Ponzi Schemes Are Destructive, Particularly the Biggest One: Global Overshoot

Mathis Wackernagel, PhD • September 19, 2024

Mathis Wackernagel, PhD, Co-founder of the Global Footprint Network and an ISSP Hall of Fame Honoree, offers a cogent account of the largest pyramid scheme ever: global overshoot of our planet’s regenerative capacity by at least 70%. Recognizing overshoot as the persistent context of our current economies is not an act of self-sacrificing heroism, but one of healthy self-preservation.


Overshoot occurs when more is taken from ecosystems than the ecosystems can renew – thereby depleting the stocks. Consequently, current overuse compromises future use. With persistent global overshoot becoming our new context, recognizing this context helps us make decisions that serve us. Ignoring it increases our fragility.


It is hard to imagine a more obvious case of a self-destructive pyramid scheme than ecological overshoot. Humanity’s resource overuse is clearly robbing the future to pay for the present. It requires constant depletion of our underlying natural wealth to maintain the current income. Ultimately, if not rectified, this ends in ecologically bankrupting humanity.


Given the damage they cause, financial pyramid schemes, or Ponzi schemes as they are called in the US, are illegal in most countries. Yet oddly, ecological ones are still encouraged, tolerated, or ignored. Their potential damage, though, is no less.


The stakes are high, yet the concept of overshoot is relatively simple to grasp. Surprisingly though, it gets little attention: for every 10,000 articles on climate change, there is only one on ecological overshoot, even though climate change is just a symptom of overshoot. This is unfortunate, because by recognizing the challenge from this larger issue that encompasses all competing demands on the biosphere — including climate change —paradoxically, it becomes more solvable. This scaled-up overshoot perspective helps us to see our ecological challenges in a new light: it becomes clearer that we are facing a resource security question that aligns incentives rather than just being caught in a hard-to-attack free-rider problem.


What do I mean by free-rider problem? Our single focus on climate, and particularly carbon emissions, gives people the impression that individual incentives (the cost of curbing my CO2) are at odds with societal incentives (the societal benefits of reduced CO2 emissions) — and many people are not willing to compromise their own advantage for the benefit of a distant humanity. But when recognizing that climate change, and all its associate ecological challenges, are ultimately a threat to our own resource security, it becomes more obvious that my company, city, or country’s ability to reduce its excessive resource dependence, including on fossil fuels, strengthens my company, city, or country directly. This resource security challenge is a different dynamic from free-riding. It makes clear that the ecological pyramid scheme we are addicted to will ultimately hurt us directly if we do not get out in time.

 

Pyramid schemes hurt society. But they hurt the participants even more directly. They are a scam in which Peter is robbed to pay Paul. Unfairly, these pyramid schemes are often attributed to Charles Ponzi, at least in the US. This reflects possibly another gender bias in our depiction of history. Fraudster Sarah Howe of Boston predated Ponzi’s racket by at least 40 years, back in the late 1870s and 80s.

 

With all the Ponzi schemes of the past, no one has so far been greater at implementing them than Bernie Madoff, whose version involved $65 billion of client money. His strategy, like that of his predecessors, consisted of relying on a steady flow of new client investments, which he used to provide “returns” to earlier investors.


Madoff took from the future to pay for the present. After the 2008 financial crisis made it more difficult to recruit ever more investors, this difficulty became the last straw to break that pyramid scheme’s back. Once he was caught, the jurisdictional system took Madoff’s future to pay for his past. In 2021, he died in jail, and much of the debt he generated persists.

 

Yet collectively, Madoff has been massively outdone: our current economies are running the largest pyramid scheme ever. We are depleting the Earth’s future biological resources to run present activities. Currently, humanity consumes the planet's biological resources more quickly than Earth can replenish them. Human demand now exceeds our planet’s regenerative capacity by at least 70%. Yet ecologists recommend not to use more than half the planet’s biocapacity to have a resilient biosphere with a healthy amount of biodiversity left. That equals over three times less than what is currently taken.


Whether financial or ecological, debt balloons eventually burst. Humanity's ecological debt shows up as excessive carbon in the atmosphere, collapsing fish stocks, shrinking forests, eroding soils, and groundwater drying up. You can find more on ecological pyramid schemes in my chapter in Strategies for Sustainability of the Earth System.

 

Pyramid schemes are bound to come to an end; the question is whether by design or disaster. I, for one, much prefer deliberate design over dumped-on disasters. But choosing design requires honest accounting and resolve, as Peter Victor lays out in his highly readable book, Escape from Overshoot: Economics for a Planet in Peril

 

Of course, this ecological global pyramid scheme is not actively set up and run by a modern-day scoundrel. Instead, it results from the collective impact of millions of daily decisions by governments, businesses, consumers, citizens, and thought leaders, all acting on outdated assumptions about economic and social dynamics and their relationship to our planet’s ability to support us all.

 

What does this mean for sustainability professionals? Choosing more realistic assumptions that recognize our context of overshoot can therefore help us find ways to reduce each of our individual risk exposure to this pyramid scheme. It even enables us to pick and shape investments in projects that have a far higher likelihood of staying valuable, or even gaining in value. Because, by and large, assets that stay functional are valuable. Therefore, it is a question of identifying assets that can also function in a world of persistent overshoot, one that will experience more climate change and resource constraints. Potentially the most valuable assets are those that diminish overshoot as they scale.


I will not bore you here, but for those interested, such characteristics are measurable, particularly how much an asset can shift global overshoot. Examples of products that, as they multiply, can reduce global overshoot abound: wind turbines that displace coal power, effective insulation that reduces energy needs of houses, e-bikes that are swapped for cars, photovoltaic panels that replace conventional electricity and roofs, recycled materials that get used instead of virgin input, etc. We have called this the power of possibility. And if you need more examples, just ask www.perplexity.ai: “As the future will be ever more defined by climate change and resource constraints, what kind of assets will become more valuable in that future?” It will generate plenty of answers to choose from. 


It would be unreasonable to expect that such a short blog could offer comprehensive guidelines on how to solve overshoot. But I will feel satisfied if I am able to provide you with two insights: a) yes, overshoot is a Ponzi scheme, and b) recognizing overshoot as our context is not an act of self-sacrificing heroism, but one of healthy self-preservation.

About the Author:

Mathis Wackernagel, PhD
Co-founder, Global Footprint Network
ISSP Hall of Fame Honoree


PHOTO: Nastya Dulhiier | Unsplash

Read perspectives from the ISSP blog

By Ioannis Ioannou, PhD June 19, 2025
London Business School Professor Ioannis Ioannou, PhD examines the vulnerable narrative infrastructure surrounding ESG. By collaboratively engaging those most affected by ESG transitions—indigenous peoples, workers, young people, small businesses, and communities, particularly in the Global South—we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment for meaningful progress. Who Gets to Tell the Story of ESG? For more than a decade, ESG rapidly evolved from a specialized investor consideration into an elaborate global infrastructure of standards, metrics, taxonomies, and disclosure frameworks. Investor attention soared, corporate sustainability teams grew exponentially, and ESG vocabulary— climate risk, fiduciary duty, and double materiality—became firmly embedded in corporate boardrooms and regulatory discussions globally. Yet, despite ESG’s impressive institutional and technical advancements, the narrative meant to support it remained remarkably fragile. While ESG developed sophisticated standards, disclosures, and metrics, it never invested in the narrative infrastructure to explain its purpose, build public understanding, or secure legitimacy beyond institutional circles. Without the broader stakeholder engagement and effective storytelling that would connect ESG to people’s lived realities, it became vulnerable. Critics didn’t need to challenge carbon accounting or materiality frameworks; instead, they recast ESG as a job killer, an elite agenda, or an unwelcome intrusion into everyday life. The backlash caught many ESG professionals off guard, though the warning signs were visible. ESG’s rapid adoption by investors and regulatory bodies created an illusion of momentum, but this obscured a deeper structural gap. ESG rarely connected meaningfully with those directly affected by ESG-driven transitions—workers facing disruption, small business owners adapting to shifting expectations, and communities, particularly in vulnerable regions, confronting real and immediate climate risks. For these groups, ESG often seemed abstract, distant, and disconnected from their daily concerns. Narrative infrastructure might sound like an unusual concept, but it's foundational to widespread support. It connects people and institutions, conveys meaning, and determines whether ESG is seen as genuine leadership or merely corporate branding. Robust narrative infrastructure ensures resilience under political pressure; without it, initiatives can rapidly lose whatever public approval they may have had. Constructing narrative infrastructure requires explicitly recognizing storytelling— and who contributes to that storytelling—as integral to ESG strategy, not simply a communications exercise. Effective narratives generate trust precisely because they emerge from transparent dialogue, clear accountability, and inclusive stakeholder engagement. By contrast, greenwashing uses storytelling deceptively, aiming to conceal poor performance, and deflect scrutiny. Strong narrative infrastructure, unlike greenwashing, strengthens credibility and legitimacy by openly connecting ESG commitments to shared realities, tangible actions, and measurable outcomes. It is a fundamental strategic asset for ESG success. Importantly, narrative infrastructure also concerns who gets to tell these stories. Over the last decade, the central narrators of the ESG story have largely been institutional actors: executives, investors, sustainability professionals, academics, and regulators. Their contributions have been invaluable, driven by expertise, rigor, and genuine commitment. Yet these narrators also represent a relatively narrow perspective, shaped by institutional backgrounds and professional incentives. Many important voices have remained largely excluded from shaping ESG narratives: indigenous people whose lives are often fundamentally changed by corporate activities, workers whose livelihoods are directly impacted by ESG transitions, young people deeply invested in future outcomes, small businesses continuously adapting to new ESG-related requirements, and especially communities—particularly in the Global South —directly facing the worst of climate disruptions. While these stakeholders' experiences occasionally appear within ESG reporting, they seldom influenced strategy or shape decisions in a substantial way. This exclusion poses significant, practical risks. Stakeholders naturally resist initiatives perceived as imposed from above or disconnected from their lived realities—not necessarily because they oppose ESG’s goals, but because they feel unheard and invisible within such ESG narratives. The resistance appears as political backlash, active public scepticism, or disengagement, all severely undermining ESG’s legitimacy, effectiveness, and public support. Addressing this critical weakness requires deliberately building ESG’s narrative infrastructure through inclusive, collaborative, and ongoing engagement. Practically, companies should move beyond occasional or reactive consultations toward sustained processes where stakeholders actively shape strategies. This can involve establishing community advisory boards with real decision-making power, participatory scenario planning that integrates diverse local perspectives, and internal cross-functional councils that ensure workers, communities, and youth voices directly influence ESG outcomes. Such sustained, authentic collaboration bridges the gap between institutional intentions and genuine public legitimacy. Within companies, narrative stewardship should not be limited to corporate communications or sustainability departments alone. Effective ESG storytelling depends on regular, structured collaboration across multiple functions—including strategy, human resources, procurement, product development, and finance—to ensure ESG commitments align authentically with core business decisions and reflect real-world stakeholder experiences. Companies can institutionalize this collaboration by creating dedicated cross-functional ESG committees tasked with integrating diverse internal perspectives, monitoring stakeholder feedback, and ensuring ESG initiatives clearly connect to tangible social outcomes. At an institutional level, building ESG narrative infrastructure involves establishing platforms that broaden participation in ESG discourse. It requires supporting initiatives that improve public understanding of ESG standards and practices, funding research that evaluates public perceptions of ESG alongside traditional financial metrics and ensuring ESG disclosures transparently reflect diverse stakeholder concerns. ESG narrative legitimacy grows stronger when diverse perspectives genuinely shape how ESG commitments are determined and communicated, implemented, and monitored—not merely as token inclusions, but as integral, strategic components of ESG itself. Regulators have an essential role in shaping ESG narrative infrastructure. Current ESG disclosure standards typically prioritize technical accuracy and financial materiality, mostly targeting investor needs. Broadening these frameworks to explicitly incorporate public legitimacy could significantly enhance ESG’s impact. For example, regulators could introduce clear criteria assessing whether companies effectively communicate their ESG strategies to diverse stakeholders and evaluate how these communications influence brand value and reputational risk—approaches already emerging in Europe’s Green Claims Directive and the CSRD/ESRS focus on double materiality. Additionally, policy evaluations could systematically measure whether ESG initiatives are genuinely perceived as fair, inclusive, and beneficial by the communities they affect. Public support and trust require deliberate and continuous effort; they cannot be assumed or taken for granted. Fortunately, inspiring examples of effective ESG narrative infrastructure already exist. Companies like Patagonia have openly integrated supplier and worker voices into their ESG narratives, transparently highlighting labour practices and sourcing standards, significantly enhancing their credibility. Unilever’s inclusive “living wage” campaigns have similarly leveraged stories from frontline workers to connect ESG metrics with tangible social outcomes, strengthening stakeholder trust. Industry-specific initiatives, such as the Bangladesh Accord in apparel, demonstrate how authentically incorporating diverse stakeholder experiences—including employees, unions, and community representatives—into ESG reporting can reinforce accountability and legitimacy. These examples highlight how inclusive storytelling, grounded in genuine stakeholder participation, can transform ESG commitments from abstract promises into credible actions with real-world impact. ESG professionals now face an exciting strategic opportunity: intentionally building a narrative infrastructure that's genuinely inclusive, collaborative, and resilient. Yes, involving diverse stakeholders means navigating complexity, dialogue, and occasionally tough compromises. It also means embracing participatory processes that might feel messier or less predictable. But it's exactly this diversity of voices and collective authorship that generates persuasive, robust narratives—ones that not only resonate widely but can confidently withstand shifts in politics, culture, and public sentiment. Beyond strengthening ESG's narrative infrastructure, it's important for ESG professionals to step back and consider sustainability more broadly. By explicitly linking ESG narratives to overarching sustainability objectives—such as respecting planetary boundaries and enabling a just transition—professionals can better illustrate how financial markets, corporate strategies, and policy frameworks actively support broader ecological and social well-being. Making these broader connections explicit can deepen trust, enhance engagement, and ensure the interconnected ESG-sustainability story resonates meaningfully with all those whose futures depend on it. We stand at a turning point, facing a critical opportunity to strengthen ESG’s narrative foundations. While ESG’s narrative fragility has been clearly exposed, this moment also offers an inspiring chance to intentionally build a more inclusive, credible, and resilient narrative infrastructure. The future of sustainability depends not only on rigorous metrics or detailed disclosures, but ultimately on whether those whose lives are impacted recognize themselves clearly in its story. By authentically amplifying diverse voices, explicitly connecting ESG initiatives to broader sustainability goals, and developing narratives rooted in real-world experiences, we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment necessary for meaningful and lasting progress.
By Antoinette de Crombrugghe May 15, 2025
I belong to a generation raised in the shadow of the climate crisis. But it wasn’t something we were taught in school. It wasn’t part of our curriculum, our standardized tests, our childhood vocabulary. We came across it slowly, in fragments, through social media, activism, panic headlines, and documentaries. We educated ourselves. We connected the dots. And still, many of us are figuring out how to carry this knowledge and how to live with it without being crushed by it.
PHOTO: Ana Bachurova | Pléneau Island, 65°06.6’S / 064°04.0’W
By Ana Bachurova March 20, 2025
After recent travels in Antarctica, UNEP-FI Energy Efficiency Lead Ana Bachurova, M.Sc., MBA shares learnings and insights into our current environmental realities and how practitioners in sustainable development can advance positive impacts.
More blog posts