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? The ecological footprint is likely to overestimate the future natural capital needs of the planet.
The ecological footprint is likely to estimate the future natural capital needs of the planet correctly.
There is no cause for concern because human population growth is not correlated with the global ecological footprint.
The ecological footprint is likely to underestimate the future natural capital needs of the planet.
There is no cause for concern because human population growth is not correlated with the global ecological footprint.
Explanation:
The methodology of the ecological footprint is very wrong in that that it ignores the growth of the human population. The human population is not static in its numbers, and over the past century it increased significantly. Despite the slower growth nowadays, the population is still going up, and each individual should be taken into consideration for the ecological footprint because everyone has influence over it. If this is totally ignored, than the results and projections will be very misguiding and wrong, so it is an issue that has to be addressed so that the problem can be solved on the basis on correct and reliable data.
With the water underneath and no wind or ice underneath(unless the water freezes) the water would rub against the dirt, rock, and limestone, eroding and burning away, only to be left with a cave of limestone.
