Geoff,
The inherent complexity and controversy of carbon footprints suggests
that you should seek assistance at the Teahouse before proceeding with
further editing on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse
Tim Starling wrote:
...
http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/
cites plenty of official, reliable sources which you could
presumably cite when you write about these topics. On
your blog, you complain about Wikipedians getting
annoyed when you cite yourself as a secondary source,
which seems fair enough -- why not just cite the primary
sources directly?
There may be some confusion between the meaning of primary and
secondary sources here.
http://www.greenrationbook.org.uk/resources/defra-study/
is a summary of several government document and peer reviewed primary sources.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526134.500-meat-is-murder-on-the-en…
is a secondary source summarizing those primary sources, but it is not
peer reviewed. However, it is considered reliable because it appears
in a publication with editorial oversight of reporting and a
reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-0929.2007.00457.x/abstract
is a peer-reviewed primary source which includes an introductory
literature review qualifying as a peer-reviewed secondary source, but
the new findings will not be considered as reliable as the literature
review summary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint
has some problems; for example the introduction is far too long and
includes a header suggesting the intro has a body section in it.