Since the UNCED‘s call for the creation of sustainability indicators many such have been put forth in the literature. One of the more successful ones, in terms of popularity, is the Ecological Footprint (EF). Much criticism has been directed at the EF, not least the carbon uptake component (CF). The CF typically makes up around 50% of global EF and is the sole cause for its overshot – i.e. results indicating unsustainable consumption. The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of the data used for the calculation of CF. The study finds that the data is lacking in accuracy to the point that stating that CF or EF is any given number at any given time is misleading. The reasons for this uncertainty are identified as use of estimates and averages for the calculations as well as discrepancy between data collected locally and data from international databanks. CF or EF results should thus always be prefaced with caveats regarding the uncertainty involved in the estimation. The lack of caveats in EF dissemination is worrying and has led to the most serious criticism of the method to date, that of it fulfilling the criteria for pseudo-science for failing to disclose uncertainties in calculations and results. This study suggests that the reason for this failure may be traced to the Global Footprint Network (GFN) being both a think tank actively promoting the use of EF, and the world’s largest research unit into the methodology. This can lead to uncertainties being down played in dissemination not to confuse current users of the method or dissuade new ones. The study further raises questions about the accuracy of GHG estimates in general since they are often based on the same IPCC default emission factors and activity data as used by the GFN.

自从联合国环境与发展会议呼吁建立可持续性指标以来，文献中已经提出了许多这样的指标。就受欢迎程度而言，最成功的方法之一是生态足迹（EF）。人们对EF提出了很多批评，尤其是碳吸收成分（CF）。CF通常占全球EF的50％左右，并且是碳排放超标的唯一原因-即结果表明消费不可持续。这项研究的目的是评估用于计算CF的数据的准确性。研究发现，数据的准确性不足，以至于指出CF或EF在任何给定时间都是任何给定的数字是令人误解的。确定这种不确定性的原因是使用估计值和平均值进行计算，以及本地收集的数据与国际数据库的数据之间存在差异。因此，CF或EF结果始终应加注有关估计中不确定性的警告。EF传播缺乏注意事项令人担忧，并导致了迄今为止对该方法的最严重的批评，即该方法满足了伪科学的标准，因为它未能披露计算和结果的不确定性。这项研究表明，导致失败的原因可能是全球足迹网络（GFN）既是积极推广EF的智囊团，也是该方法学中全球最大的研究部门。这可能会导致传播过程中的不确定性被淡化，从而不会混淆当前使用该方法的用户或劝阻新方法。这项研究进一步提出了有关温室气体估算准确性的问题，因为它们通常基于与全球气候变化框架使用的相同的IPCC默认排放因子和活动数据。