In short: What is missing?
- Mathis Wackernagel
- May 13
- 4 min read
Updated: Jun 7
With persistent overshoot, so much is at stake. Yet so little is being done. In most places, the collective impact of people’s concerted efforts to respond to overshoot remains barely measurable. Why is that?
Airplane fatalities versus overshoot
Airplane fatalities are rightly considered a tragedy. Despite the stunningly low death rates per passenger kilometer compared to other transportation modes,[1] airplane fatalities still prompt tremendous efforts to drive down these numbers.[2] Many of these efforts are not even centrally coordinated.
Ecological overshoot, the depletion of the biosphere's life-support systems, could be considered a tragedy of even greater magnitude. Yet global overshoot and its cumulative impacts continue to rise with little meaningful response.[3]
Why is this happening?
In my view, the missing piece lies in a widely held (mis)perception: too many still see the sustainability transition as a matter of “noble self-sacrifice.” Their inner dialogue is shaped by the question: How much am I willing to give up for humanity?[4]
This fear, though rarely verbalized or admitted, manifests in hesitation. Most cities, countries, or companies refrain from taking meaningful action, beyond "virtue signaling" and attending well-intentioned conferences. With "meaningful" I mean congruent in speed and scale with the growing pressures of the predictable future.
The reality, however, is far more pragmatic, but hardly recognized. Responding to these challenges is a matter of self-interest.[5] Cities, economies, and investments that fail to adapt, continuing to rely on excessive resource use, will inevitably lose value as climate change and resource constraints intensify. Delays are costly, and pivots require time. Waiting is self-defeating.
Ultimately, what’s missing is the desire to prepare for the inevitable. Too many decision-makers are clouded by the false belief that the effort required will outweigh the direct benefits they gain from their actions. Are therefore targets the answer?
The targets paradox
Without clear and measurable goals, effective management becomes elusive. There’s no clarity, no shared sense of direction, no way to measure progress against intent, and no accountability. Policy discussions without targets amount to little more than hot air. Policies without measurable targets are toothless.
Yet this leads us to the targets paradox: setting a target also sets constraints. It codifies obligations. It can reinforce the belief that we’re trapped in a “free-rider“ situation, one that demands noble self-sacrifice from all participants. Paradoxically, targets can generate resistance to achieving the very goals they are meant to advance.[6]
Consider airplane fatalities. No explicit targets are set by UN bodies, yet there is an implicit understanding that any increase in fatalities would be cause for alarm. The self-interest of stakeholders in promoting safer air traffic is clear.
What’s missing is that many still fail to recognize their direct self-interest in preparing for the inevitable future, one shaped by climate change and resource constraints. In reality, isn't this challenge quite similar to reducing air traffic fatalities, with the key difference being that, in the case of overshoot, self-interest remains surprisingly unrecognized?
What’s your perspective? I’d love to hear your thoughts!
Pod-cast version of this argument:
If you want to hear these ideas as a friendly, bantering conversation, click here. (For full transparency, this podcast was AI generated, using this blog and this other blog as the input).
Related blogs:
Footnotes:
[1] Per passenger-mile, commercial planes are 1700 times safer than cars, and 100,000 times safer than motorcycle. Even per passenger-hour, in the US, commercial planes are 20 times safer than trains. https://turbli.com/blog/the-safest-transport-modes-ranked-by-statistics-from-10-years-of-data/
[2] "The risk of a fatality from commercial air travel was 1 per every 13.7 million passenger boardings globally in the 2018-2022 period — a significant improvement from 1 per 7.9 million boardings in 2008-2017 and a far cry from the 1 per every 350,000 boardings that occurred in 1968-1977." https://news.mit.edu/2024/study-flying-keeps-getting-safer-0807
[4] This view emerged with clarity in the debate surrounding Switzerland's vote held February 9, 2025. Its citizens had to decide whether they wanted to live within planetary constraints. The government recommended to reject the proposal. In summary, the government argued that "it brings with it numerous new regulations and bans that severely restrict consumption, weaken the economy and make products and services more expensive. The Federal Council and Parliament therefore want to continue the current environmental policy." In their more detailed argumentation, they warned that "many things that are currently part of the standard of living in Switzerland would have to be sacrificed." Also, they contended that the "Constitution already contains balanced provisions for the promotion of sustainability, which give the legislator leeway. The initiative, on the other hand, is limited unilaterally to environmental protection." https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/votes/20250209/environmental-responsibility-initiative.html
[5] In other words, we are not caught in a free-rider trap. Aspects of the environmental challenges humanity faces contain free-rider elements, but the are not the dominant force, in contrast to common belief.
[6] The Target Paradox is not an argument against quantification and metrics. The key point is that unless metrics are empowering and engaging for their audience, they are more likely to provoke resistance than acceptance.
Let me also emphasize: Without quantification, metrics, and measurable specificity, concepts and approaches remain hollow. Observable markers are essential for meaningful conversations and for establishing consensus on whether progress is being made.
Science itself relies on quantification. It's fundamental to evidence-driven approaches. However, for scientific findings to create impact, they must be perceived as useful by those who receive them. Scientific evidence that fails to inspire may still be valid, but if recipients do not see its direct benefit, its adoption will be limited, and may even generate further resistance.
Comentarios