Editing I = PAT (section)

===Neglect of political and social contexts===
Another major criticism of the I=PAT model is that it ignores the political context and decision-making structures of countries and groups. This means the equation does not account for varying degrees of power, influence, and responsibility of individuals over environmental impact.<ref name=moseley242/> Also, the P factor does not account for the complexity of social structures or behaviors, resulting in blame being placed on the global poor.<ref name=moseley242/> I=PAT does not account for sustainable resource use among some poor and indigenous populations, unfairly characterizing these populations whose cultures support low-impact practices.<ref name=moseley242/> However, it has been argued that the latter criticism not only assumes low impacts for indigenous populations, but also misunderstands the I=PAT equation itself. Environmental impact is a function of human numbers, affluence (i.e., resources consumed per capita) and technology. It is assumed that small-scale societies have low environmental impacts due to their practices and orientations alone but there is little evidence to support this.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Primitive polluters: Semang impact on the Malaysian tropical rain forest ecosystem |last=Rambo |first=A. Terry |date=1985 |publisher=Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan |isbn=0-915703-04-1 |location=Ann Arbor, MI. |oclc=13516436}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=The ecological Indian: myth and history |last=Krech |first=Shepard III |date=1999 |publisher=W.W. Norton & Co |isbn=0-393-32100-2 |edition=1st |location=New York |oclc=40762824 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/ecologicalindian0000krec }}</ref> In fact, the generally low impact of small-scale societies compared to state societies is due to a combination of their small numbers and low-level technology. Thus, the [[environmental sustainability]] of these societies is largely an [[epiphenomenon]] due their ''inability'' to significantly affect their environment.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Smith|first1=Eric Alden|last2=Wishnie|first2=Mark|date=2000|title=Conservation and Subsistence in Small-Scale Societies|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=29|issue=1|pages=493–524|doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.29.1.493|s2cid=7165162}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hames|first=Raymond|date=2007|title=The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate|journal=Annual Review of Anthropology|volume=36|issue=1|pages=177–190 |doi=10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123321|s2cid=13982607|url=https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/anthropologyfacpub/177 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Samways |first=David |date=2023 |title=Anthropocentrism, Ecocentrism and Hunter-Gatherer Societies: A Strong Structurationist Approach to Values and Environmental Change |journal=Environmental Values |volume=32 |issue=2 |pages=131–150|doi=10.3197/096327122X16491521047062 |s2cid=250227342 }}</ref> That all types of societies are subject to I=PAT was actually made clear in Ehrlich and Holdren's 1972 dialogue with Commoner in ''The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists'',<ref name=BAS1/> where they examine the pre-industrial (and indeed prehistoric) impact of human beings on the environment. Their position is further clarified by Holdren's 1993 paper, ''A Brief History of "IPAT"''.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Holdren |first=John |date=2018-05-30 |title=A brief history of "IPAT" (impact = population x affluence x technology) |language=en-US |work=The Journal of Population and Sustainability |doi=10.3197/jps.2018.2.2.66 |url=https://doi.org/10.3197/jps.2018.2.2.66. |access-date=2023-06-21 }}</ref>