Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Conclusion
About the Ecological Footprint
of the United States and of Sustainable
Development in General
The language of science tends to separate humanity from its context. At the
beginning of the third millennium, the seriousness of threats to our environment
precludes the continued use of dualistic modes of thought to confront the challenges
of sustainable development as an extension of group identity. We must also
understand where we are, and employ the tools of geography to chart a responsible
course.
Since publication of work by Wackernagel and Rees [WAC 95], the notion of
“ecological footprint” has become key, even if a fashionable “indicator” of
sustainable development, particularly in the United States of America. The concept
is interesting within the context of geography. Unlike economic indicators, an
ecological footprint is not expressed in monetary units, but in “global hectares”
(1 hectare = 2.47 acres). The idea is attractive, but we must first accept that the
regenerative capacity of the biosphere is the limiting factor for human development
over the long term. This implies that the transformation of non-renewable resources
such as fossil fuels is factored into accounting only to the extent that it affects the
integrity of nature and its capacity for self-renewal. The calculation of an ecological
footprint is a form of accounting in which the “supply-side” consists of the sea and
land's biological productivity while human consumption and waste constitute the
“demand-side”. An environment's “biological capacity” includes the reproduction of
renewable resources such as timber, fish and livestock, and the biosphere's capacity
