Dear Jane, thank you for your time, and for joining our effort. We are thrilled to having you. As you are entering this new role, we were curious to learn more about your ideas, and also how you would like to shape and contribute to our organization’s mission. To learn more about you, let’s start where it started: What first sparked your interest in environmental protection? Was there a moment when it clicked for you? Maybe even in your childhood?

My parents raised me to appreciate nature and how important it is to protect it. I was born in South Africa and learned from an early age to conserve water. And as a rower I have seen the increase in plastic pollution in rivers and lakes over the years. I feel privileged to have the knowledge that allows me to work on protecting the environment for the benefit of all.

That’s life-experience in action. So what’s a belief you hold that you think more people should consider when thinking about the future of the planet?

We humans are not separate from nature. We are nature! Nature is not a “nice to have” but it is essential for our health, wellbeing and for the future of humanity. And nature is beautiful and fascinating. There are so many miracles to discover in nature. I love planting seeds in spring and observing the life that emerges from them. What a wonder life is!

Indeed, so true. We take these miracles too often for granted. What’s something in your background, professional or personal, that people might be surprised to learn shaped your path here?

During my studies at ETH Zurich in Switzerland I started acting, and founded the first Swiss improvisational theatre group EIT with friends. For 15 years I was an active member of EIT, playing hundreds of shows in Switzerland and abroad. Improvisational theatre can be a lot of fun, but practicing it is mindfulness training because you need to be present in the here and now. These skills help me in my daily life, especially when giving talks or moderating panels and events, and even in meetings. Everyone needs to laugh occasionally, and I like cracking jokes, also if this can be a high-risk undertaking and sometimes gets me in trouble.

How cool is that! Life is constant improvisation. And your penchant for humor so refreshing, particularly for serious missions, like the one of your organization, The Food Packaging Forum, or that of Global Footprint Network. What attracts you to our organization? And how does it relate to your own work?

I’m inspired by Mathis Wackernagel, as a person, a storyteller and as a scientist. His work over several decades shows how powerful data can be. I look forward to working with the amazing Global Footprint Network team and hope to contribute to even more awareness for global overshoot, so that smart responses can be developed by harnessing the amazing human creativity and potential for solving problems. In my work I deal with a very similar challenge, namely the need for more awareness on chemicals in food packaging that harm health, because they transfer from packaging into food and from there into the human body. Many of these chemicals have never been tested for their safety, and there are several that are known to harm health, for example because they are breast carcinogens or impair fertility. Essentially, it’s a huge moral dilemma that needs to be addressed urgently and using science.

It’s quite shocking, isn’t it how society has tolerated the proliferation of such potentially hazardous materials. One would assume that protective self-interest would kick in more robustly. So it raises the question how we can engage with the various stakeholders more effectively. Given your experience, what options do you see to making the narrative around sustainability or overshoot more effective?

Today’s young generation is much more conscious of the human predicament and that we are sawing at the branch we are sitting on. That’s great! What I would like to see more of is critical thinking – people connecting the dots and asking questions, especially about commercial activities that promise sustainability but in truth are greenwashing. If something is too good to be true, it’s probably worth a second, closer look.

Luckily we can draw on so many amazing and inspiring people dedicating their lives to science, communication, and action, be it in policy or civil society, working tirelessly for a better world for all. One of my personal heroes is Mahatma Gandhi who, like me, lived in South Africa and was deeply shaped by that experience. His integrity and steadfast pursuit of his values are an endless inspiration to me. I am also inspired by people who create beauty in our world, such as in arts and music and good food. And, of course by nature! All these can help us find ways to connect with our audiences.

And then, to be honest, progress is tenaciously slow, in spite of all these inspirations. What keeps you intrigued and motivated to contribute to this space?

With the knowledge I have I feel a deep responsibility to help. It’s key that we, as humanity, start connecting the dots and understand the complexity of the challenge ahead. It will be important to harness our creativity and to work together, pro-socially, to deal with the implications of our living beyond our means. Our species may not be so good at precautionary action but when it comes to crises we get it done. Our role is to be ready with answers when the time comes.

Ok, then, if you could implement one sustainability policy overnight, what would it be, and why?

I would have much stricter rules for advertising, especially for green claims. Most consumers lack the knowledge to understand such claims, which more often than not fall short of being actually beneficial for planetary and human health.

What are you most excited to explore as part of your role at Global Footprint Network?

I look forward to working with those governments who are aware of their responsibility for future generations – the people who are not even born yet. A wonderful, inspiring and strong woman that I had the honor of meeting during my work on the UN Global Plastics Treaty, Suzanne Smoke of the Alderville First Nation, taught me that we need to look out for the next seven generations and make sure they have the resources they need for a good life. We are the adults in the room now and we must make sure that future humans (and future generations of other living beings) can enjoy our beautiful planet as much as we are.

Yes, there are so many adults in the room, and still, if you could invite one more person (dead or alive) to join a Global Footprint Network brainstorming session, who would it be, and what would you ask them?

I would ask Rachel Carson to join us. I would like to ask her how we can help our fellow humans who are not trained in environmental science to understand our self-inflicted human predicament and how to make them care. I think that Rachel would have some good ideas to share with us!

Oh, thank you, Jane, and we are so glad you are the “one more person” for us, joining our journey. Welcome!

The post Having Coffee with Dr. Jane Muncke appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

Overshoot is eroding us. But without a clear definition of the problem, meaningful responses remain elusive. As we face a future shaped by escalating climate change and growing competition over resources, what exactly is holding back effective action?

Some argue that the problem is that climate science is still misunderstood. Others believe people simply aren’t aware of the solutions. Still others claim the real issue is human nature – too much greed, not enough empathy.

Below is our take.

The Real Barrier: Misaligned Perception

Our working hypothesis is this: There is insufficient desire for meaningful action, largely because people believe that the cost of acting outweighs the benefits. They consider the therapy to be more painful than the disease, particularly if others do not participate in the therapy. Hence many conclude that only globally coordinated action matters, and that their individual effort is too small to count.

In essence,  they are convinced that we all are stuck in a “free-rider” dilemma, where individual interests are fundamentally at odds with collective well-being. It’s the classic scenario: everyone’s invited to chip in for the pizza, but many help themselves to a slice without paying. This mindset leads to inaction, as most sit back and hope others will bear the cost while they enjoy the benefits. Also, they believe their costly counter-actions only benefit others, and therefore aren’t worth it.

The good news? We are not at a pizza party. Rather, we believe there’s a more accurate and transformative way of seeing our situation, one where individual and societal incentives are aligned.

Let us explain.

Overshoot Is Our Context…

In the 21^st century, humanity’s second-biggest threat is overshoot, our persistent overuse of the planet’s resources. The biggest threat is failing to respond.

Overshoot isn’t just the root of climate change, biodiversity loss, resource depletion, and deforestation. It also fuels stagflation [1], food and energy insecurity, health crises [2], and conflict.

…But It’s Not Your Burden

Overshoot is too large for any one entity, even the biggest nation, to reverse on its own. So instead of asking, “How can I fix overshoot?”, a more actionable question is: “How will I respond, given this reality?”

This reframes overshoot as a shared context, not your personal burden. And it’s a powerful one: overshoot will increasingly determine what works—and what fails—in our societies.

The Good News About Overshoot

Overshoot will end. The only question is how: by design, or by disaster.

Here’s the upside:

First, the less others prepare for the predictable reality of climate change and resource constraints, the higher your risk, whether you’re a household, business, city, or country. That means waiting for others to act offers no strategic advantage.

Second, and even better: The most successful actions are those that are replicable. Non-replicable actions (like moving to resource-rich, “out-of-the-way” New Zealand) won’t scale to 8 billion people. But replicable solutions, like home insulation, rooftop solar, ecosystem restoration, or urban densification, benefit both the early adopter and society at large. We call these responses “power of possibility”: They are good for the individual and good for the planet.

Two Central Insights to Focus On

Based on this perspective, our message centers on two key insights:

1. Responding to overshoot is in your self-interest.
   Contrary to the common “free-rider” view, we’re not trapped. Once cities, companies, and countries recognize that resource security is a core pillar to their own economic resilience and success, ecological necessity and economic logic converge.
2. The best responses are replicable, win-win strategies.
   What’s most effective aren’t selfish bunker solutions. It is responses that boost your own resilience and can scale. They are things that are globally replicable. And such opportunities are everywhere.

In Summary

Recognizing overshoot doesn’t impose a burdens. It reveals insights about our own risks and opportunities. It’s directly relevant to strategy, whether you’re leading a community, company, city, or country.

We believe that ending overshoot by design requires desire. Meaningful action becomes possible when people want to act, when the desire runs deep. Action is seen not just as necessary, but as better than inaction. 

This is also the central message of Earth Overshoot Day: It’s central message is not that “we ran out of resources.” Rather, it’s that the future has never been more predictable, a future defined by climate change and resource constraints. Those who prepare themselves for it, who prioritize resource security in their strategy, are setting themselves up for success. As a side-effect they also ease overshoot.

What’s your take?

Footnotes

[1] What is Stagflation?
Stagflation combines inflation and stagnation. Overshoot drives inflation because resource scarcity makes it physically harder to restock shelves, raising prices. At the same time, it erodes the value of assets unfit for a climate-constrained world, leading to economic stagnation. Stagflation occurred in many countries during the oil crises of the 1970s but is avoidable, if a country responds meaningfully to overshoot.

[2] Health Crises and Overshoot
Densely concentrated populations, including domesticated animals, combined with global mobility increase the risk of disease outbreaks (e.g., swine and bird flu). Climate change also creates new habitats for disease vectors. Meanwhile, countermeasures like antibiotics are losing effectiveness as they’re overused.

The post Defining the Problem appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

Rumors swirl that the U.S. administration plans to symbolically undermine environmental NGOs and philanthropic organizations, mirroring its recent heavy-handed threats against Colombia and Harvard University and continuing its onslaught on environmental stewardship and defiance of rule of law. This isn’t serving the common good; it’s just another attempt at government sanctioned censorship. Since day one of this new administration, we have seen it time and time again – the harassment of advocates working on civil rights, gender and social justice, the suppression of “inconvenient truths,” and the gutting of crucial government agencies.

Such tactics are straight from the authoritarian playbook. What’s shocking is their emergence in a nation, which has always claimed to stand for upholding democratic values, human rights, and the rule of law with robust checks and balances. It is even more surprising in a situation where the ruling party holds only a slim majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate and yet reacts with deafening silence.

Few among the majority party dare to call out this cruel, self-defeating absurdity, though history will remember their complicity in harassing and gutting academic and governmental  institutions, as well as philanthropic and non-governmental organizations, that provide vital intelligence, analysis, policy options and capital to enable knowledge-based decision making and solutions for the poly crisis and 21^st century challenges – the very tools a nation needs to survive let alone thrive.

Banning words, stifling debate, and crippling public-good organizations doesn’t strengthen governance; it blinds it. Imagine painting over your windshield when you go down the highway at 60 mph. Or withholding bank statements from account holders. Or hiding pre-diabetes risks to avoid “upsetting” patients. Why would a government actively sabotage its ability to prepare for the inevitable? Which senator or representative truly believes they’ll escape accountability for misleading constituents—or that their legacy will survive such willful negligence?

We do not have unlimited time to respond to the well-documented challenges we face. Delaying action—and even worse, undermining our ability to act—is economically disastrous and reinforcing are greatest existential risks.

U.S. government agencies, many of which are themselves under threat, have reported that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations – driven up by fossil fuel use – now exceed the limit compatible with a 2°C global warming threshold by about 26 years of global emissions. The scientific as well as the international community recognize this threshold as the line between manageable change and dangerously unstable environmental conditions.

These resource dynamics are becoming a massive risk, not just for the world, but also for the United States. Both remain more dependent on fossil fuels than ever. In fact, half of all fossil fuels ever consumed have been burned since the year 2000. Hence, we are facing a stark dilemma:

• Our economies are so reliant on fossil fuels that they cannot function without them;
• Yet the atmosphere is now so saturated with emissions that humanity cannot thrive with them.

Failing to address this reality and even pursuing a “drill, baby, drill” energy policy threatens economic resilience to future shocks and stresses as it deepens national and  global reliance on an energy source without a long-term future. Failing to prepare for this inevitable transition is self-destructive. Therefore, actively weakening the United States’ own ability to respond to this existential challenge is not just shortsighted—it’s costly, cynical and cruel. And it is deeply counter to “America first”.

Climate denial isn’t just futile; it’s expensive and already lethal. Rejecting measurable reality, like pretending gravity doesn’t exist, won’t make the crisis vanish. It only ensures we’re unprepared and burdened with economic costs and instability for many years to come. And with such a narrow congressional and senatorial majority, the moral burden falls squarely on each elected U.S. official who stays silent. Their reputations, legitimacy, and effectiveness won’t recover.

With all this dismantling of needed institutions, every day henceforth ever more people will carry questions in their hearts and minds of who is on the right side of history and who we can entrust with looking after our country. This isn’t just about yet another executive order by a President. It’s about betrayal: Who will look their children – grandchildren – or voters—in the eye and justify this recklessness? Who will stand up for a future which ensures that all people can survive and even thrive let alone American citizens?

The post The U.S. Can’t Afford to Silence Its Environmental Watchdogs appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

If there are too few bakers, bread becomes expensive. As a result, more people open bakeries, and bread prices drop again. Adam Smith called this the “invisible hand” of markets. But when it comes to the biosphere, this invisible hand is failing completely. The overuse of Earth’s biological capacity isn’t being corrected—it’s a massive market failure. So what does this mean?

Currently, those who provide the biocapacity that supports the global economy—farmers, foresters, fishing folks, and others—are poorly compensated. The result is large-scale overuse. Humanity’s resource use today is equivalent to 1.7 Earths. We’ve been in global overshoot since the early 1970s. Yet, to maintain biodiversity and ecological stability, our use would need to be closer to 0.5 Earths—3.4 times less.

This raises a critical question: how much higher would the prices of raw materials need to be to reduce demand from 1.7 Earths to 0.5? The required price might be so high that our economies could no longer function as they currently do—highlighting just how far out of balance we are. Still, failing to adapt to a 0.5-Earth world would be far more costly. It would erode the regenerative capacity of the planet, on which all value chains depend. We may not be paying the full cost now, but it’s on the balance sheet. Delaying the transition only turns today’s neglect into tomorrow’s liabilities.

This leads to an essential economic question: what is the clearing price that would reduce biocapacity demand to regenerative levels—from 1.7 to 0.5 Earths? Economists might call this the “overshoot clearing price.” It could be very high, especially if demand is largely inelastic—meaning that even with rising prices, the demand doesn’t drop significantly. The clearing price could be an order of magnitude higher than what is currently paid for biocapacity-based goods and services.

These goods and services include: crops, fruits, animal products, fish, timber, fibers, flowers, freshwater, and carbon sequestration. In short, the stewards of biocapacity are being vastly underpaid.

This underpayment is not just unjust—it fuels the depletion of humanity’s most vital asset. It poses a systemic risk to the global economy. Reversing this market failure is not just about fairness to biocapacity stewards; it’s essential for building a resilient and viable future for all of humanity.

How would you estimate the “overshoot clearing price”? We’d love to hear from you!

The post Overshoot as Market Failure appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

The University stated among the accomplishments leading to this honor his co-development of concept of the Ecological Footprint in the early 1990s, an indicator that measures human impact on the environment by estimating the amount of natural resources needed to sustain our lifestyles. Also, they wanted to celebration his co-founding of Global Footprint Network in 2003, as well as the organization’s provision of tools to monitor resource availability (biocapacity) and ecological footprint (Note: the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts are now produced through FoDaFo with the help of York University). Among this organization’s initiatives is the annual Earth Overshoot Day, the symbolic date marking when humanity consumes all the biological resources that Earth can regenerate in a year.

The ceremony, held in the Great Hall of the university’s Rectorate, began in the morning with an academic procession with all the deans of the university.

University Rector Roberto Di Pietra opened the event by honoring the new graduate:
“I extend my sincere gratitude to our guest for his presence and for what his personal and scholarly journey represents for us, for our era, and for a world that has lost its ‘sense of measure’ on this planet. Mathis Wackernagel’s research has the merit of clearly demonstrating how much humanity is consuming Earth’s resources and at what intensity. This information should concern everyone—individuals, national and international institutions alike. It should drive better resource management, influence behavioral changes, and guide strategic decisions. Yet almost none of this is happening. In many international forums, discussions are dominated by a paradoxical argument: some nations claim the right to exploit resources excessively (even asserting a ‘right to pollute’) simply because Western countries did so for decades. How can we define this attitude of humanity toward its own planet? It is arrogance—a collective arrogance reminiscent of the myth of Phaethon and the Chariot of Fire, as our Emeritus Professor Maurizio Bettini recently wrote. Institutions like ours, the University of Siena, must act for the future. We must continue to educate, research, and share knowledge, especially when arrogance grows stronger. We must defend and stand up for science, which is under attack today. Awarding this honorary degree to Mathis Wackernagel reaffirms our university’s commitment to sustainability. We are proud to now count him among our alumni. Thank you, Mathis, for your presence and your lectio magistralis.”

This was followed by the reading of the degree citation by Professor Riccardo Paoletti, Director of the Department of Physical, Earth, and Environmental Sciences, and the laudatio by Professor Simone Bastianoni, the Rector’s Delegate for Sustainability.

Professor Paoletti stated:
“Dr. Wackernagel co-invented the Ecological Footprint, a cornerstone of sustainability studies and an inspiration for much of our university’s research. These themes are integrated into our courses, theses, and doctoral dissertations.”

Professor Bastianoni added:
“Mathis Wackernagel has played a pivotal role in sustainability science by creating an indicator that assesses humanity’s environmental impact. He established Overshoot Day (August 1 in 2024), the date when humanity exhausted Earth’s regenerative capacity for that year. Through the Global Footprint Network, he also recognized Siena’s Carbon Neutrality Alliance as one of 100 leading examples of sustainable action.”

Wackernagel then delivered his lectio magistralis, titled “How Predictable Is Our Future?”
“The future is never entirely predictable, but today we can anticipate many trends. This knowledge helps us make wiser choices. What forces shape the future, and how can we measure them?”

Reflecting on the honor, Wackernagel said:
“I am deeply moved and grateful. Being recognized by Siena is especially meaningful, not only for its centuries-old academic tradition but also for its pioneering contributions to my field, like those of Enzo Tiezzi, who applied thermodynamics to social systems. Collaborations with Siena’s Ecodynamics Group and its brilliant students have created enduring bonds. I feel part of this community.”

The ceremony concluded with performances by the University Choir, directed by Professor Elisabetta Miraldi.

The entire ceremony can be seen here.

The post Honorary Degree from Siena University for Mathis Wackernagel appeared first on Global Footprint Network.

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.