I spend a lot of time at work talking about ecological footprinting, a tool which tells us that Europeans need to reduce our resource consumption by two thirds to avoid ecological collapse.

The great thing about the tool is that it makes complicated issues simple to understand, and by illustrating the areas of our lifestyle that have the largest impact it's also really empowering. Knowing that well over half my ecological footprint is due to choices I make about my food, goods and transport needs means I can make a big difference without needing to persuade my landlord to properly insulate the house. It also provides a scientific basis for telling nations and companies that putting up a few wind turbines and switching to bio-diesel really isn't sustainable. But the drawback comes from this simplicity - isn't it just oversimplifying issues? It's always a worry I have with any political issue, because a bad argument can have really adverse affects, as with the food miles debate.

Last Monday I took part in a detailed two-day workshop on ecological footprinting, which was great because we really got into the science of the tool and its limitations. I feel much happier using the tool now, -- along with other ways of assessing environmental and social impact -- and so wrote up my notes for anyone else who's interested in the topic. I hope they make sense, let me know if they don't!