Learning goals

The participants…

• learn about the concept of the ecological footprint.
• are encouraged to critically reflect on their personal footprint and the focus on individual consumption in sustainability debates
• establish the connection between the ecological footprint and global justice issues. They reflect on their own needs and ideas of justice in this context.
• recognize opportunities for action and approaches to make society and the economy more sustainable.

Procedure

Preparation

The facilitator familiarizes themselves with the concept of the ecological footprint. To that aim, they read the background text for facilitators, do the footprint test themselves and watch the video. The video is in English. Subtitles in German can be added and the speed can be adjusted if necessary (see Tips and notes for facilitators)

For the third point, the facilitator selects four to six countries on the Global Footprint Network website https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/ and notes their per capita footprint. It is suggested to choose countries with very different footprints.

Implementation

1. Input (5 minutes)

In a short input, the facilitator first introduces the ecological footprint as a method of measuring human consumption of natural resources. This is based on the background text for facilitators (see downloadable material). It is useful to simply to clarify the basics of the measurement of the ecological footprint at the beginning. For the following part, it is important that the participants know the average global footprint (2022: 2.6 gha), the average footprint in Germany (2022: 4.5 gha) and the average available biocapacity (2022: 1.5 gha). These three figures should be visualized on the pinboard to keep them present for further work. Questions of understanding should be clarified immediately.

2. Footprint calculation (35 minutes)

The participants calculate their personal ecological footprint and critically examine the concept of the ecological footprint. They use the footprint test from Global footprint network. To do this, they scan the printed QR code with their mobile devices (see download material) and click through the areas of nutrition, living, mobility and consumption independently. After each step, they receive a final result which also shows their personal ecological footprint compared to the average footprint in different countries and compared to the global biocapacity. The collective footprint, i.e. the ecological consumption caused by the overall infrastructure in a country, independent of personal consumption, is also indicated.

Immediately afterwards, the facilitator explains that there is also criticism of the concept of the ecological footprint and shows a short video (excerpt from: DW “Why Big Oil loves to talk about your carbon footprint” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqZVCEnY-Us minute 0:00-03:14) about this. The video is in English, with German subtitles.

The results of the footprint test and the information from the video are then evaluated together. The following questions can be used for this:

• How did you feel when answering the questions?
• Are you surprised by your result?
• Why do you think your personal footprint is so big or so small?
• Which aspects of the footprint could you change and where do you actually have no influence? What possibilities do you see to reduce the collective footprint?
• Can everyone in Germany and globally make the same adjustments or are there differences?
• In the video, the protagonist asks himself: “Should I feel guilty about my ecological footprint? Or are these demands for personal sacrifice just a distraction from real solutions for the climate?” What do you think about this question?

3. Global Comparison (10-15 minutes)

In the next step, the participants look at the global comparison of the ecological footprints of different countries.

To do this, a line is first marked on the floor with masking tape or chalk that offers enough space for all participants to position themselves on it without any problems. Based on the average global footprint (2018: 2.8 gha), the participants should now estimate the size of the footprints of different countries. One end of the line stands for “much larger than the average global footprint”, the other end for “much smaller than the average global footprint”. The range can vary from country to country (for the USA, it is more appropriate to set the poles at “more than four times as large” and “as large as the average global footprint”).

The facilitator names a country and the participants line up on the marked line according to their estimations. After the participants have positioned themselves, they can justify their estimation before the actual size of the countries’ footprints is resolved. It is suggested to make line-ups for a maximum of six countries.

4. Evaluation (10-15 minutes)

The following questions can be used for the evaluation:

• What does a look at the ecological footprint help us to do? What information can it give us? What information can’t it give us?
• What is the difference between the personal footprint and the national footprint? Which do you think is more meaningful?
• Which countries have a particularly large footprint? How can this be explained?
• Do you see a connection between the level of material wealth and the size of the Footprint?
• The national footprint says nothing about which population groups in a country contribute to the footprint and to what extent. What differences do you think there are?
• Where do you see connections between the ecological footprint and economic growth?
• What are the possible consequences for our economy if we want to live within the Earth’s limits in the future?

4. Closing (20-30 minutes)

At the end of this unit, the participants can collect their own ideas and recommendations for reducing the ecological footprint in Germany. The focus should not be on individual consumer choices, but on (civil) society ideas and political measures that contribute to reducing the ecological footprint of the entire population. To this end, small groups are formed to make a bullet point list of their recommendations on posters and then present them to the large group.

Variations

The method is very extensive and takes a long time to complete. If there is not enough time during an educational session, the method can be shortened by leaving out individual parts of it.

For example, the focus can be placed either on the personal footprint and the criticism of it (1. and 2.), or on the country comparison and the major differences between countries of the Global North and countries of the Global South (1. and 3.). If all participants have only recently taken the footprint test, 2. can be skipped. The collection of ideas for reducing the footprint (4.) can be skipped in this method if another solution- or action-oriented method is used, e.g. “Building another world”, “Who can change things?”.

Digital version

The method can also be used in digital format with the following adjustments:

• 1. and 2. can be applied as described above. The video can be shown via “share screen”, or the participants receive the link via the chat and watch the video individually.
• 3. global comparison of ecological footprints of different countries: The participants are divided into small groups of 3-4 people and given access to the Footprint Network website: https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/. The facilitator can also briefly show the page via “Share screen”. The participants are given the task of finding two countries as a group whose Footprint is below the sustainable average of biocapacity (as of 2024: 1.6 gha), two countries that are around the average, and two countries that are significantly above it. Back in the large group, the groups each present the countries they have found. The group then goes into a joint evaluation.
• 4. ideas for reducing the ecological footprint: At the end of the unit, the participants can brainstorm their ideas for reducing the footprint in Germany in an online word cloud tool. To do this, the facilitator shares the appropriate link and the participants type all their ideas into the tool. The participants then see everyone’s ideas in a word cloud and can discuss them briefly.

Tips and notes for facilitators

Video instructions:

The video is in English. To add subtitles, click on the “Settings” icon → Subtitles → Automatically translate → choose language. Click on the “Subtitles” icon to show the subtitles. The relevant section for the method is from minute 0:00 to minute 3:14.

The video is also very fast. Depending on the target group, it may be a good idea to reduce the playback speed to 0.75. To do this, click on the symbol for “Settings” → Playback speed → 0.75.

The footprint is a good way to visualize the consumption of ecological resources and thus make it useful for educational work. At the same time, the footprint is a very complex method of measurement. It is therefore advisable for facilitators to deal with the topic in more detail and to read the background text (see downloadable material) for facilitators in depth.

With this method, it is particularly important to ensure that the participants also critically examine the personal footprint and its history. When calculating the personal footprint, it should be ensured that there are no extreme comparative situations between participants or that individual participants are put on display. The method requires an awareness of the fact that individually sustainable behavior is often only possible with privileges. For example, taking the train is usually more expensive than flying. Organic and regional food from direct production is often more expensive than conventional food from the supermarket. Similarly, the question of reducing air travel is a completely different one for people whose family lives on another continent. At the same time, the method only partially reveals that the population group most responsible for greenhouse gas emissions is rich people. Poor and structurally discriminated people contribute far less to the average ecological footprint of a country. The focus on individual consumer behavior in the sustainability debate can therefore reproduce classist discrimination (= devaluation and exclusion based on social background or class). It is therefore important to raise awareness of the dimension of social inequality among the participants, particularly in the evaluation.

Greater individual awareness of sustainable consumption makes sense, but is by no means enough to really reduce greenhouse gas emissions on a large scale. The biggest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in Germany are the energy sector, industry and transport. Individuals can only have a very limited influence on these sectors. When it comes to ways to reduce the footprint, it is therefore important that the participants do not just stick to individual options for action as “sustainable consumption”, but also talk about what needs to be done at a political and societal level to reduce emissions and tackle the climate crisis and global inequality.

Possibilities for further work

• In-depth study of structural causes (z.B. Zeitstrahl, Autobahn im Kopf, Kolonialismus und Klimakrise)
• Alternatives and possible courses of action (z.B. Wo geht’s hier weiter?, Who can make change?)
  

Learning objectives

The participants…

• gain a playful and creative approach to the topic of utopias.
• broaden their view of utopias.
• gain experience in their own “utopian thinking” and that of the other participants.
• have time to reflect on and process what they have learned.

Procedure

Background

The worsening climate crisis and growing social inequality make clear: business as usual is neither possible nor desirable. We need social change on a grand scale. But what can a future look like in which people in all their diversity are valued worldwide and can live freely and self-determined lives? And in which an environment worth living in is preserved at the same time?

Each of us has different ideas of a societal utopia. What is particularly important to us, is valued differently. This exercise is about creatively exploring and expressing one‘s own ideas of utopia.

Preparation

Before the unit: If necessary, participants can be asked a few days in advance to bring their own craft materials for the utopian collage to the workshop. The content note (see “Tips and Notes for facilitators”) should be communicated before the start of the unit. Before the unit begins, all craft materials are placed in the middle of the room. The question “When you think of utopia, what images and thoughts come to your mind?” can be written on a flipchart and hung up in the room for all to see.

Implementation

1. Introduction (5-10 minutes)

The procedure is explained to the whole group: participants have the same amount of time to make a collage on the question “When you think of utopia, what images and thoughts come to mind?”. The participants can choose whether they want to create a collage on their own or together with other people. There is also the option of not creating a collage. At this point, a mood survey is helpful: If participants feel like joining forces with other people, they can wave their hands in the air. If participants would rather do the craft alone or do something else, they can wave their hands in the air at the bottom. If participants are not sure yet, they can wave their hands in the middle. If individual participants want to say something for everyone, they can do so afterwards (e.g. “I’m not going to make a collage and would rather go for a walk. If anyone would like to join me, please speak to me”).

2. Finding Phase (5 minutes)

While the facilitators turn on calm background music, the participants get together in groups if necessary and gather all the materials they need for the collage. Participants look for a place where they want to work. Materials are still available in the room and can be exchanged.

3. Crafting (45-60 minutes)

The participants now have approximately 45-60 minutes to assemble their mashup. As soon as the mashups are finished, the participants can hang them up in the room – thus creating an exhibition of utopian collages.

4. Break (10-15 minutes)

It is a good idea to take a short break here. At this point, the group can also bring back in the people who decided to not work on a collage.

5. Evaluation (20-30 minutes)

A gallery is created from the participants’ mashups hung up in the room. The participants now move through the gallery as a group to look at the mashups they have made. The group stops at each mashup to look at it. The artists are invited to say something about their collage and the rest of the group can – in agreement with the artists – share their thoughts on it.

After all the exhibits have been viewed, the group meets again in a circle of chairs for a final reflection. The following questions can serve as impulses:

• What goes through your mind after you have looked at the different exhibits?
• What defines your very own utopia? What has played an important role for you when creating the mashup?
• Was it easy/difficult for you to find suitable materials? How did you feel about it?

Variants

In step 5 there is scope for design. Here are a few inspirations:

• The gallery is designed as an exhibition opening: The participants are welcomed at the beginning of the exhibition with an opening speech. This could look something like this: “Welcome to GaleriUtopia. XX artists have explored their own personal idea of utopia and have put this gallery together for you today. You are now cordially invited to walk through the gallery and let the works of art have an effect on you. See what it does to you, see if you recognize any similarities. Today you are in the very special situation of having all the artists present and being able to talk to them later. But for now, have fun in the gallery. Drinks and snacks may be available.
• Participants go and look at the exhibits separately from the group and do not speak or only speak in a whisper.

As an alternative for participants who consciously decide against creating a collage, facilitators can suggest the following alternatives, for example:

• Books, audios and videos on the topic of utopias are made available for reading/listening/watching.
• Participants can go for a walk and discover what would have to change in their environment to shape their utopia; or what they already perceive as “utopian” in the here and now.
• Participants can think about a still image and later exhibit it.

Tips and Notes for Facilitators

Content Note: The method involves cutting with scissors. Collage making is used in psychotherapeutic settings. For some people, this can evoke unpleasant memories that are often associated with psychological crises or illnesses. It is therefore important to be transparent about what will happen in advance and to give participants the option of not taking part in the exercise (see variants).

The method is particularly suitable for concluding a content-related discussion of utopias. This gives participants the opportunity to creatively present new knowledge, new ideas and experiences from their exploration of utopias.

Methode created in cooperation with:

Funded by the European Union. Views and opinions expressed are however those of the author(s) only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). Neither the European Union nor EACEA can be held responsible for them. 

 For further instructions please open the document in the box.