tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6027281629107900952.post1756318320894652014..comments2023-08-27T11:38:43.875+01:00Comments on Health and global social justice: Royal Society Report: People and the Planetsridhartesthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17420576752143250106noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6027281629107900952.post-49293815832434122092012-04-26T10:34:34.628+01:002012-04-26T10:34:34.628+01:00It's hard to see much new within this report; ...It's hard to see much new within this report; indeed, the Royal Society seems to be coming quite late to the game where the UN Development Programme (and many others) have been quite active.<br /><br />Their criticism (on page 70) of the Ecological Footprint is quite well founded, but they neglect some important criticisms and appear to be working from a very old version of the Ecological Footprint (nuclear energy has been excluded for quite a while). <br /><br />Specifically, they haven't addressed the points that the Ecological Footprint assumes that carbon dioxide transfer into the oceans places zero burden on the planet (contrary to box 4.2 on page 67 of this report). Furthermore, the Ecological Footprint has no predictive power over how long "overconsumption" can be continued (whether that is years, or millenia).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com