You are right, the WWF report puts the US second in per capita footprint. The United Arab Emirates is first, mostly because of CO2 emissions. It's also, if I'm not mistaken, one of the richest countries in the world.

The US still far and away has the biggest footprint. For one thing, it has 300 million people, whereas the UAE has only 3 million people.

Now, I still don't get your logic behind assessing footprint by GDP. One thing you will find in the report is that higher income nations have a bigger footprint across the board. The more money there is, the more goods will be bought and sold, and the more resources must be consumed to do so.

Even if you play with the numbers, the footprint (the amount of resources consumed) remains the same. By assessing GDP you are showing that some countries are more efficient at producing wealth from the resources they consume. You are not showing that they have a smaller footprint.

Am I wrong? Please explain that a little better.

You accuse the WWF of a lack of scientific rigor in their report. What alternative assessments can you provide?