in this case it’s warranted. No matter what Russia and China do, and regardless of how the crisis in the Middle East evolves, we know that in any imaginable scenario there will be more climate disruption and less resources available. With more conflict and therefore a possible de-prioritization of climate countermeasures, this future comes even faster.

The option of lower climate disruption will come at the cost of more rapidly phasing out fossil fuel; slower decarbonization will lead to more accelerated climate change. Climate disruption and less fossil fuel input will both reduce reliable agricultural and forestry outputs and burden economies, particularly the ones with a high demand for resources.

Climate change is only a symptom of the underlying problem of overuse of the planet’s biological resources (cropland, pastures, fishing grounds, forests, and similar resources which underpin everything from food systems to industry to sequestration of excess greenhouse gases). Other symptoms of overuse include groundwater depletion, soil erosion, fisheries collapse and deforestation. Global biocapacity is largely finite and we are placing competing and increasing demands on biological resources — from producing food, fiber, and timber to accommodating houses and roads to absorbing excess CO2 from burning fossil fuels. These resources can be regenerated, but not as quickly as we are using them.

Today, humans are putting a demand on nature that exceeds by more than 75% what ecosystems can regenerate. How do we know? Because each person, company, city, and country has a demand on nature that can be measured, for instance in biologically productive surfaces of the Earth required to provide for those demands. This resource supply versus demand balance can be performed with ecological footprint accounts which track both the demand on and availability of such surfaces. Essentially, they tell us how much nature we have and how much we use.

Regeneration is the new currency.

The regenerative capacity of the planet, i.e., the living resources including the biomass, can be overused for some time. This overuse is called “ecological overshoot”. Such overshoot will end, like a water reservoir that cannot be emptied forever. The only question is how. It can end by proactive design, or by disaster, imposed by nature’s limitations. Regeneration of ecosystems is ultimately the overarching material factor that limits everything from resource inputs to waste emissions.

Regeneration simultaneously limits:

• fossil fuel use (since the capacity of the biosphereto absorb excess CO2 emissions is more limiting than the remaining stocks underground);
• mineral and ores exploitation (as they are plentiful underground, but bringing the ores and minerals out of the ground damages the biosphere and requires regeneration to compensate for the resources and energy to process and concentrate them); and
• the production of food, fiber, and timber.

Concepts like “ecological overshoot” or “ecological footprint” may not sound like they have much to do with traditional security concerns. But these metrics make visible the physical dependency of economies, highlight countries’ resource insecurities and conflict potential, and make clear that we are entering a world with not only unevenly distributed resources, but where the totality of demand no longer fits within the constraints of the biosphere. Therefore, insights that such resource accounting can provide are relevant for evaluating not only traditional security risks, like the increased likelihood of resource-focused conflicts at the center of much current climate security thinking, but also major economic risks, which are influential in determining security outcomes.

These risks are latent. Consider this: 72% of the world’s population live in countries faced with a precarious situation. These countries both (1) run a biological resource deficit (where demand for biological resources exceeds regeneration) and (2) generate less than world-average income, limiting their ability to purchase resources from elsewhere.

No one would bring their money to a bank that does no bookkeeping or fly in a plane that has no fuel gauge. Yet despite the unavoidable dependence of our economies on the physical material ecosystems produce, most countries do not consistently track how much nature they have and how much they are using. No country yet carefully manages its biocapacity budget. The good news for planners is that it is quite straightforward to identify the main factors that drive overuse of biological resources and deepening ecological debt. These include:

• how we manage our lives in our habitats (for example, through their design cities shape energy, material, and transport demands);
• how we produce, process, and distribute food;
• how we produce energy; and
• how many we are (population size, multiplied by per person consumption, shapes overall demand for biocapacity).

What current approaches to (climate) security are missing

While climate security is broader than national defense or military security, many militaries and governments have now signed up to the idea that climate change is a “threat multiplier” — an accurate characterization, but one that is often accompanied by a mainly reactive stance. Being better prepared to protect infrastructure or respond to future disasters and climate-induced conflicts is necessary and important, but not a game changer.

From a strategic perspective, we’re in an interesting place right now. What some have described as the greatest threat to security of our time is well beyond the capacity of national security establishments to address. An increasing number of armed forces (including the U.S. military) are taking steps to build resilience to climate risks at home as well as abroad, through security cooperation partnerships. Concerns regarding the militarization of climate change notwithstanding, this preparation is constructive for all involved. Globally, we need large, well-resourced, influential organizations to mainstream climate risks and environmental protection in their planning and operations.

But there’s a key problem with where we are today. Many national security institutions, normally highly sophisticated in their approaches to planning, seem not to be taking into consideration some of the basic parameters which will increasingly influence the strategic security context in the years to come. Despite the threat posed by growing biological resource scarcity, we have yet to see a national security strategy that recognizes how these constraints are becoming driving factors for societies, let alone one that indicates a coherent plan for tackling the overuse of regenerative resources, i.e., the ones nature regularly replenishes like food, fiber, water, and timber. (Here we are using national security strategies as a proxy of sorts, as they are a commonly accepted way of identifying and suggesting ways to address critical security risks.)

At most there is an increasing focus on securing access to critical minerals to support the green energy transition, but a broader look at national, regional, and global ecological deficits is absent. In other words, there is a mismatch between the seemingly serious characterization of the threat of climate change and the “ways and means” (in security strategy parlance) envisioned to address the threat, especially its root causes. This is not a gap that would be tolerated when planning responses to more traditional threats.

Most planners agree that the best security strategies are resource informed. Planning for the capabilities required to respond to future threats without considering what the future budget will bear is an exercise likely to lead to poor decisions and, to put it mildly, disappointing results. But while biocapacity is now the most limiting factor for human enterprise, security strategies appear to be either (1) still built on the deeply ingrained assumption that biological resources are unlimited or (2) aware of constraints but choosing to ignore them in favor of addressing what seem to be more pressing threats.

Re-thinking security in an era of ecological deficits

The element of time is a challenge in this context, as it’s often difficult to do anything except prioritize the resources needed to address urgent, near-term traditional security threats — even if we know the more distant (although not all that distant) future is becoming ever more threatening precisely because of the resources we are using. However, national security establishments are paid to look out over the horizon and identify key trends that will shape the future environment. They will therefore appreciate more than most that, given the lag time between adapting physical infrastructure and experiencing any positive impact on climate change or other symptoms of growing resource constraints, we are already running behind.

The map below shows ecological deficits and vulnerabilities by country. While the pattern for many years has been for high-income nations to fill their resource gaps by purchasing from and producing in other countries, this approach is ultimately a “losing last” strategy that assumes that losing later buys sufficient time to win. Such an approach is akin to a global Ponzi scheme but in contrast to financial Ponzi schemes, this one is encouraged or at least tolerated.

Figure 1: Ecological footprint to biocapacity, by country, source: 2023 edition of the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts

There are many planners who justifiably question whether national security strategies and similar policy documents play a useful role in shaping government approaches and spending. The true value of such documents aside, effective strategy development processes force conversations about what matters and encourage the expression of policy priorities. Right now, these expressions fail to engage with a fundamental principle of life on Earth: everything comes from somewhere, and we are running out of the fuel which drives our economic engines and supports life itself.

This is not climate alarmism. It is an invitation to question what current approaches to strategic security planning are missing. In a world in which complexity sells, it can be easy to overlook the simple: governments which fail to address their own biological resource security are increasingly vulnerable to surprises. Conversely, understanding the need to reduce overuse and invest in regeneration is not only a valuable contribution to future resilience but also a means of gaining competitive advantage in a future that will be fundamentally shaped by biological resource constraints.

The Authors

Abigail Robinson is a former U.S. Defense Department official with extensive experience advising governments on planning and resource management. She is currently working as an independent expert in climate and environmental security and public sector reform. Most recently she worked with the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance, leading research on security sector responses to climate change.

Dr. Mathis Wackernagel co-developed the original footprint concept to track human impact on the planet. The carbon portion is now the most popular one (“carbon footprints”). He co-founded the Global Footprint Network, a sustainability think-tank, known for its annual Earth Overshoot Day. His honors include the 2018 World Sustainability Award, the 2015 IAIA Global Environment Award, and the 2012 Blue Planet Prize.

The post The Biocapacity Blind Spot in National Security Strategies appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

In reality, these companies present a strong value proposition, as failing to prepare for a predictable future of climate change and resource constraints is against their self-interest. Additionally, a company’s contribution to global overshoot is measurable. After three decades of providing robust country overshoot data, a similar approach is now needed for companies.

The key question is: How much does a company reduce global overshoot per million dollars market capitalization? In other words, if the company did not exist, where would global overshoot stand per million dollars market capitalization?

For most companies, due to their existence, global overshoot increases, and hence Earth Overshoot Day arrives sooner. But some companies—circular businesses—reduce global overshoot as they grow. Here is one example. If you want to get even more inspiration, check out the Power of Possibility with over 100 examples.

This is also relevant to investors. Because, once the question can be answered for companies, it becomes possible to measure as well for a portfolio how much it moves global overshoot per million dollars investment. We still have not seen an impact investment portfolio that has tracked its impact on global overshoot, let alone one that actually reduced global overshoot. Should they then even be called impact funds?

Even conventional portfolios: Would they not be better off having, at least as a hedge, companies in their mix that will maintain value in a future of climate change and resource constraints?

Additional Resources:

• Power of Possibility examples
• Overshoot impact of companies: How to assess
• Analytical insights such assessments enable
• Whitepaper on one planet prosperity
• Overshoot: is there good news?

The post Companies’ value creation in times of overshoot appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

To maintain progress and eradicate poverty, countries need either sufficient biological resources within their country to match their ecological footprint, or money to competitively buy what they need on markets abroad. When neither of these two conditions are met, countries may end up in an ecological poverty trap — a situation in which the country’s biological resources are insufficient to provide enough food, fibres, building materials and CO₂ sequestration, among other factors.

“What worries us even more is the fact that most development strategies across the world are not adequately addressing this vast resource insecurity, thereby becoming severely anti-poor,” said Mathis Wackernagel. “The tragedy is that many strategies exist to improve resource security, but they are not being employed at scale in any country—even though they are the only true value-generating opportunities, as all other resource-depleting activities are ultimately destroying wealth and opportunities,” he added.

Mathis Wackernagel and colleagues compared and classified countries based on their relative gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and ecological deficit (the amount of biological resources they consume in excess of what their own ecosystems can renew) between 1980 and 2017, to analyse the exposure of national economies to resource constraints. The authors found that the percentage of the world’s population living in a country with both a deficit in biological resources and below-world-average income went from 57% in 1980 to 72% in 2017. In addition, the worldwide ecological deficit went from 19% to 73% over the same period.

The authors emphasize strategies exist to enable lasting development, that both advances human development and resource security. They include: the way we build and manage our cities, how we power them, how we feed ourselves, and how many we are. Where financial budgets are scarce, the question is how existing budgets are used to favour solutions that avoid, rather than increase, the likelihood of sliding towards an ecological poverty trap. Once the threshold has been crossed, exiting the trap in the absence of biological and financial resources becomes close to impossible.

##########

Media Contact
media@footprintnetwork.org

Resources

The Importance of Resource Security for Poverty Eradication, Nature Sustainability

The post New study in Nature Sustainability shows 72% of the world’s population lacks resource security appeared first on Global Footprint Network.