I have to admit I was happy to see that charm can still get you something in the world today.  The footprint is a great way to introduce folks to sustainability.  However, I am worried that the push for standards in the footprint world is premature given the problems with the science that have been discussed at length in the lit, i.e. Ecological Economics. But never mind, lets make the blurry bleak picture of our ecological footprint the status-quo --as prince charming suggests, apparently, with great effect and interest at stake . . . .

Umbra--though usually right on--misses the point when it comes to education/income and footprints. It's very easy to minimize your footprint if you live in the city (preferably an energy efficient apt. building), take public transportation to work (or even work from home), and still manage to purchase locally grown/organic food (often found in more expensive supermarkets). Income has a lot to do with a person's footprint. For instance, whether or not you can even afford the expensive rents of a city, or even the cost of public transportation hinges on income. In my case, there are commuter buses I could take to work, but it's actually quite expensive, as they're the ones that also take folks to the airport. While I don't work in the city, I do work in an expensive part of the world, and can't afford to live close by. I purchased the best car I could that was most efficient (an Echo), but couldn't afford the 4x higher pricetag of a hybrid, with minimal mileage improvement. I buy local foods when I can--usually in the summer from farmer's markets--and cannot always afford to buy organic foods. My home is modestly sized for the area (where many places are knocked down for McMansions). I have a housemate but no children, so I don't have as many people banging around my house than if I contributed to population growth.

While we all need to be responsible for our own actions, the design of our cities and towns need to be reevaluated--and where possible, changed. I lived in England for a year, and never owned a car. I didn't need one to get to work or the supermarket. But our system of highways--while very convenient--make it dangerous, if not impossible to walk or bike to work or the store. Holding our local, state and federal governments responsible for this sprawl is necessary. And hopefully the idea of more cohousing (which Umbra also covered recently) will catch on as well.

     While the idea of a footprint is not all bad (it helps us measure the impact of various choices on the environment), I do have one major problem with it.
     It is not only individuals that consume and produce waste.  Corporations, unions, governments, schools, museums, churches and all other institutions also make decisions about consumption patterns.
     Assigning all consumption to individuals misses the impact of institutions.  For instance, the US military is a major polluter.  Look at the use of radioactive ammunition, and landmines.  These are major environmental problems that cannot be assigned to individuals.
     Yes, we need to clean up our individual acts, but let's not forget the choices institutions of all types make.