Talk:Ecological footprint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents 1 Seeking non-biased work on ecological footprint 2 Major changes to the article 3 Can I help? 4 Physiocrats

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Can I help?

I am a researcher at Global Footprint Network, and I would like to contribute to editing this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkearns (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)

[edit] 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)