top of page

In short: What is missing?

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?


Sustainability: Golden opportunity or burdensome necessity?
Sustainability: Golden opportunity or burdensome necessity?

Airplane fatalities are rightly considered a tragedy. Despite being very low per passenger kilometer compared to other transportation modes,[1] they still prompt tremendous coordinated and uncoordinated efforts to drive down these numbers.[2]


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.[3]


Why is this happening?


In my view, the missing piece lies in perception: too many still see the sustainability transition as a matter of “noble self-sacrifice.” The unspoken question remains: How much are you willing to give up for humanity?[4]


This fear, though rarely verbalized, is evident in its effects—most cities, countries, or companies hesitate to get involved or take meaningful action.


The reality, however, is far more pragmatic. Responding to these challenges aligns directly with self-interest. 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.


What's your view? I’d love to hear!

 

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 emerges clearly in the debate surrounding Switzerland's vote scheduled for February 9, 2025. Its citizens will have to decide whether they want to live within planetary constraints. The government recommends to reject the proposal. In summary, the government argues 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 warn that "many things that are currently part of the standard of living in Switzerland would have to be sacrificed." Also, they contend 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

Kommentarer


bottom of page