Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
Relative to its population, the ecological footprint of the United States is
considerable. If other, more populous countries of the world, particularly China and
India, were ever to attain the same level of environmental impact as recorded in the
US today, humanity would require 4.6 Planet Earths to sustain consumption and
sequester or otherwise recycle pollution. It is possible to discuss these orders of
magnitude, while some even try to discredit the concept. However, the intensity of
global warming in the late 20th century is proof that, overall, the production of
greenhouse gases caused by fossil fuel consumption by far exceeds the world's
natural carrying capacity.
In general, it is the richer countries who have the largest per capita ecological
footprint defined in global hectares (gha) per capita, meaning that development and
population growth in emerging countries pose a serious challenge to sustainable
development (see Table 10.2). The US has the worst position among developed
countries, except for two small and heavily urbanized countries (Singapore and the
United Arab Emirates).
Biological
carrying
capacity
(gha/inh.)
Overshooting
index
(100 =
equilibrium)
Ecological
footprint
(gha/inh.)
GDP per capita
($) 2005
Country
Singapore
27,842.
11.23
0.03
37,400.
United Arab
Emirates
24,213.
9.46
1.08
876.
United States
43,743.
9.42
5.02
188.
Kuwait
23,423.
8.89
0.53
1,677.
Denmark
47,363.
8.04
5.70
141.
Australia
32,170.
7.81
15.42
50.
New Zealand
25,942.
7.70
14.06
55.
Canada
32,546.
7.07
20.05
35.
Table 10.2.
The first eight countries in the world ranked
according to their per capita ecological footprint [EWI 08]
