Talk:Ecological footprint/Archive 1

Archive 1

Discussion

The first paragraph fails as a clear intorduction. There are much better definitions available in the literature that could be used here. whatsmore, previous versions of the first paragraph were based on the literature, yet were edited out, Why so????

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)

A more succinct and comprehensive overview of the GFN ('standard') methodology, with all equations is now available: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/download.php?id=508 For a free academic license for the National Footprint Accounts, seehttp://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/licenses/ —Preceding unsigned comment added byFriedsquirrel (talk •contribs) 08:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)Friedsquirrel (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2009 (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 byJkearns (talk • contribs) --Hardern 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 inThe 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 notneoclassical 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 (andthis 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 ofanthrocentrism 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 Designor 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)

I found some legitimate sources that compare nuclear power to fossil fuels, and I added them to the criticism section. I also added a source that shows the ecological footprint model treats nuclear power the same as coal power. This is a huge flaw in the ecological footprint model. Compared to nuclear power, coal power releases 100 times as much radiation into the atmosphere, and 200 times as much greenhouse gases. Therefore, since the ecological footprint model treats nuclear and coal the same, the model is highly flawed. The ecological footprint model is based on emotion, not fact. I also see that an anonymous user added a false claim that nuclear power was the most danerous form of power, and the user did not cite any source, so I erased it. Anyone who goes by sourced facts instead of emotion will realize that nuclear power is orders of magnitude better for the environment than coal.Grundle2600 (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2008 (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)

{{Portal:Sustainable development/WikiProjects}}

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 Wikipediais 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 asThomas 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."Ultramarine18:47, 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 likephotovoltaics 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 byBelg4mit (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? (Also note that I'd already gone back and filled in one of the three source placeholders) --Belg4mit 08:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:V, it is the person inserting claims that have to provide the sources. What was wrong with my text which followed the source closely? Unless some conrete objections I will restore it.Ultramarine 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

That was a hypothetical statement. Regardless, without a claim there is no criticism and it's just original research/your own crusade against EF. Please read more carefully. i.e; Simply because it is used by some to make predictions *is not a problem*. The only thing which would warrant mentioning is if someone has speficially griped about the EF making it easy to make (potentially false, etc.) predictions such as blah blah blah. And even then, forecasting by applying the EF to a UN population model is not a prediction. It is simply an estimation of what things are likely to be like, as best as we can tell, were things to continue. A prediction in the sense denigrated by the critics of prior "doomsdayings" is saying that things *will be that way* (as opposed to could be) --Belg4mit 08:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC) & Belg4mit 08:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it probably sounds like I'm mincing words above, but I realized why this is. To clarify, when you say "doomsday" and "prediction" I hear "prophecy" which has a decidely different connotation than the more estimate-like form of a prediction in the realms of science. --Belg4mit20:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Belg4mit has made some important points, IMO. Ultramarine's edits on both this and theSustainability article show a very strong POV (which is not necessarily a bad thing in itself— we all have a POV, after all). However, when coupled with limited knowledge of the subject matter, on the part of the writer, there is a need to be careful not to make edits that are not well-supported by references. The number of times citations have been added that do not state a point either for, or against, the subject (in this case EF) is excessive. If you want to add criticism to the article, Ultramarine, it is absolutely necessary to find citations that actually make the argument. To fail to do that constitutes original research, as I have tried to point out on more than one occasion. So no, Belg4mit, I don't think that you are mincing words, just explaining how it is. Sunray 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you denying that people are using the EF to make predictions about coming resource depletion?Ultramarine 14:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The analyses are based on a number of variables: If this and this, happen, the result will be this. Thus they are not predictions. Merely observations based on the analysis. It is science, not necromancy. Sunray 20:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Science makes prediction, not prophecies. Are you arguing that EF is not based on science?Ultramarine 09:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims

"Ecological footprint analysis approximates", that is incorrect, it is a controversial attempt to this, not a proved law. Obviously this and similar text should be changed to something like "Ecological footprint is an attempt to approximate". Objections and if so why? Ultramarine14:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in the least bit controversial, since the method was published over a decade ago and is well-accepted in the field of Ecological Economics. The analysis doesn't attempt to do something, itdoes it. Those who would dispute it must point to reputable, peer reviewed studies that dispute the findings. If you have such studies at hand, by all means include them and adjust the wording.Sunray 20:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are already several such studies in the criticisms section. So it is not an undisputed concept and should thus not be described as thus. Remember npov.Ultramarine 08:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I will take a closer look at those studies. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "remember npov." This is, after all, an article about EF. Criticism must be dealt with in proportion to its significance. Sunray 09:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means that the views of both sides should be included. That article includes the view that EF means that there will be resource depletion, so npov requires mentioning also opposing views.Ultramarine 17:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could take another look at the section of the policy that deals with undue weight. That has been part of the basis for my concern about your approach. I now suspect that you haven't looked carefully at that section, or perhaps haven't looked at it for sometime. As the policy states: "The article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." As I said, I will take a look at the studies in question. Meanwhile, perhaps you could come to terms with whatWP:NPOV actually says. Sunray 19:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly a problem with undue weight, in that the article mentions clams of resource depletion, but not opposing views.Ultramarine 19:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking at Malthus's predictions we find that they were proved right in Ireland with the potato famine. The reason why the famines did not occur in England as predicted was largely due to the opening up of the Canadian and US prairies for wheat, and the Argentine pampas for beef, together with a rial network that allowed food to be carried further. This process has continued so that today strawberries come from Chile in midwinter. Effectively the Malthusian trap was escaped by one of two methods.

- Take more land into cultivation

- Increase yields per acre

Both are dependent upon a positive and growing EROI. When you get declining returns on the EROI, escaping the Malthusian trap becomes difficult unless new sources of energy are quickly found and put in place. The Malthusian argument is the basis of Natural Selection and Biological Evolution, it has never been disproven. It is the basis of population dynamics in biology, and applies for all species on the planet - humans included. John D. Croft 02:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Living Planet Index

Living Planet Index is already linked in the body; as the related/quasi-synonymous, better-known Living Planet Report. wp style guide indicates that an article should not be multiply linked. --Belg4mit 19:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot03:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Recently Ultramarine has added material to the article in two sections: "Methodology" (a new section added by him) and "Criticism." The additions are poorly written and do not use reliable sources. I am challenging these additions. There has been previous discussion on this page about these changes. Two editors (one being me) have objected to the additions. Thus there is no consensus to add this material. Sunray 16:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything is sourced. Exactly what is objectionable? Ultramarine 16:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your main source for the "Methodology" section is weak. Who (besides him) says that this is the "methodology" of EFA? The sources he relies on are unverifiable. Sunray 16:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I see four different sources in the material you deleted in this section alone and more in other sections also deleted. If you are arguing that something is misssing, then add it with a source.Ultramarine 17:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It seem to me that you are basing your review of methodology on a paper by Dubois et. al. titled "ECO-MALTHUSIANS AND PHÉROLOGISTS." Or have I missed something? Sunray 17:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Even if you disagree with this particular source, why did you delete material from at least 8 other sources? Regarding Dubois et. al., exactly what is your objection? There is no requirement that a statement should have two or three or four different sources. One is enough. If you have another sourced view, add it.Ultramarine 17:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If you could just respond to my question, I would be most grateful. All of our discussions in the past have not resulted in much of benefit to the article. So let's just deal with one problem at a time. I asked you if you were basing your understanding of methodology on that one source. Can you confirm that? Sunray 17:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this particular section that you deleted completely had 4 different sources, some quoted several times.Ultramarine 17:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that only one of those citations is properly formatted, you seem to be giving undue weight to the Dubois paper. This is a major concern, because Dubois and his colleagues are critics of EFA and espouse a particular POV. There needs to be a great deal more weight given to what people working on EFA say about methodology and findings. It seems to me that you are attempting to attack EFA and are using this "Methodology" section to establish your platform. The problem seems to be that you do not know very much about EFA and apparently have difficulty distinguishing reliable sources. Then when other editors try to point out problems with your edits/sources, you do not accept what they are saying. Or have I read you wrong? Sunray 17:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Spare me the ad hominem. If you disagree with minor formatting of sources, then fix this and do not delete the whole section. If you think material is missing for balance or that a source is mistating something, then add sourced material. I have added sourced material. You have not, only given unsourced and unverifiable claims. Do you have something sourced that should be added or contradict anything in the sourced material? Ultramarine 17:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ultramarine: Here's the thing: I am talking about you and what you are trying to do with this article. There is good reason for this. So far on this page you have argued at great length with Belg4mit and me over sources. As s/he pointed out, you do not know very much about this topic, but youdo have a very strong POV. It seems clear that you are trying to do a hatchet-job on Ecological Footprint Analysis. Criticism would be welcomed, but ill-informed hacking is not. It is very time consuming to have to go through each of your "sources" (most of which have proved to beunreliable) and then try to explain to you why they are substandard. You do not seem prepared to accept anything that anyone else points out to you, and do not seem to be able to work collaboratively on the article. If I have to once more go through your sources, it would be nice to have some assurance that my time will not be wasted in pointless arguments with you. That is where I am at with this. Sunray 17:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, spare me the ad hominem, that is not a valid line or argument. Please state, with sources, any missing information or factual errors. If there are any, then this should obviously be fixed.Ultramarine 08:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

With respect to "ad hominem," I am not attacking you: merely calling you to account for your behavior in editing this article. Do you deny the truth of anything I have said? If so, please say so now. I would not wish to misjudge you.

I will provide you with comments only if you will agree to deal with them in a serious manner. I do not wish to argue. In cases where I have provided detailed objections, I will remove material that is poorly written and sources that are inappropriate. Sunray 09:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have sources for your claims, then these should of course be incorporated in the article. Ad hominem is uninteresting.Ultramarine 11:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

While it is, no doubt, appealing to be able to use Latin terms such as ad hominem, the fact is that there are policies that provide direction to editors. The policies set out standards that introduce a measure of accountability for one's actions on this project. -- Sunray(talk) 19:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

First problem: Malthus (again)

You evade my concerns. However, they are based on lengthy discussions with you on this page. You have again added this paragraph to the article:

Many earlier predictions of resource depletion, such as Thomas Malthus (1798) predictions about this inevitable causing continuing famines in Europe,[37] The Population Bomb (1968),[38][39][40]Limits to Growth (1972),[41][42][43]and the Simon-Ehrlich wager (1980)[44] have been proved false, one reason being that advancements in technology and science have continually allowed previously unavailable resources to be utilized economically.[45].

I am once again moving this material here. Simply put: this paragraph is original research. You have taken your idea and found citations that support it. The citations do not refer to Ecological Footprint. Thus they can hardly be used as "criticisms" of EF. This has all been said before—on this page. Sunray (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point but be sure to apply the same standard to arguments from both sides.Ultramarine (talk) 06:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Sunray (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Second problem: Methodology reference

I have removed the following paragraph based on Dubois et. al.'s summary of EF methodology from the section on methodology in the article:

"For the carbon footprint, three methods have been considered:

"1. The main method is the Carbon Dioxide Emissions method, which looks at how much area needs to be set aside for sequestring the portion of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning which is not absorbed by oceans."

"2. A second method looks at fossil fuel replacement. This attempts to calculate how much land under crops would be required to make the amount of ethanol that would correspond to the amounts of fossil fuels burned."

"3. A third method attempts to account for the consumption of fossil fuels in terms of productive land of former times, such as the forested land that produced coal during the carboniferous era. It attempts to estimate the amount of land that would have been necessary to produce these fossil fuels in former times." [46]

This quotation is problematic for a number of reasons:

1. It purports to describe EF methodology, but is not a primary source (i.e., the product of someone working with that methodology).
2. It incorrectly uses this citation on which it apparently basis its conclusion. The citation does not correspond to the summary given by Dubois and his colleagues.
3. I can find no primary source that confirms the use of the "Carbon Dioxide Emissions method", the "fossil fuel replacement" method (the amount of ethanol equivalent to the fossil fuels burned) or a method based on "the consumption of fossil fuels in terms of productive land of former times."
4. The primary references on methodology cited in the article, summarized inthis citation do not correspond in any way to the summary given by Dubois & Co.

For these reasons I am opposed to using this paragraph in the article. Sunray (talk) 07:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a source supporting your claims? Otherwise it is WP:OR which is not allowed.Ultramarine (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point. I have given my reasons why this material is unacceptable. Essentially I am stating that it is not a reliable source. I have indicated a fundamental error that the source makes (see my point #2, above). Moreover, the source is not from a publication with editorial oversight. Therefore, I am challenging the source in accordance with WP:V#Questionable sources. Please address my concerns before restoring that material to the article. Sunray (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is another source describing two of these methods.[47] Regardless, seem to be undue weight on this particular aspect of the calculation, so I agree that this can be removed and the next paragraph instead somewhat expanded.Ultramarine (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Water footprint

On December 3 2007, the Radio Four programme You and Yours discussed how much water we use, and mentioned that this is to be known as our "water footprint",similar to our carbon footprint. Should this go in the article? ACEOREVIVED 21:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Water Footprint is a measure distinct from Ecological Footprint - it attempts to measure total water requirements for various products or populations. To my knowledge, no widely used Ecological Footprint methodologies currently take water usage into account (consequently the section of this article referring to the Ecological Footprint's treatment of water scarcity should be removed) The Ecological Footprint does not address availability or use of water. Friedsquirrel (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Malthus

I removed some text that had been added to the lead referring to Thomas Malthus, but failing to make any link to EF. John D. Croft then re-inserted the text with this topic sentence: "The ecological footprint was developed as an attempt to quantify the concept of carrying capacity which was first developed fromThomas Maltus's "An Essay on the Principle of Population." If this is a factual statement, it shouldn't be hard to find a citation that confirms it. I've removed the text until such time as areliable and verifiable source is found to support it. Sunray (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated image

Have replaced the image with an updated one based on 2008 reports:

• human development and ecological footprint
• 
  new version
• 
  old version

--Travelplanner (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)