"it's opposed to effective, rich people, and gives better scores to nations stuffed to the brim with poor people."

Oh really? Look again. China has a similar footprint to the US. The point is not that China is a better environmental citizen. Any fool can look at the data and see that a country with a billion people that has the same footprint as a country with 300 million people is a serious problem now and will be an even more serious problem in the future. Where in the report does it state that China is somehow "better" than the US because their per capita score is lower? This is not an IQ test, it's a measure of the state of the environment.

"that was not the focus of the WWF report. there were two focusses. one was footprint *per capita* (and by country), not total footprint. the other focus was biodiversity."

Once again, we are using two different definitions of words here. Your use of the word "focus" is something that the report uses to analyze data. When I say focus, I'm talking about the general conclusion of the report. Perhaps my use of the word focus was in error. I apologize.

Also, note that the report analyzes consumption per capita, per region, per country, and by wealth.

Here's the conclusion, quoted from the foreward:

"The Living Planet Report 2006 confirms that we are using the planet’s resources faster than they can be renewed – the latest data available (for 2003)indicate that humanity’s Ecological Footprint, our impact upon the planet, has more than tripled since 1961. Our footprint now exceeds the world’s ability to regenerate by about 25 per cent."

Pointing out that richer countries consume more is not the same as attacking the rich countries. The report is merely pointing out the basic facts.

Look, I don't want this to turn into a 'you're wrong no you're wrong' kind of debate. I think that the idea that economics are fundamentally opposed to the environment is a bad idea for economics and for the environment. I'd like this to be a discussion, not a political debate.

That said, if you can point out some kind of proof that the WWF has an ideological agenda, or that their science is seriously flawed, by all means, do so.