Final answer:
The ecological footprint is a measure of the land and water required to support an individual's consumption and waste production, whereas carrying capacity is the number of individuals that can be supported by an area with its resources. The ecological footprint can show how current human lifestyles may exceed the Earth's sustainability if consumption patterns and population growth continue as they are.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that an ecological footprint is essentially the inverse of carrying capacity is true. The ecological footprint measures the amount of land and water required to support an individual's lifestyle in terms of resource use and waste production. On the contrary, carrying capacity refers to the number of individuals that can be sustainably supported by a given area of land (or water) with the available resources.
Considering the definition provided in Environmental Science, the ecological footprint starts from the premise that every category of energy and material consumption, as well as waste discharge, requires the productive or absorptive capacity of a finite area of land or water. When all the land requirements for all categories of consumption and waste discharge by a defined population are totaled, the result is the ecological footprint of that population on Earth.
On the other hand, the carrying capacity is a concept used to estimate the population that can be supported by the environment without long-term damage. The ecological footprint can highlight how current consumption patterns may not be sustainable, especially when compared to the carrying capacity of an area. If the human population continues to grow and consumption patterns do not change, the ecological footprint will increase beyond the Earth's ability to support it, potentially leading to environmental degradation or a population crash.