Why Ecological Footprint Analysis Is Flawed

It’s common knowledge that we would currently need 1.7 Earths to sustain ourselves. It’s clear to understand why: we are using far more resources and releasing immeasurably more pollution than what could be regenerated or absorbed by Nature. We are by definition in ecological overshoot territory. OK, but how did we get to this number? Is it based on realistic assumptions about what is actually sustainable? First, let’s take a look at the <a href="https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/abouttheData" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">definition</a> of the very ecological footprint in discussion, posted on the <a href="https://www.footprintnetwork.org/" rel="noopener ugc nofollow" target="_blank">Global Footprint Network</a>, a think tank responsible for “Advancing the Science of Sustainability”. See if you could spot some of the flawed assumptions: <a href="https://thehonestsorcerer.medium.com/why-ecological-footprint-analysis-is-flawed-cdc3202c48f4">Website</a>