Robert Kuehnel, of LaFayette; Martha Viglietta, of Pompey; and Zac Bellinger, of Syracuse, are members of the Syracuse Chapter of Citizens’ Climate Lobby.

On Earth Day 2025, the 55th anniversary of the original on April 22, 1970, we find ourselves in full retreat from the most pressing problem of our day – environmental degradation. On the heels of two consecutive years of the highest heat in recorded history, with their associated wildfires, flooding hurricanes, and drought, we have elected an administration that denies the magnitude and cause of global warming. Even though polls show the average U.S. citizen is more concerned about climate change than ever before, we have yet to translate that concern into serious political action.

Let’s consider what’s changed in the past 55 years. The world’s population in 1970 totaled 3.7 billion people; it is now estimated to be more than 8 billion — more than double. In those same 55 years, the amount of energy used worldwide has increased by a factor 2.75. We are using almost three times more energy now, the vast majority of which comes from oil, coal and natural gas. In 1970, the U.S. produced more than 121 million tons of municipal solid waste. In 2018, we produced in excess of 292 million tons — again, well more than double. Other changes include the loss of 3 billion birds in North America — about a quarter of our avian population – since 1970; and a 22% decline in America’s butterflies since 2000.

We have a bright spot. The rate of world population growth is slowing, and for good reasons: the expansion of education, greater gender equality, better social safety nets, and increased reproductive autonomy and control. Even so, population is predicted to continue to grow and peak at over 10 billion by the mid-2080s. How will we manage that increase when the environmental impacts of our currents levels of population and consumption are already wreaking havoc: carbon pollution in the forms of greenhouse gas emissions and methane leaks that are warming the planet; the worldwide loss of habitat that is rapidly reducing the world’s biodiversity; and the underregulated discharge of solid waste, such as plastics, that is infiltrating our oceans, landscapes and even our bodies? Unlike the environmental problems of the late 20th century, which were local and source-specific, these challenges are worldwide and systemic. Scientists have coined a term for the current problem: “ecological overshoot.”

Simply stated, ecological overshoot occurs when the material demands on a system — the ecological system of the planet, in this case — go beyond the capacity of the system to meet those demands. The populations of most animals are limited by the resources available in their ecological niche, such as food, shelter and water, and by threats to their health and life, such as predators, infectious diseases and competition for needed resources. As the result of our technological advancement, we have been able to reduce, or stave off, many of the factors that limit our population size, such as medicine for disease, agriculture for food, and various methods for eliminating predators. In other words, the human population of the planet has not been kept in check as it has for other species. So, now we have a massive increase in population, a massive increase in consumption of natural resources, along with massive waste in the forms of carbon and solid waste pollution, all of which must be managed in the selfsame environment that we had 55 years ago. And we were pushing the limits of sustainability even then. That is the meaning of ecological overshoot.

One recent estimate of ecological overshoot, stated in terms of the number of Earths that would be required to sustainably support our current world population at current levels of consumption and waste disposal, is 1.75 Earths. That means we would need an additional three-quarters of a planet of the size and quality of Earth to maintain ourselves without exceeding the limits of sustainability. Given that we have only one Earth, we are seeing the consequences of overshoot in the forms of climate change, biodiversity loss and the accumulation of toxic waste that has become overwhelming.

This would appear to be a dark future, but it doesn’t have to be. We are a resourceful species, and we can figure our way out of this. Faced with a set of problems that seem overwhelming, it’s best to prioritize. Those who have taken the problem of environmental degradation seriously, and devoted their time and energy to studying it, agree that global warming should be the first priority. As such, we must preserve the climate-saving provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the landmark legislation that provides incentives for the transition to an economy powered by clean energy. To abandon them at this crucial juncture would be foolhardy.

But further, we must place a price on carbon pollution, a dollar amount for each ton of greenhouse gases emitted, that will complement the incentives of the IRA and further reduce the amount of fossil fuels we use. “Make polluters pay” has become a mantra of the environmental movement because, according to a great majority of economists, it works. A well-designed carbon pricing policy has its greatest leveling effect on those who consume the most, and who gain the most from their investments in the fossil fuel industry – the rich and the mega-rich. The working class, who consume much less and have less to invest, are especially well-served when the dollars collected are returned to citizens on an equitable basis. Such legislation has been crafted and is ready to be implemented.

Mouthing the intent of his master, newly instated EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin recently said that he aims to “drive a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion.” If climate change is a religion, a recent nationally representative survey reveals that 73% of Americans are believers. And that heart they’re intending to pierce, that’s the heart of our living planet. Let’s not let that happen. Let’s preserve the climate provisions of the IRA, and let’s muster the political will to set a price on carbon pollution.