SHOULD big countries with a small population be allowed to produce more pollution than smaller ones with more people? Two provocative studies on measuring national “ecological footprints” say they should, and the argument could soon be deployed in talks on a successor to the Kyoto protocol on climate change.
Their rationale is that large countries have more natural vegetation to absorb pollution, and more fields and forests to provide natural resources for the world. So they should be entitled to a larger ecological footprint than small, densely populated countries. That would be good news for the US, Australia, Canada, Russia…
