One criticism of the ecological footprint methodology is that it ignores human population growth. If this criticism is correct,
which of the following statements would also be true? a. There is no cause for concern because human population growth is not correlated with the global ecological footprint.
b. The ecological footprint is likely to overestimate the future natural capital needs of the planet.
c. The ecological footprint is likely to estimate the future natural capital needs of the planet correctly.
d. The ecological footprint is likely to underestimate the future natural capital needs of the planet.
a. There is no cause for concern because human population growth is not correlated with the global ecological footprint
Explanation:
The global ecological footprint needs to use as precise methodology as possible. The reason why it has to have very prices methodology is so that the data is the best possible, and once the data is presenting the reality, than the problem can be addressed adequately and a proper and an efficient solution can be constructed. By ignoring the growth of the human population, the methodology practically suggests that the human are not related to the global ecological footprint, which is not true. The human population is actually the one that has the biggest ecological footprint, so the changes in the population always have to be taken in consideration, as without it there can not be a proper response because of the false data.
They became endangered due to massive illegal poaching. They are hunted for their extremely soft, light and warm underfur which is usually obtained after death.
British astronomer William Herschel discovered Uranus accidentally on March 13, 1781, with his telescope while surveying all stars down to those about 10 times dimmer than can be seen by the naked eye....and estimation of its formation is about 4.6 billion years ago...
