Time to reevaluate the ecological footprint debate? 

Summarised by the Centrist 

The “ecological footprint” (EF) coined by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees has ruffled feathers, being criticised as fundamentally flawed, oversimplified, and leaning heavily into pessimism. It paints a grim future, suggesting an impending ecological collapse, which ultimately necessitates coercive population control measures. 

Furthermore, in “Correction, coercion, or collapse”, Alex Trembath writes that while the EF concept holds valid concerns about overconsumption and environmental degradation, it might be underestimating our technological prowess and adaptability.

Some staunch EF supporters argue for a drastic population reduction to save civilization, suggesting numbers as low as 100 million. But is this perspective too rigid and catastrophic? There’s signs this sort of thinking is starting to go out of fashion with the environmental movement. 

It may be time to reevaluate whether popular frameworks in environmentalism, like EF, are too gloomy.  

Read more over at The Breakthrough Institute

Image: Parradee

Enjoyed this story? Share it around.​

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Read More

NEWS STORIES

Sign up for our free newsletter

Receive curated lists of news links and easy-to-digest summaries from independent, alternative and mainstream media about issues affect New Zealanders.

GRAHAM ADAMS: Trans ‘No Debate’ policy collapses

If you want to attack anyone for what you and a few of your fellow ideological travellers see as doctrinal error, you really shouldn’t make your target the grieving parents of a child who died alone of starvation in a motel room.

GRAHAM ADAMS: Trans ‘No Debate’ policy collapses

If you want to attack anyone for what you and a few of your fellow ideological travellers see as doctrinal error, you really shouldn’t make your target the grieving parents of a child who died alone of starvation in a motel room.