Talk:Ecological footprint

Discussion

This article needs work. The first thing that strikes me is that objections to ecological footprint analysis occur in the second paragraph, before the model has been adequately explained. I think that the concept needs to be better explained. Once that is done, a section on objections would be o.k. However, the objections, as currently stated, miss the point. The writer either doesn't understand ecological footprint, or does understand it and wants to quibble over how many angels fit on the head of a pin. Sunray 14:55, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

I've started to edit the article. I've added a section with the heading Criticisms. However, I would like to see some references for this material. For all I know, it could be one user's opinion. Sunray 18:18, 2005 May 1 (UTC)

I agree, it needs lots of work. I could contribute some if I get the tuits, I'm currently working on a paper about EF and have done extensive research. Of course, I have to admit, I have drunk the Kool Aid. Some of the "criticisms" are regurgitated from a couple of the outspoken critics, others like the "10 children" thing is completely clueless. Apparently the author was trying to make a dig and imply that somehow population growth is good under EF, without realizing that there are other possible living situations or that children grow up. I actually came here though to suggest a possible resource, which I will not add personally since I am responsible for it [a map of world footprints]. --belg4mit 2006-01-09

Nice resource. I will add it to the "External links" section. Sunray 07:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeking non-biased work on ecological footprint

This is an enlightening article. I see that "ecological footprint" is largely used as a propaganda tool, which I sadly wish were not the case. I am interested not in "ecological footprint" as a propaganda tool, but as a research and inquiry method. Are there any non-biased researchers that try to refine ecological footprint calculations? Tom Haws July 6, 2005 17:59 (UTC)

Was that propaganda or education? Why do you call it "a propaganda tool"? What is it that makes you sad? Do you think that there are really unbiased researchers on any subject? Sunray July 6, 2005 18:19 (UTC)

To address your question in another way. Yes, there is a great deal of serious research going on at the School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP) at the University of British Columbia. Serious, certainly. Unbiased... see my remarks above. Sunray 06:42, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wackernagel has kept some details of the method under wraps (raw data, which you can purchase or get an academic license too) and I believe that this has greatly stymied development and serious uptake of the method. However there are several groups making an effort. I recommend you look at Best Foot Forward. --belg4mit 2006-01-09

I suspect our last sentence "...the focus of the ecological footprint is heuristic---to raise awareness..." makes readers (like Tom Haws) question the seriousness of footprints altogether. I'm removing that paragraph. --Krubo 14:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a large section of methodological aspects at http://www.globalfootprint.org ? Or start directly here (PDF). Hardern 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Major changes to the article

Recently wholesale changes were made to this article. While many of them might be improvements, useful information that had been part of the article for sometime was removed (for example the origin of the term). The changes also did not conform to Wikipedia editing guidelines and were not in wiki format. I would be willing to help add some of this material to the article and wikify it, but would not agree to removing large blocks of text without discussion here first and a rough consensus established. Sunray 05:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I help?

I am a researcher at Global Footprint Network, and I would like to contribute to editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkearns (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Em, sure, you're welcome! Please don't hesitate to improve the article in the way that's best for it. And please sign your discussion comments with ~~~~ so that your username is automatically linked after it. I was thinking about translating large parts of this article into German, but now I think I better wait a few more weeks... Hardern 17:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Physiocrats

Someone linked this article to Richard Cantillon and the Physiocrats with the statement "... the basic principle can be traced back to Richard Cantillon and the Physiocratic school..." Several people have tried to make a link between neoclassical economics and ecological economics. However, Rees and Wakernagel specifically reject that link:

Money-based approaches generally do not (indeed can not) reflect biophysical scarcity, increasing marginal risk with scarcity, factor complementarity, structural or functional necessity, unaccounted service flows, or informed social preferences (Rees and Wackernagel 1999, p. 47, quoted in The Role of Land in Economic Theory (pdf))

Thus, while it is an interesting argument, I don't think we can make it. I am removing the statement. Sunray 19:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As your own reference points out, Cantillon and the Physiocrats were most definitely not neoclassical economists; most relevantly, they did not claim that market prices of goods would reflect their "true" land-based values. Cantillon was first to reduce the valour intrinsique of goods to the amount of land absorbed in their production; he also pointed out that market-based "exchange values" are a completely separate phenomena. See [1]

er, perhaps I'm missing something, but your reference contains the following statement:

Cantillon foresaw there would be a "circular flow of income and expenditure" between landlords and laborers, the former contributing their land and receiving rents which they subsequently spent on luxuries, the latter contributing their labor and receiving wages and spending those on necessities.

Rees and Wakernagel state that "money-based approches cannot reflect biophysical scarcity." What am I missing here? BTW your article also refers to Cantillon as "the father of Neoclassical theory." Sunray 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that Cantillon's general equilibrium model is a purely theoretical construct, in that it assumes a completely sustainable economy/ecology (it also ignores externalities, etc.) - indeed, it purposes to show that such an economy would have to be based on valours intrinsiques. I don't think R&W's statement can be read in an absolute sense, given that "reflect[ing] scarcity" is the whole point of the price system.

Perhaps the problem is that Cantillon's model "ignores externalities." Surely it is those externalities that ecological economic approaches such as "throughput," "entropic flow" and ecological footprint are trying to get at. In the same article quoted above on "The Role of Land in Economic Theory," Hubacek says that such measures "try to capture the dependency of economic and social systems on the natural world." Are not externalities the impacts of resource decisions not directly accounted for in the price system? Sunray 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Externalities are a neoclassical concept, and again, Cantillon was not a neoclassical economist. He did not need a theory of how exchange values (i.e. market prices) would diverge from his intrinsic values; he simply realized that exchange values would be set by supply and demand (and this is why Jevons and others saw him as the father of neoclassical theory). As for the Physiocrats, they did a lot of handwaving, but their distinction of ordre natural v. ordre positif may refer to the same thing. I think they should get credit for coming up with the basic concept of land-based values.

I like the way you phrased that: "... coming up with the basic concept of land-based values." Perhaps the Physiocrats should be mentioned, though not in the lead. I would suggest a separate section for this, possibly after the section titled "Ecological Footprint Analysis." The title of the new section could be "Precursors" or "Historical antecedents" or something along those lines. Or more ambitiously, it could be titled "Development of the concept." I will be happy to add something about externalities and how and why ecological economics diverges from neoclassical and mainstream economic thought. Sunray 19:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

calculators

At least some of these calculators are specifically carbon footprint calculators. Consider moving them to carbon footprint. I may get around to doing this myself, if you don't do it first. However looking at some of the calculators, it is not always immediately apparent what they are measuring and whether they belong here or there. Perhaps there is a case for keeping them all in one place.

http://www.ecologicalfootprint.com/ for example gives you a score:

'Your estimated carbon footprint is x tonnes CO2 with an ecological footprint of y hectares'. [1]

Now is it a general ecological footprint calculator, as its name suggests, or a carbon footprint calculator, as the most obvious reading of sentence [1] would suggest? Or is sentence [1] actually giving two scores, where x is a carbon score and y an everything else score?

--Publunch 09:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's the latter, this is from Best Foot Forward afterall; the main EF consultants/researchers in the UK. I recommend the myfootprint calculator though. I've removed all the carbon footprint calculators (as they pop-up). If you want to troll the history and add them to carbon footprint that's fine. --Belg4mit 15:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

middle sections

P.S. There was some muddle in the middle of the article. I have tagged unsourced statements and have removed one case of bullying the reader (a kind of informal relevance fallacy) and improved the grammar. There was a lot that was wrong with this article, but there is much that is right. I feel I have got as far as a non-specialist can however.

criticisms

per-person is over-stated, as the point is essentially (in hyperbolic form) whether you and your dog live in a McMansion, or an apartment building. Economies of scale are not limited to family units. Non-isolated housing structures, or communes/cooperatives both fare better than the average situation. --Belg4mit 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also:

 Using more land in order to improve living 
 standards is not necessarily something negative. A 
 world population of only a single person living as 
 a hunter-gatherer would a very good ecological 
 footprint.

is a pretty disingenious bit of text IMHO. It's not really a criticism of EF, but a value statement of anthrocentrism vs. environmentalism and I don't think it belongs here. It doesn't even demonstrate an accurate understanding of EF. The hypothetical lone "primitive"'s footprint is the same whether there is one or one hundred of him. --Belg4mit 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

population biology?

This section sounds like a personal observation rather than an established understanding about how the very general tendencies described by population biology would play out in the case of Homo sapiens. Can this be sourced more fully? Greener72 07:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Great Description, But Where's The Action!

To complete this entry, it should have references to the various movements/standards designed to reduce our collective impact on the environment. Examples are Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design or TurnLeaf Green Office Standards. Thoughts?

No, because that's not the point; and also what the box at the bottom of the page is for. Yes action is necessary. But how do you know your actions are having the intended consequences? EF is a metric, and not a pre/proscriptive movement. --Belg4mit 23:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

ecological footprint does not document our entire impact on nature

The ecological footprint does not document our entire impact on nature. It only includes those aspects of our waste production and resource consumption that could potentially be sustainable. In other words, it shows those resources that within given limits can be regenerated and those wastes that at sufficiently low levels can be absorbed by the biosphere. For all activities that are systematically in contradiction with sustainability, however, there is no footprint, since nature cannot cope with them. There is no sustainable regenerative rate for substances such as heavy metals, persistent organic and inorganic toxins, radioactive materials, or bio-hazardous waste. For a sustainable world, their use needs to be phased out. In other words, the above footprint calculation assumes that the person being assessed engages in none of these systematically unsustainable activities, be it for example the release of CFCs, the unsafe disposal of motor oil, or the purchase, use, and disposal of other harmful household chemicals.

Information Credit: This information was provided by the Ecological Footprint spreadsheet developed by Wackernagel et al. (2000).[2] --Espoo 09:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

And what is the point of pasting this here exactly? --Belg4mit 16:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the article address nuclear power and desalination?

France stopped mining coal and now gets almost all of its electricity from nuclear power, so this reduces the country's release of global warming gases into the atmosphere. Does the ecological footprint model take this into account?

Israel uses desalination to obtain water. I don't think anyone argues that the ocean could ever run out of water. Does the ecological footprint model take this into account?

I don't think the article mentions these things. Should they be included? Grundle2600 19:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite general misconceptions, nuclear power is not carbon-free. The way in which nuclear power is handled can vary between analyses: some might only look at replacing that energy with a renewable source (as is generally down with fossil power), others might try to more thoroughly handle all of the nuclear repercussions (as is sometimes done with hydro).

EF is not perfect and its accounting of water is presently somewhat limited. Like many omittances, this actually strengthens its point in that even ignoring all of these other ways in which we are exploiting the planet, we see that we are still outstripping the (renewable) supply of many resources. --Belg4mit 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point - nuclear power is not completely carbon free. But just like wind and solar, nuclear power releases much less carbon than coal. There is a payback period for nuclear power, just like there is with wind and solar. I don't think the ecological footprint model takes that into account.

According to the TV show 60 Minutes, France's nuclear power gives it the cleanest air of any industrialized country. [3] And this link says that the earth has enough uranium to last us until the sun blows up in 5 billion years. [4]

Nothing is perfect. But I don't think it's accurate to treat all energy sources the same.Grundle2600 20:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I described, it does in various ways. EF is a general concept and *family* of calculation methods. Even though it is generally presented as though there is a single true method, it's not mature enough yet for that to be the case.

60 minutes is not exactly an authoritative source on anything. That's also an incredibly optimistic reading of things. The generally accepted interpretation is that at current rates of use we have enough Uranium for about 200 years. It's all fine and good to say "get it from seawater" but we don't really know how, other than through extremely expensive (money and energy) reverse osmosis.

That's a common criticism, and to be fair it doesn't exactly. However, the EF can *only* cope with consumption of *renewable* resources. It therefore has to replace non-renewables with a renewable analog. --Belg4mit 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Extracting uranium from seawater costs several hundred dollars per pound, which is insignificant. Nuclear power is just as renewable as solar power - we can't run out. The only pollution emitted by France's nuclear power plants is non-radioactive water vapor. 60 Minutes is a very highly reliable source.Grundle2600 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, they probably should not be explicitly addressed. Going into the nitty gritty of all the various alternative methods of calculating footprints is beyond the scope of a wikipedia article.--Belg4mit 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I won't add it to the article. But I still disagree with the model for the reasons that I cited. Thanks for your comments - I appreciate it.Grundle2600 14:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Citations cleanup

Notes and references? Only one type of citation should be used in an article. --Belg4mit 00:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't completely sure what you meant by the above comment. I believe it is o.k. to have separate "Notes" and "References" sections, if some key works are not actually cited in the article (e.g., Wackernagle and Rees; Lenzen and Murray), though these could easily be cited by incorporating something from them. On the other hand perhaps you meant that there were two different citation styles used, so I converted one to inline. I really like the additions you've made to the article BTW! Sunray 02:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's citation style. If the Notes were being used as actual tangential notes that's be reasonable. But MOS says only one citation style should be used.

Thanks. I may make some more contributions at some point. I've been meaning to, but as I've said earlier I'm not neutral on this topic. --Belg4mit 14:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Energy Project

I've removed the Energy Project stub since it's not really an accurate characterization of EF. Indeed, energy is one of the fuzziest and most contentious aspects of EF. Of the projects in [[Portal::Sustainable_Development]] below, I think that EF best matches economics and education, although it intersects many so no project or the generic environment might be best. --Belg4mit 14:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph on predictions of overpopulation

I am removing the following paragraph from the article as it is unsourced, ungrammatical and misleading:

Many earlier predictions of resource depletion, such as Thomas Malthus (1798), The Population Bomb (1968), Limits to Growth (1972), and the Simon-Ehrlich wager (1980) have been proved false, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically.

The contention that "predictions of resource depletion, such as Thomas Malthus... have been proved false," despite being vague and and ungrammatical (a person is not a prediction), is questionable (see for example, "The Importance of Malthus today" in John Avery's paper on Malthus).

I had tried to remove the paragraph previously, but Ultramarine changed "overpopulation" to "resource depletion," and put it back. I think it needs a great deal more work if it is to stay. For starters, we need citations. Sunray 17:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations for the last three can be found in the linked articles. Malthus was certainly wrong regarding his claim of continuing famines in Europe.[5] That other people later have named such predictions in general Malthusian does not take away that that Malthus was wrong in his prediction.Ultramarine 17:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given a source that counters the notion that "Malthus... has been proved false." You point out that Malthus was wrong about famines in Europe. No question about that. But that isn't what the paragraph says. If you would like to re-write the paragraph and add the relevant citations, why not let's start here? Sunray 17:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your source in no way denies that Malthus specific predicitons were incorrect, it just claims that his general arguments can be applied today, which of course has been claimed by every other similar failed prediction after Malthus. How about this: "Many earlier predictions of resource depletion, such as Thomas Malthus (1798) predictions about this inevitable causing continuing famines in Europe,[6] The Population Bomb (1968), Limits to Growth (1972), and the Simon-Ehrlich wager (1980) have been proved false, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically."

Better, but still no source that makes the argument. The way it reads, it sounds like Wikipedia is making the argument. That would be original research. We need a source that discusses this issue. Sunray 18:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already given an article from Nature for Malthus. I can take links form the other articles if you really want. That these predictions failed are no longer in dispute, their "target" years have long since passed.Ultramarine 18:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You have not addressed my point. Where is a source that makes the argument you want to make? If you produce it we can rewrite this paragraph. Sunray 18:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I have already given an article in Nature. Are you disputing this source?Ultramarine 18:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Nature article is a very good source. The author, Antony Trewavas, says that Malthus' predictions of famine have been foiled again and again — most recently with the "Green Revolution" that occurred after World War II. However, he states:

"...with the world's population projected to reach nine billion by the middle of this century, new ways must be found to increase yields while preserving natural habitats and biodiversity."

Trewavas make is clear that this is not going to be easy.

Cereal yields continue to grow, but the environmental cost of maintaining the high standards of living to which people in the developed world have become accustomed is a cause for concern...

"Because fish is regarded as a healthy source of protein, fish farming will have to expand substantially, but current research resources to generate the methods to farm marine fish are limited and need considerable investment. A problem is that fish-farming as currently practised is not sustainable, consuming more fish protein than it produces and leaving environmental disaster in its wake.

By making the argument that current practices are not sustainable, he is actually supporting Wakernagle and Rees' thesis in Our Ecological Footprint. Thus, while we might want to use this source in the article, I hardly think it supports what is being said in the paragraph I removed. Sunray 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It certainly supports the current proposed text"Many earlier predictions of resource depletion, such as Thomas Malthus (1798) predictions about this inevitable causing continuing famines in Europe,[7] The Population Bomb (1968), Limits to Growth (1972), and the Simon-Ehrlich wager (1980) have been proved false, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically."Ultramarine 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I've missed something here. Maybe someone else could comment. Sunray 18:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Adding more links: "Many earlier predictions of resource depletion, such as Thomas Malthus (1798) predictions about this inevitable causing continuing famines in Europe,[8] The Population Bomb (1968),[9] Limits to Growth (1972),[10][11] and the Simon-Ehrlich wager (1980)[12] have been proved false, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically."[13]Ultramarine 19:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

This debate is central to the question of growth and its potential limits. Therefore, I think it is crucial to get this right. Here's my first crack at re-wording the paragraph:

Many predictions of resource depletion, such as Thomas Malthus (1798) predictions that overpopulation would lead to continuing famines in Europe, The Population Bomb (1968), Limits to Growth (1972), and the Simon-Ehrlich wager (1980) have not materialized — at least, not in the way their authors foresaw. Advancements in technology and science (e.g., as applied to food production) have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically.[14]

We need better sources, however. The one from Nature is excellent (in that it is a respected, peer-reviewed journal). However, it only addresses Malthus. So we need others. Blogs won't work (not even blogs by academics), so I've eliminated them. The Wired citation[15] is thought-provoking, but I think we could do better by coming up with an article by Julian Simon himself. The citation from Elizabeth Dunne Schmidtt[16] is also interesting, but it is not from a peer-reviewed source. It appears to be the course notes from one of the courses she teaches. I'm going to look for something by her that is peer-reviewed, or failing that, something from someone else. If you think my re-wording of the paragraph is acceptable, let's find an academically respectable primary source that addresses The Population Bomb, Limits to Growth, and (perhaps) the Simon-Ehrlich wager. Sunray 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You might think I am being picky about sources here, but this is, as I have said, an central theme of the debate about growth. I am also going to find a statement that responds to the issues raised by Dunne, Simon and others. Sunray 21:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for peer-reviewed sources. If so, much of the claims in the article and the sustainability article should be deleted. No double standard, remember that the same standard will apply to material from all sides. The only thing that maybe could be described as a blog is this [17] which can be removed as there is another source.Ultramarine 21:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I have explained the need for sources that meet the requirements of WP:V. Sunray 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Which does not limit sources to peer-reviewed articles. I will start marking and removing unsourced material from these articles.Ultramarine 21:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The article definitely needs sources. I will work on that as well. Sunray 22:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So do you accept that sources need not be peer-reviewed articlces`as per WP policy?Ultramarine 22:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the claim. Or, as the policy puts it: "Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." Sunray 22:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what is objectinable with the Wired article?Ultramarine 22:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that it was objectionable. I said it would be better to have something directly from Simon, but I am not stuck on this. The more important source that we need is one to state what Liz Dunne Schmidtt has said (which dismisses Limits to Growth and the Population Bomb). But generally, in this debate, we need the best sources we can get. Sunray 23:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want more: [18][19]Ultramarine 23:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine, I think you've missed the point. Criticisms of the "failure" of other predictions is not relevant to the EF and simply do not belong here. EF is simply an accounting mechanism and therefore makes no more prediction than "if you spend more than you have and dip into capital, you'll have less in the future." Not so much a prediction as a general financial rule. More specifically, the only real statement made, "advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically." is again not relevant to EF. Indeed, EF fully accounts for "advancements" (which is arguably a criticism of it, but for this purpose we'll call it a benefit). I strongly suggest removing this paragraph again, permanently, and reading up on what the EF is/asking specific questions if its still not clear why. --Belg4mit 04:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The text does mention "The WWF claims that the human footprint has exceeded the biocapacity (the available supply of natural resources) of the planet by 25%.[3]" This is similar to earlier claims of imminent resource depletion.Ultramarine 12:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is only superficially similar. Again, major differencea here are that EF makes no specific predictions as to timelines or maximum numbers of humans. It it is simply an accounting method: what's available (how much biota does the planet produce) versus how much is consumed. It does not state "the earth can only have 14 billion people." It rather says that, "we are currently inefficient in our management and maintenance of a 6 billion person population." This in no way says you cannot have more people, or that there need be less. Stating that we are outstripping the regenerative capacity of the planet's ecosystems by 25% is not a prediction but a simple (if simplified) calculation and arguably observable fact. Note how very specifically I have spoken of inefficiency as it is addressed by EF, which I would have thought quite clearly calls out for the same technical efficiencies you are claiming have staid off prior Doomsdays. Yet this is the only evidence given to support this fallacious argument painting this tool as just another prohpecy in a long line of Chicken Littles, despite the fact that it is not pertinent. I am going to go ahead and remove this conetntious paragraph for now, because it is till an inaccurate characterization. --Belg4mit 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, yet again, the claim that technology allows for previously unexploitable resources to be utilized is in no way in conflict with EF. Once those resources become exploitable (not that there ar(m)any left which fall under the purview of EF, or anything else) they may then be accounted for. --Belg4mit 22:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how EF accounts for coming technological advancements. It is quite explicitly an account of the current situation, in essence converting current human energy consumption to the supposed land required for growing biomass which is then burned to produce this amount of energy. It does not account for future improved energy production using other methods, both other forms of renewabler like photovoltaics which produce much more energy per area than growing plants for ethanol production or algae for biodiesel which are much more efficent biomass per land area than plants for ehtanol or using nuclear power which require very little space and have fuel for at the very least thousands of years. Nor does it account for improved energy efficeny regarding usage, like for example more efficient lightbulbs.Ultramarine 22:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, it is an account of the current situation (actually, it's usually an account of the siutation one or two years ago). It is not a prediction of the future. It accounts for technological advancement because it uses global averages of productivity to do the accouning (this has other issues, already briefly addressed in the criticisms section, but ignoring advancements of technology is not one of them). You are also sorely mistaken regarding its system of accounting for energy. As I said before, I suggest you read up on the EF (beginning with this entry) or ask specific questions. Wackernagel & Reese's book "Our Ecological Footprint" is actually a very brief and light read. Yet it seems quite obvious that most of their critics never really read the damn thing; many of the so-called criticisms arise from misunderstandings of the method, or are addressed in the book. --Belg4mit 02:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Not in itself but other are using it to make claims of resource depletion. Current "averages of productivity" does not account for future improvements. Ultramarine 09:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Depending upon how they they are doing so, they may be wrong to do so. The WWF, however, is not for all of the previously mentioned reasons (e.g; dipping into capital). Regardless, that is not a criticism of the method, and does not belong in this section.

 Current "averages of productivity" does not account for future improvements.

No, really? Again, you are missing the point. Current average of productivity accounts for *current* efficiencies and improvements. For the umpteenth time, the EF does not make predictions (providing evidence that you are eating into capital instead of living upon interest, and that the system will collapse if you continue to do so is *not a prediction*, ask any money manager if you think that's the case). It is calculated for the recent past, and so if tomorrow someone develops and shares a means of producing soy with half as many resources per ton, this would be accounted for in the 2012 Living Planet Report; they are published biannualy, and the data lags three years behind. --Belg4mit 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I will quote the WWF: "A moderate business-as-usual scenario, based on United Nations projections of slow, steady growth of economies and populations, suggests that by 2050, humanity’s demand on nature will be twice the biosphere’s productive capacity. At this level of ecological deficit, exhaustion of ecological assets and large-scale ecosystem collapse become increasingly likely."[20]Ultramarine 17:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sunray, please explain your first deletion and now also the second deletion of sourced material. Also read WP:NPOV, we present views from both sides.Ultramarine 14:39, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what sourced material you are referring to. Could you be more specific? Sunray 15:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The sourced paragraphs here: [21][22]Ultramarine 15:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Description of energy handling mechansisms does not belong in the introduction. It's also not clear how much more this adds than the current segment in the criticisms section? Particularly with superfluous contents such as:

 that would correspond with the estimated amount of energy and materials required for the production of goods and services consumed locally. Energy used to transport imported goods is also counted, as is the energy that would be required to produce those goods. If the land required exceeds the land locally available, then the country has exceeded its carrying capacity, according to these measurements.

First claiming it's (only) local and then saying it's global, seems pointless. These lines also go astray and unnecessarily restate non-energy aspects of the EF here (materials is not relevant to energy, exceeding capacity). --Belg4mit 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider the ponts here more relevant.[23] Objections to restoral? Ultramarine 17:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I would find something like the following, to replace the first lines of the criticisms section, acceptable (see also the source for a few comments):

The statistical methods employed have been criticized on various grounds, and the calculations also require numerous assumptions, many of which may be questioned.[5] For instance, the use of globally normalized productivity masks myriad local variations [citation of this criticism in use needed] Furthermore, the ecological footprint is often portrayed or conceived of as a single accounting method. However historically, many differences in methodology exist between EF studies conducted by different authorities or at different periods during the evolution and refinement of EF. Some examples are the inclusion of marine fish catches , and the treatment of nuclear power ; due to the fungibility of electricity and the lack of data regarding long term storage [citation needed?], many studies simply consider it to have the same ecological footprint as fossil fuels.

[24] These variations in methodology can make it difficult to compare the results of one ecological footprint analysis with another. The Global Footprint Network and its partners continue to work towards a clear and unified methodology.[25]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Belg4mit (talk • contribs) 19:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. Go ahead and add it to the article. Sunray 07:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you adding citation needed tags to your own statements? Either remove your own statement or give a source. My proposed text was, supported by the source "There are many differences in the methodology used between different EF studies. Examples include if sea area should be counted, how to account for nuclear power (many studies simply consider it to have the same ecological footprint as fossil fuels), data sources used, if average global numbers or local numbers should be used when looking at a specific area, if biodiversity should be included and if so how, and how imports/exports should be accounted for.[26]"Ultramarine 08:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Most have question marks them. They are places where the hypercritical might balk at the simple statements made. I was hoping that you might actually accept this as a reasonable draft rewrite of your (IMHO) incorrect version which had been removed, and contribute any of those citations as needed. More specifically, I know there are indeed statements to these effects somewhere, but I cannot recall in which of the many papers I've read on the subject (probably vanden Bergh and Verbruggen). So why balk at the inclusion of insertion points? I've not placed the text in the article but simply here on the talk page. Did you even read the source of the page/section as indicated?

Doomsday

The WWF:"A moderate business-as-usual scenario, based on United Nations projections of slow, steady growth of economies and populations, suggests that by 2050, humanity’s demand on nature will be twice the biosphere’s productive capacity. At this level of ecological deficit, exhaustion of ecological assets and large-scale ecosystem collapse become increasingly likely."[27]

So it is relevant to mention earlier Doomsday predictions: "Many earlier predictions of resource depletion, such as Thomas Malthus (1798) predictions about this inevitable causing continuing famines in Europe,[28] The Population Bomb (1968),[29][30][31] Limits to Growth (1972),[32][33][34] and the Simon-Ehrlich wager (1980)[35] have been proved false, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically.[36]"

Please explain objections, that EF is not a prediction is not valid since the WWF uses it to make doomsday predictions.Ultramarine 07:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't see the difference between using a tool to make a prediction (one way or another), and the neutrality of the tool? Furthermore, that WWF quote is not included in the article and so there is no need to refute it. The only thing that *might* be acceptable along those lines (if carefully worded, and specific citations were found to avoid original research, but it's still *really* pushing it) is:

critics of EF also claim that it lends itself to doomsday predictions in the tradition of…

Meanwhile, what of my revisions to your previously appended paragraph to criticisms? --Belg4mit 08:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no claim since it is used to make doomsday predicitons. Wikipedia articles includes all views on a topic, including how a concept is used in practice. See above for the other paragraph.Ultramarine 08:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)