Ecological footprinting implies that trade is bad. How are highly populous countries or communities meant to survive?
The ecological footprint does not condemn trade. It merely makes ecological trade imbalances visible. We believe that the world is more likely to be a sustainable place if every region lives within its own carrying capacity. This does not mean that it must live only on local products, but that the footprint of its imports should be similar to the footprint of its exports. If we can only consume up to the capacity of the region, there is much more direct and immediate feedback to the scale of our economy. Otherwise it becomes easy to put the cost on distant elsewheres. Kirkpatrick Sale compared this view with the icemaking tray. Without the divisions in the tray, carrying water becomes hazardous with the tray, the water is more stable. Similarly, if we have to live within our ecological capacity (and still can have ecologically balanced trade with other regions) the overall effect would be global stability. [ back to the top ] Question 17 The ecological footprint does not appear to reco
Related Questions
- Does ecological theory successfully predict how freshwater plankton communities respond to and recover from perturbation?
- Ecological footprinting implies that trade is bad. How are highly populous countries or communities meant to survive?
- What did jeffereson issue to stop trade with all foreign countries?
