The road to the One Planet Life

We only have one planet!

Just one. Obviously. But the way some people carry on you'd think we had five - in some cases even eight - wonderful blue, vibrant orbs just like planet Earth, rotating round our life-giving Sun.

Perhaps they imagine these worlds - duplicates of ours except minus human beings - are hiding on the far side of the sun. Sitting there conveniently, so that when we've used up all the resources on this planet, we can go and tap into those. How simple the future might be if we could.

We’d probably need more than one extra planet. But hey, you never know what might turn up.

As far as I know, astronomers haven't detected any more earth-like planets in the attainable vicinity.

What a shame.

Enter the concept of One Planet Living.

We crossed the one planet threshold of our global ecological footprint back in the late '60s: the amount of resources we can sustainably use.

In the 1990s the environmental group WWF developed the concept of the ecological footprint. It measures in a form that is very easy to communicate, the environmental impact of our activities compared to the number of people on the planet and the resources it contains and its ability to absorb pollution.


In the UK we use over three planet's worth of resources on average. In the United States it is much higher.

In 2002, the Beddington Zero (fossil) Energy Development, or BedZED as it is known (pictured below), was completed in south London. Designed by BioRegional for an affordable housing association with architect, Bill Dunster, the 100 home development aimed to create a whole sustainable lifestyle.

Pooran Desai and Sue Riddlestone are the husband and wife team behind BioRegional. They analysed BedZED, measuring its performance against its ecological footprint, which led them to come up with the term ‘One Planet Living’.

In 2009 “One Wales One Planet” was published, with a vision of putting sustainable development at the centre of government delivery, encouraging others to embrace sustainable development as their central organising principle.

The following year the then Environment Minister for Wales, Jane Davidson (right), saw through the introduction of One Planet Developments into national planning guidance in Wales with the dry-sounding Technical Advisory Note 6: Planning for Sustainable Rural Communities.

The accompanying planning guidance also allows for one planet dwellings and communities in urban areas (though none has yet been tried).

Jane says: "I am a passionate believer in creating an effective and fair planning system that is responsive to ecological challenges and encourages innovation."

Since that time various cities or smaller developments around the world have signalled a willingness to move towards one planet living.

Bioregional operates on four continents.

Brighton in the south of England has fully declared its intention to be a one planet city and Bristol is thinking about it. I'm going to a meeting to discuss this in Bristol next week.

All of this is very exciting and it is the subject of my new book, The One Planet Life, out this month, to which both Pooran and Jane have contributed. In fact some of the above text is direct quotation from the book.



During the course of the writing of the book, together with many existing or aspiring one planet development practitioners, we have founded the One Planet Council. This exists to support all of these trends and those who want to live the one planet life. We are beginning to deliver training programs.

I believe this is the beginning of a trend. It's the thin edge of a wedge that is being driven into planning policy and thinking about the use of land, and who – or what – it is for. Because land is fundamental to the question of sustainable development, of regeneration, of the resilience of communities – the use of the land as well as its ownership.

Pooran Desai said in conversation to me recently that he believes that land speculation should be banned. It artificially drives up the price of land putting it outside of the reach of most of those who need to use it. I believe this is true. It is a fundamental injustice and incompatibility with sustainable development.

With this in mind The One Planet Life acts as a manifesto, stating the following demands and supporting them with a 15,000 word essay of evidence:

We ask:

1. That to aim towards one planet living should become an underlying principle of planning and official policy as de facto the only objectively-verifiable sustainable strategy
2. That the same set of social and environmental criteria should be used to assess all planning applications to create a level playing field
3. That these criteria, amongst others, should be informed by ecological footprint analysis which enables all projects to be compared for their environmental impact
4. That official attitudes to land use should change to help rural areas use one planet living methods to become more productive and more populated, and urban areas more green.

We make this call for the following reasons, which are substantiated in the book:
The one planet life:

1. results in more productive land use with far fewer environmental impacts
2. creates more employment than conventional agriculture
3. promotes greater physical and mental health and well-being, reducing the burden on the welfare state and health service
4. requires no taxpayer subsidies, unlike much conventional farming
5. improves the local economy, resilience and food security
6. therefore is more sustainable and gives excellent value.

Readers of this blog can obtain a 20% discount on the price of the book by going to this website and entering the code FLR40 at checkout. Tweet using the hashtag ‪#‎OnePlanetLife‬!

Jane Davidson says of it: "Throughout this book you will read how those who have embraced this lifestyle fully feel liberated by their choice: they have reconnected with nature; they understand the seasons and where food comes from and the limitations of what can/cannot be grown or reared where they live; they can offer a different, more sustainable future to their offspring. Not everyone will want to take the great leap into the unknown, but all of us can use this book to help us demonstrate the principles of one planet living in one or more parts of our lives."

Pooran Desai adds: "This thought-provoking book summarises some of the approaches which can help us on the journey - so please read, learn, practise and share. There are many already on the journey and we can, together, co-create a better future."

Some other recommendations include:

• "A wealth of practical detail" - Oliver Tickell, editor, The Ecologist magazine
• “Shows the journey to a new life.” – George Marshall
• "What it means to live a 'one-planet' lifestyle" – Prof Max Munday, Cardiff Business School.

The Failure of Political Leadership on Climate Change

Despite 26 years of international negotiations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, these emissions have been steadily rising. It is clear that world leaders are incapable of committing themselves and their nations to the required measures. I witnessed this first hand last Thursday when I watched Wales' First Minister dodge question after question on whether he would take the necessary action.

Right: Carwyn Jones, Wales' First Minister.

A brief history of climate change and global negotiations

In June 1988 politicians and scientists attending the World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere in Toronto concluded that "humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose  ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war." The conference recommended a 20% reduction by 2005. At this point the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 350 ppm.

In November that year the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has its first meeting in Geneva and was charged by the United Nations with assessing the state of scientific knowledge on climate change, evaluate its impacts and come up with realistic solutions. In August 1990 it produced its First Assessment Report. Subsequent reports have only changed the detail, not the general conclusions.

At the Rio Earth Summit, two years later, 154 nations took responsibility for the overwhelming majority of emissions and pledged to "aim to stabilize" those emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. But the Kyoto Protocol wasn't ratified for a further five years. It bound 38 industrialized countries (called Annex 1 countries) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012. Concentration of CO₂ has now reached 358 ppm.

Later, President Bush made sure the United States never ratified the agreement and Canada withdrew in 2011. In 2012 an agreement for a second commitment period has never entered legal force.

In July 2009, G8 countries agreed that 2 degrees Celsius of average global warming above pre-industrial levels is a limit which should not be exceeded, but this would mean reducing global greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2050 and emissions from developed countries should be reduced by 80% or more. It is agreed that global emissions must peak and then decline rapidly within the next five to ten years for this to be achieved.

In November of that year the Copenhagen Accord was signed to endorse the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol, but it is not a legally binding document. Concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere then reached 388ppm.

Now we are looking towards a legally binding global agreement next year, when concentrations of CO₂ in the atmosphere will be 400 ppm, but it will not take effect until 2020, and then it will still take some time for any effects to kick in.

Meanwhile, concentrations of greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere continue to increase:



It's for this reason that I'm extremely pessimistic that it is possible for national leaders, whose agendas are all short-term, whose interests are local and subject to lobbying from special interest groups, have the courage or capacity to show the required level of leadership. Even Obama's recent efforts fall far short of the true level required.

Carwyn Jones plays the politicians' game



The basis for his extreme pessimism was confirmed for me last Thursday. I had been invited to give evidence to the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister in Wales about progress made to date in implementing the Welsh Government’s 2010 Climate Change Strategy for Wales. In particular, how actions to tackle the causes and consequences of climate change are being implemented by all departments of the Welsh Government and how this work is being co-ordinated and monitored.

Right: the Welsh Government’s 2010 Climate Change Strategy cover

Wales as a nation has a non-binding target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 3% per year to 40% of 1990 levels by 2020 in policy areas of over which it has control (some powers are not devolved but still held in London, such as control over transport spending and energy generation). This compares to the UK overall target of 34% reduction by 2020. Additionally, Wales is almost unique in the world by having the duty of government to take due account of sustainable development written into its constitution.

These facts alone would lead one to suppose that Wales was serious about tackling climate change. But let me tell you what happened in those meeting and committee rooms of the Welsh Government offices in Cardiff Bay on the afternoon of Thursday 26 June.

The first half of the event consisted of three members of the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister quizzing members of the Climate Change Commission for Wales on what they thought the Committee should be asking Carwyn Jones (who is leader of the Welsh Labour Party).

The Commission's members represents a huge body of expert opinion from other organisations such as the Carbon Trust, the Energy Saving Trust, Sustrans, the Federation of Small Businesses, National Resources Wales, WWF, the One Planet Council, and even young people represented by the youth parliament known as Funky Dragon.

There was no shortage of extremely sound advice given to the Committee members. The key points were as follows:

1. The First Minister should take overall responsibility for the climate change agenda, which he currently does not have, in order to show leadership and make sure that all government departments work together to achieve the targets;
2. He should set statutory targets rather than the current non-binding ones;
3. He should benchmark the current level of emissions in different sectors, by end-user;
4. He should quantify by default the climate change impacts of all new developments as part of their impact assessment. In particular, reference was made to a proposed £1.5 billion new extension to the M4 around Newport;
5. He should create a programme of action that would detail how the different sectors would act to reduce overall emissions, which currently does not exist.

There were many other excellent suggestions about land use, transport, education, planning, building regulations and renewable energy. If they were all put in place, Wales would be a beacon of low carbon sustainable development.

This part of the event concluded and the members of the Committee then withdrew to a Committee Room where they proceeded to quiz the Minister. Many of us stayed to watch the proceedings from the viewing gallery.

What happened? Well the first thing to note is that the Committee scrutinises the First Minister on many topics and few of its members are experts on climate change. The second is that as officials, it was clear that they somewhat lack the passion and commitment that the Commission on Climate Change members have. For these reasons they are not equipped to respond to the First Minister's rebuttals with knowledgable counter-arguments or with the necessary level of emotion. Urbane mandarins, their language is couched in measured and leisured terms.

Carwyn Jones was able to refute every suggestion without significant censure.

1. He refused to take ultimate responsibility and show leadership on climate change as a cross-cutting topic because, he said, "there are many cross-cutting topics and I can't take responsibility for all of them. I leave climate change for others."
2. He refused to set statutory targets for carbon reductions on the basis that the government does not have control over transport and energy spending.
3. On the question of the M4 relief road he trotted out the line that cars in traffic jams will emit more greenhouse gases than having them freely moving. Yet, as Paul Pearson pointed out that evening, the consultancy document on the project never even calculated the total comparative carbon budgets for the options under consideration.
4. On the question of why building regulations for the energy efficiency of new homes are being watered down, he said it was because Wales needed more new houses and the big building firms had told him that it was too expensive to make them low or zero carbon. Yet I know several developers who can build affordable zero carbon homes - but clearly Carwyn is not aware of them and nor were the members of the Committee.

Shortly after this, in despair, I walked out. Wales has an opportunity to shine on the world stage by showing leadership on climate change beyond that being shown in England by the Westminster government. But Carwyn Jones is not up to this challenge.

The environment minister who created Wales' climate change strategy, Jane Davidson (right), has sadly left government now. She was the driving force behind several policies that championed sustainable development. Unfortunately Wales no longer has any one of her calibre and commitment in government.

But Carwyn Jones is no different from virtually every other leader of a nation state in the world, as the history of climate change negotiations shows. The fear of missing short-term other targets for housing, jobs and the economy, makes them ignore the bigger picture. They do not have expert advisers on hand – or refuse to give sufficient weight to their advice – to help them understand the multiple economic as well as social and environmental benefits of taking the requisite actions. Instead they respond to the demands of industry lobbyists and a public largely unaware of the issues and potentials.

So, is it possible for the world to act to reduce and turnaround the seemingly inexorable growth of the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? Increasingly there are calls from the business sector and leaders of cities for action, but for my part, I fear all this will result in action that is too small and too late. They just do not have the economic and legal clout. I believe what is really required is for people to be paid to leave carbon in the ground – because if there is money to be made then they will take it out and sell it – but this obviously will not happen.

Barring a miracle, within 300 years sea level will have risen by up to 10 metres, the ice caps will have melted, the equatorial areas of the planet will be uninhabitable, and humanity will have suffered a population collapse. The prediction made by the scientists meeting in June 1988 will have been shown to be correct. I do hope I am wrong.

The One Planet Life

Hoppi Wimbush, who lives at Lammas, one of the case studies in the book.

David has finished his latest book, The One Planet Life, about making a way of life that is more sustainable and using ecological footprint analysis to establish what's working and what isn't. Both a manifesto for a change in attitude towards development, planning and land use, and a 'How To' book about energy, land management, food growing, sustainable building, sustainable transport and water, it has 100,000 words, 400 illustrations, 20 in-depth case studies and introductions by Jane Davidson (Wales' foremost former environment minister) and Pooran Desai (BioRegional). It will be out towards the end of the year.

The village that took on the planning system - and won

Director Helen Iles at the premier of Living In the Future.

Last week, a remarkable film sold out in all theatres in which it premiered, and I was lucky enough to get a ticket.

It tells the story of a five-year battle by ordinary people fed up with not having access to housing that they could afford, who wanted to build affordable, ecologically-sound housing for themselves on land which they owned.

The story began when nine families occupying 35 acres of land in South Wales innocently submitted boxes of detailed architectural designs and plans to their local council, seeking approval, which was initially met with hostility. The leader of the council is filmed saying: "Not now, not ever. Never!" as he rejected their application.

Their battle eventually succeeded, and resulted not only in a change in planning policy in that council, which has been adopted throughout Wales, thanks to the support of Wales' former Environment Minister, Jane Davidson, but a campaign to change the Building Regulations themselves, which, at present, are totally unfit for the purpose of enabling this type of architecture.

The film is Living In The Future. After the screening I talked to the director, Helen Iles, who has spent several years following, and filming, the development of this project.

The organisation involved, Lammas, set up an eco-village, Tir y Gafel, and are using it as a pioneering project to inspire others to do the same throughout the country.

It contains the first buildings in the country that are of ‘low impact’ and built with planning permission in accordance with Building Regulations.

These buildings use traditional methods of construction: timber frame, round houses, straw bale, and all natural materials: sheeps' wool for insulation, roundwood, mud.

Buildings for all of the families and a community building were constructed for the astonishingly low total cost of about £70,000. Of course, much of the labour was free, coming from the many volunteers who turned up to help.

The local council has stipulated that within three years 75% of the settlement's income must be self generated from the land, as a planning condition. This is a target the village’s inhabitants are still struggling to meet.

I asked Helen why she chose to focus on the planning issue for the substance of her movie. "It is incredibly hard to get councils to understand this type of settlement and building," she said.

"Not only that, but the Building Regulations are geared to conventional types of construction. If, for example, people want to have an outside composting toilet, then officials say: "Why? Surely we've left all that behind!'"

Similar issues apply to the choice of building materials and sewage treatment using reedbeds.

In fact, when the Building Enforcement Officers visited the site they came up with a list of hundreds of things that should have been done. In the end, these were whittled down to a few that were relatively easy to deal with, compared, that is, to knocking the buildings down and starting all over again.

You would class the people pursuing this dream as hippies. But I was reminded of the early days of the Centre for Alternative Technology, where I used to work. This started in much the same way, as an experiment in sustainable living in the early ‘70s, and was also founded by a peculiar mixture of hippies and upper-class dropouts.

The solutions that they pioneered are now mainstream simply because the mainstream has recognised the necessity of making them so.

I am confident that, while the nature of the buildings might change a little, and that the vast majority of people will not live in this kind of housing, a great many do want to live closer to nature, and in buildings that are softer and friendlier which they can design themselves and which are much, much cheaper.

With so many people needing affordable housing, you can hardly argue that there is no demand. The degree of interest in this type of living is evidenced by how popular the film has proved last week.

What is obvious from watching the film is the extreme stress suffered by these pioneers as they struggle not only with bullying of families and growing food, but building their homes and dealing with a non-comprehending bureaucracy.

They were lucky to have a friend in Jane Davidson.

"Jane was a visionary herself," said Helen. "She came and listened to the people at Lammas. She always listened to people. She was the best Environment Minister Wales has ever had. Most of her policies came from the ground up."

Sadly, Jane retired from politics and the Welsh Assembly Government to concentrate on her smallholding, and is now Director of the Wales Institute for Sustainability at the local Trinity St David University.

But the legacy she has left includes the vision of One Planet Living, which underpins the Welsh Assembly Government's Technical Advice Note 6 "Planning For Sustainable Rural Communities", part of Wales' comprehensive planning policy in line with its constitutional commitment to sustainable development, something which makes Wales unique in the whole world.

Planning officers everywhere deserve to take note of the experience of Pembrokeshire and the Welsh Assembly Government. Largely unseen by the majority, a quiet revolution is taking place.

At some point other communities will spring up in other parts of the country.

The film, admirably financed by the Welsh Assembly Government, is available under Creative Commons principles, i.e. it has no copyright, but the makers would appreciate a donation or the payment of a voluntary fee for public showings.

I recommend you to view it, visit the eco-village, and support the campaign to get the Building Regulations changed.