FAQs

Common questions

Click the questions to find the answers.

Q 1. Most of your ten principles seem to be focused on developed nations reducing their consumption. What about developing nations like us which need to increase consumption in order to reach a decent standard of living?
 
Q 2. It’s all very well for western countries to decide that they should no longer use more than their fair share of resources, but why should  developing countries, who have been unfairly treated for centuries, be denied the right to develop our economies beyond a one planet level to western standards? It seems to be a case of ‘do as we say not do as we do.

Q 3. If western consumers stop buying Kenyan green beans, consumer goods from China or tilapia from Lake Victoria and buy local goods instead, this will have a negative impact on the economies and lives of poor people in Kenya, China, Uganda and beyond. Isn't it essentially the same thing as transferring wealth from our economy back to your local economy – like a form of protectionism?

Q 4. Zero carbon is simply not achievable; this is an unrealistic target for us to work towards at this stage in our Country’s National Strategy.


Q 5. Who will ensure that Governments actually stick to their national One Planet Action Plans if they do agree to make one? They can always just sign up, but we can’t force them to implement it, so what is the point?

Q 6. What does a one planet community look like for developing countries? For example how could you apply it to slum areas?


Q 7. Humans are at the centre of the one planet living principles, what about the arguments that biodiversity should be at the centre - how do you account for these issues?

Q 8.  There isn’t going to be an agreement at the 2012 Earth Summit, just like at Copenhagen with the UNFCCC process on climate change. Why I should do anything about addressing one planet living issues when I know other people and other countries aren’t? What’s in it for me?

Q 9. With all the global unrest, the economic woes and oil prices still so high we simply can’t afford to address the issues of one planet living at this time. How can you expect individuals, companies and governments to take this stuff seriously right now? People are worried about finding money to put food on the table, about keeping their jobs and concerned that local services are being slashed. And you want us to think about where our green beans come from?

Q 10. The Arctic is too strategically important for us to leave it open to one or two nations to exploit for oil, we don’t trust them, and they’re not going to adopt one planet living.

Q 11. The US or China are never going to sign up to this, like they’re never going to do anything serious about climate change.  The time for these sorts of mitigation approaches has passed. We’re in the adaption game and need funding to address that, how’s one planet living going to help?

Q 12. Policymakers are operating in a culture where the popular belief is that living within our fair share of the world’s resources will mean having to go without and so it could be seen as politically unacceptable to go as far as the science tells us we need to go.

Q 13.  How can we reduce consumption globally when the population is increasing at such a fast rate - can we really still preserve and increase biocapacity?


Q 14. Is ecological footprint unscientific?




Q 15. The terms of trade are still stacked against us, with the developing world still getting subsidies, how will One Planet Living be of any use when the World Trade Organisation isn’t interested in these types of issues?

Q 16. With China moving in on sub-Saharan Africa and with still so much state corruption in the region, it simply isn’t realistic to impose any meaningful one planet living programme on the continent.

Q 17. At BedZED the Combined Heat and Power plant didn’t work, so is it a good model?
 



Q 1. Most of your ten principles seem to be focused on developed nations reducing their consumption. What about developing nations like us which need to increase consumption in order to reach a decent standard of living?

A 1. One planet living is about all of us having a fair share.  We need to reduce the ecological footprint in developed countries to enable developing countries to have enough resources to develop their material standard of living whilst we all remain within the ecological limits of the planet.  So in many instances, developing countries will actually increase their ecological footprint as they move towards One Planet Living.

Q 2. It’s all very well for western countries to decide that they should no longer use more than their fair share of resources, but why should  developing countries, who have been unfairly treated for centuries, be denied the right to develop our economies beyond a one planet level to western standards? It seems to be a case of ‘do as we say not do as we do.

A 2. Rich countries will need to shoulder a large part of the burden of shifting to a sustainable future.  We only have one planet and that means that the resources we have to draw upon are, unfortunately, naturally limited.   Currently there are not enough resources to go around. Therefore the world needs new models of development that are resource efficient.

In developing countries there is an opportunity to leapfrog polluting development to establish the resilient economies of the future that are also more equitable and put in place the infrastructure and processes to support sustainable development.

It is only right that rich nations should share a greater burden in facilitating a shift to one planet living by providing money, opportunities for fair sustainable trade and easy access to clean technologies to support developing countries. We recognise the challenges and realise it will not always be an easy transition for any country.  We are faced with a massive problem that will not go away of its own accord - we need to get together to address it.

Q 3. If western consumers stop buying Kenyan green beans, consumer goods from China or tilapia from Lake Victoria and buy local goods instead, this will have a negative impact on the economies and lives of poor people in Kenya, China, Uganda and beyond. Isn't this essentially the same thing as transferring wealth from our economy back to your local economy – like a form of protectionism?

A 3. The current trade system disempowers many poorer countries. Agricultural export-led economies have not historically lifted countries out of poverty and it is often better that countries grow food to feed their hungry populations rather than export commodities which generate wealth for a few people.  It does seem nonsensical to export food at low cost to rich nations when people at home do not have enough to eat.  A South African artist who visited us at BedZED and saw South African fruit and vegetables in our supermarkets was moved to exclaim, ‘We don’t see the food or the money!’.

Many NGOs in developing countries promote greater self-sufficiency rather than exporting commodities.  Organisations such the New Economics Foundation have done a lot of work on sustainable economic systems.  Countries do need some foreign exchange.  However, when promoting international trade it is worth focussing on higher value added goods rather than commodities - for example wine, rather than grapes, coffee products rather than green beans, clothes rather than cotton.  This can generate more employment and money while reducing carbon dioxide emissions compared to transporting bulky, low value commodities (because the higher value added products tend to be sea freighted rather than by air).

We simply cannot ignore that there is an environmental cost to international trade particularly when transporting commodities by air.  Air freight releases huge amounts of CO2 (4-5 tonnes of carbon dioxide per tonne of commodity transported).  Unfortunately this drives climate change ever upwards, whose effects will be felt first and hardest by those same developing countries so it just can’t be a good idea. Rather we recommend countries take note of their ecological footprint, identify what people need and tackle domestic inequalities as part of sustainable development, or indeed a One Planet Action Plan.
Ultimately we do need to account for carbon and other environmental impacts fully in international trade to ensure we build a green economy – for example through a tax regime which falls more heavily on carbon intensive products. 

Q 4. Zero carbon is simply not achievable; this is an unrealistic target for us to work towards at this stage in our Country’s National Strategy.

A 4. We fully agree that this is difficult: as a fundamental part of sustainability, it is, as some describe, the biggest challenge that man has yet faced.  However we have no option but to wean ourselves off fossil fuels (or not burn them unless we have introduced tried-and-tested carbon capture and storage).  We know we have all the technologies and strategies we require – from solar panels to wind farms and energy efficiency measures.  We now need to develop the collective and political will to implement such technologies and strategies. Moreover, technologies are constantly improving and we can set a path to achieve a zero carbon economy – if we scramble at the last minute, as the Stern Report shows it will be far more costly. We do understand that it isn’t possible to achieve zero carbon tomorrow, but we all need a plan on how the world can reach a zero carbon end point in the near future.

Q 5. Who will ensure that Governments actually stick to their national One Planet Action Plans if they do agree to make one? They can always just sign up, but we can’t force them to implement it, so what is the point?

A 5. You are right that we can’t force governments to do this. But we believe that the most important thing BioRegional and its partners can do is to show how it is possible to achieve one planet living, which we hope will motivate others including governments to realise that ‘it can be done’. Indeed, working on solutions is something we can all do, whether as an individual, a community, a business or a government.

Together with our partners in business and industry, we know it makes sound commercial sense for governments to support One Planet Living – the green economy is going to become an increasingly important part of national prosperity and countries may have the opportunity to reap some of the benefits of first mover advantage and make a contribution to sustainable living on this planet.

We advocate a collaborative, stakeholder approach to sustainable development - one good example is the French Grenelle Process, which engaged civil society and business. Such a process can help to gain great ‘buy-in’ from governments and further help to hold them to account. 

Q 6. What does a one planet community look like for developing countries? For example how could you apply it to slum areas?

A 6. BioRegional have been working in countries like China to South Africa including in very poor communities such as in the townships of Ivory Park, Gauteng and Waterloo, Durban.  Our local staff and local partners provide an in-depth understanding of the cultural context and local challenges which all contribute to developing the appropriate solution and responses.

The principles of One Planet Living are aimed to increasing quality of life and therefore we are working with partners and communities to develop the solutions to apply them in poor areas as well.  The principles cover issues, for example, of Equity and Local Economy which are often of more immediate importance in poor communities than say Zero Waste.  BioRegional for example has helped start a micro-finance scheme in Waterloo township.  As slum areas are developed there is an opportunity to guide development to more sustainable outcomes by using the One Planet Principles.  We can make interventions to improve quality of life but still ensure projects knit into the existing city or community, emphasising and de-emphasising the One Planet principles to ensure that opportunities are maximised.

Q 7. Humans are at the centre of the one planet living principles, what about the arguments that biodiversity should be at the centre - how do you account for these issues?

A 7. Actions by people are arguably the cause of most issues linked with biodiversity loss - therefore we feel we need to tackle these issues through the one planet living principles, which focus on human behaviour.

Calculations by the Global Footprint Network allow for 10% of the world’s bioproductive land to be set aside purely for the use of wildlife and to let wild places flourish. Some ecologists say that we might need to leave more space aside for wilderness and that will mean we need to reduce our per capita footprint further.

There is a lot that everyone can do to help support local biodiversity - for example using native plants, and encouraging local wildlife to prosper. Land use and wildlife are an integral part of One Planet Living.  

Q 8.  There isn’t going to be an agreement at the 2012 Earth Summit, just like at Copenhagen with the UNFCCC process on climate change. Why  should I do anything about addressing one planet living issues when I know other people and other countries aren’t? What’s in it for me?

A 8. It is a fair point but of course, if we all took that view, nothing would change. Regardless of what others do we believe we have a moral responsibility to take action.  This is particularly true for those of us living in rich countries which have a historic responsibility for the lion’s share of the carbon dioxide emissions released so far.

At the international level, there is no disagreement as to the direction in which the world is going - with natural resource use accelerating out of control, coupled with an increasing global population.  Lord Stern’s report on the economic impacts of climate change clearly demonstrates that the cost of acting now will be much less that waiting till further down the line. The winners will be the people willing to engage and show leadership now.

Q 9. With all the global unrest, the economic woes and oil prices still so high we simply can’t afford to address the issues of one planet living at this time. How can you expect individuals, companies and governments to take this stuff seriously right now? People are worried about finding money to put food on the table, about keeping their jobs and concerned that local services are being slashed. And you want us to think about where our green beans come from?

A 9. The best way out of our problems is to develop a sustainable green economy not to revive the unsustainable economic model that got us into this mess. We need to be concerned both with short term and long term issues such as food and energy security. To address these worries, we need to create a green economy and to build resilience.

For example, we must address the quality of food we choose to consume – where it comes from how it is produced, and how it is transported. We need to develop supply chains that enable us to transition to a sustainable economy.

Q 10. The Arctic is too strategically important for us to leave it open to one or two nations to exploit for oil, we don’t trust them, and they’re not going to adopt one planet living.

A 10. We are forced to agree!  However, if more companies, communities and countries adopt One Planet Action Plans, a common vision will emerge as to how we must deal with these difficult issues.

Modern technology advancements make it harder for countries, people or companies to get away with exploiting the planet without it being noticed. Coupled with this though we need to put in place improved governance structures over areas like the Arctic, Antarctic, and other wild places, so that they are not destroyed or plundered.

Our hope is that ultimately countries adopting true sustainability will highlight to those countries not playing by ‘the new rules’ that there is no advantage in isolating themselves.

Q 11. The US or China are never going to sign up to this, like they’re never going to do anything serious about climate change. The time for these sorts of mitigation approaches has passed. We’re in the adaption game and need funding to address that, how’s one planet living going to help?

A 11. We are going to have to invest in adaptation but we will also need to continue to look at mitigation or else things will continue to get worse.
One Planet Living is about showing leadership. If some countries are prepared to show strong leadership, others will follow.  All countries have something to contribute.  Indeed the US leads in some areas such as venture capital investment in green technologies and China’s plans do include targets to reduce the ‘carbon intensity’ of their economy. We acknowledge that it is difficult to get a multilateral agreement - but increasingly as more countries ‘get on with it’, the more likely it is that all countries, including the US and China, will join in the collective challenge.

It is also important to recognise that countries like the USA are far from homogenous and some areas are more progressive than other areas. For example whole regions are taking the sustainability agenda very seriously such as New England and specifically states like Vermont (for example through their Educating for Sustainability standards).  So are states such as California. There is a lot that can and is being done at the sub-national level.

Q 12. Policymakers are operating in a culture where the popular belief is that living within our fair share of the world’s resources will mean having to go without and so it could be seen as politically unacceptable to go as far as the science tells us we need to go.

A 12. Adapting to One Planet Living is not an easy option, but properly implemented, One Planet Living is about building a better quality of life for all. We have a tendency to equate earnings and wealth with success and development, but once our basic needs are met, it is widely accepted that how happy we are a nation does not increased in line with increasing consumerism. We can do more with less, or to be happy (or even happier!) with less.  We need to put in place processes to enable this to happen and all think more about what will really make us happy.

That is why we believe we all need positive examples – to help change people’s and governments’ minds that living sustainably doesn’t involve hardship and woe.

Q 13.  How can we reduce consumption globally when the population is increasing at such a fast rate - can we really still preserve and increase biocapacity?

A 13. This is a big challenge as well.  Research shows that as communities become healthier and happier, with access to healthcare, contraception, and better education, their populations tend to stabilise and population growth is reduced. As One Planet Living addresses many of the issues that result in population growth, it can be one way to help stabilise populations.  It is also possible to increase the planet’s biological productivity (also know as biocapacity) by supporting sustainable farming and forestry which build soils for example.  This means we can support more people on the planet comfortably.

Q 14. Is ecological footprint unscientific?

A 14. Ecological Footprinting is one of a suite of measures that underpin One Planet Living. One of the main organisations working in this field is the Global Footprint Network.  The methodology and data underlying the Ecological Footprint is comprised of 200 National Footprint Accounts. These measure the ecological resource use and resource capacity of nations over time. Based on approximately 5,000 data points per country per year, the Accounts calculate the Footprints of 241 countries, territories, and regions from 1961 to the present day. These accounts provide the core data that is needed for Ecological Footprint analysis worldwide.

As a standalone measure of environmental impact, Ecological Footprint is a developing science that gives us a good overall indication of how our consumption relates to the planet’s ability to regenerate naturally renewing resources.  The individual metrics or measures which are contained in the overall Ecological Footprint, such as carbon footprint and cropland footprint, are not disputed.   Ecological Footprint can be broken down to its more robust, less disputed components if necessary. Nonetheless, like many other organisations, we believe that the national footprint accounts provide the most comprehensive aggregate indicator of human pressure on ecosystems currently available.

Q 15. The terms of trade are still stacked against us, with the developing world still getting  subsidies, how will OPL be of any use when the WTO isn’t interested in these types of issues?

A 15. We very much want the WTO to get interested in One Planet Living and sustainable international trade – perhaps it should become the SWTO, the Sustainable World Trade Organisation or the OPTO, the One Planet Trade Organisation!  We would like to hear your ideas!

Q 16. With China moving in on sub-Saharan Africa and with still so much state corruption in the region, is it realistic to impose any meaningful one planet living programme on the continent?

A 16.   There are a number of points here.  Our work is simply based on what the science tells us is necessary – it is not about imposing solutions.  To achieve sustainability we can’t only be top down - we need to work on grass roots change as well as working with governments.

We need to encourage all countries to think about sustainability, not just China.  After all, many of the products China produce are for us. As we move to a sustainable economy we will need to make sure all resources are managed sustainably and products reflect the price of sustainable management.  We as customers should be asking questions about where our products come from and instigating this need for change. This is after all a small planet with a growing population and we need to change our way of doing things.

Corruption indeed is a major problem.  There are many people and organisations aiming to tackle corruption in Africa as well as other places and we fully support their efforts.

Q 17. At BedZED the Combined Heat and Power plant didn’t work, so is it a good model?

A 17. It is true that not everything at BedZED has worked.  But very many things did work.  Aspects like the car club - the first in London – are now widespread.  The homes are saving a lot of energy.  Learning lessons from these developments is important.  We have learned these lessons, are transparent about them and share them through our reports and public tours of BedZED.  Green technologies are also improving all the time and more modern, reliable technologies, including biomass CHPs are becoming available.