Ecovillages: Organic/Regenerative Food, Climate, Health, Housing, and Hope

A Perspective by David K. Cundiff, MD

Humanity faces multiple interconnected crises including housing costs, health decline, and climate change. Top-down, technological fixes miss root causes and broader issues. Bottom-up, community-driven, cooperative approaches show real promise. I propose to show that the prime root cause threatening humanity is agriculture, including ranching, with the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and heavy machinery.

🌍 Climate Impact of Agriculture

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2019, net human greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs: CO2 + methane + nitrous oxide + other gases) totaled 59 ± 6.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (GTCO2e/year). Other more recent CO2 figures from the International Energy Agency and the Global Carbon Project show GHGs have continued to increase after a decrease with Covid-19 in 2020. For consistency, I use an estimate of 59 GTCO₂e/year for 2025.

In 2024, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimated that global food related emissions from the agriculture reached 16.2 GTCO2e/year, including:

• Chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides)
• On-farm emissions (e.g., methane from livestock, nitrous oxide from soils and fertilizers, energy use)
• Land-use change (e.g., deforestation, wetland degradation)
• Pre- and post-production activities (e.g., input manufacturing, food processing, packaging, transport, and food waste)

Currently, only about 2.1% of global agricultural land—100.8 million hectares out of 4.8 billion—is managed organically. Estimates of net GHG sequestration from organic agriculture in these 100.8 million hectares range from 0.181 to 1.1 GTCO₂e/year. Consequently, if all 4.8 billion hectares were organically farmed, global sequestration could reach between 8.64 and 52.8 GTCO₂e/year. My peer-reviewed article in the Cureus Journal of Medical Science reports a mid-range estimate of 24.1 GTCO₂e/year sequestered globally in the ground with organic agriculture.

Adding my GHGs sequestered estimate with the FAO’s GHGs emissions figure (16.2 GTCO2e/year), adopting global organic/regenerative agriculture could reduce net GHGs globally by about 40 GTCO₂e/year—over two-thirds of total human emissions.

🌾 Defining Organic vs. Regenerative Agriculture

• Organic Agriculture focuses on sustaining the system by "doing no harm." The primary goal is to produce food without the use of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or antibiotics. It's a principles-based system with a clear, legal definition and certification process (e.g., USDA Organic). The emphasis is on avoiding harmful inputs.
• Regenerative Agriculture goes a step further. Its primary goal is to actively regenerate the health of the soil and the entire ecosystem. It's an outcome-based approach that seeks to improve the land, not just maintain it. While it often avoids synthetic chemicals, this is a means to an end, not the sole purpose. It is more of a philosophy or a set of practices rather than a single, legally defined standard.

How can we scale up to 100% global organic/regenerative agriculture to prevent climate disaster?

🏡 Ecovillages: A Scalable Path Forward

Ecovillages—whether intentional or traditional—offer a blueprint for sustainable living at a human scale. They integrate social, economic, and ecological dimensions through:

• Shared resources and participatory governance
• Low-impact lifestyles, renewable energy, and green building
• Organic/regenerative agriculture and closed-loop waste systems

Residents work cooperatively, combining skills in farming, renewable energy, construction, education, healthcare, and other occupations. Together, they address environmental, social, economic, educational, and ethical challenges while earning a meaningful livelihood.

Scaling up to global organic/regenerative agriculture will require decentralizing our food system and add hundreds of millions of more farmers to work and live in ecovillages. Incentives must attract urban families to embrace the hard work and rich rewards of ecovillage life.

Given the current global crisis in the status of public health, new ecovillagers may be attracted to ecovillages for the health of their families and themselves.

‍

Ecovillages may also serve as ideal centers for practicing and teaching metabolic health. As a former physician, I studied public health and internal medicine. Public health addresses all threats to human well-being, including poor metabolic health. Currently, only 7–12% of U.S. adults are optimally metabolically healthy. Data aren’t available for most developing countries.

Having optimal metabolic health means the person is not overweight, obese, hypertensive, prediabetic or diabetic, and has HDL cholesterol above 60 mg/dL and triglycerides below 100 mg/dL.

Root causes of poor metabolic health:

• Ultra-processed food and drink
• Low levels of physical activity
• Chronic stress and poor sleep
• Environmental toxins
• Low socioeconomic status

Dr. Casey Means, in Good Energy, calls for a culture shift toward holistic health. Ecovillages could embody this shift—offering vibrant social life, physical activity, and climate activism.

‍

‍

To test for Climate Benefits and Metabolic Health, I propose a pilot project in Point Reyes, California, which is currently the site of a conflict over 17,000 acres of National Park Service ranchlands. The dispute is a "lose-lose-lose" situation: environmentalists pay a large settlement, 12 organic food producers are displaced, farmworkers lose their homes and livelihoods, and the local economy suffers. A lawsuit brought by displaced workers has not been resolved, and the US House of Representative Committee on Natural Resources investigation is still pending. While legally difficult, the committee could find evidence of wrongdoing that could lead to a court-ordered stay or reversal of the settlement.

I propose a "win-win-win" solution that would sequester much more carbon dioxide in the ground than rewilding the land as proposed by The Nature Conservancy conservationists. Instead of rewilding, build three ecovillages, each housing about 1,000 climate activists, on the disputed land. The climate activist ecovillagers’ roles would include:

• Food Security: Grow a diverse, nutrient-dense diet, free of ultra-processed foods.
• Physical Activity: Integrate exercise through daily farming, ranching, and physical labor.
• Stress Management: Practice yoga, meditation, and nature immersion.
• Research: Employ academic experts to tract ecological and metabolic health outcomes.
• Organic/regenerative food: Sell organic/regenerative produce and products at local markets
• Solar energy: Generate enough solar energy to satisfy ecovillagers and an equal number of neighbors.
• Self-sufficiency: Ensure that ecovillagers have diverse backgrounds and skillsets and can perform in a wide variety of occupations.

These villages would require about 3,000-6,000 acres to feed their residents and customers (one half to one acre per person), which is significantly less than the 2.7 acres per person required by the average American’s diet.

The energy consumption of a frugal ecovillager would be about 20,000 kWh per year, a quarter of the American average. A solar energy system for 3,000 villagers and 3,000 more surrounding homes would cost around $80 million plus $4.7 million annually and require 300 acres. After sales to neighbors for $2.45 million, the net energy cost per villager would be about $750 per year.

Success of the Point Reyes ecovillage experiment would mean that the ecovillagers could become self-sufficient in food and energy and have the necessary multiple occupations to function in accordance with the requirements of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. These three ecovillages modeling a path to prevent human extinction from climate change and related interconnected crises would show that it’s possible to succeed with enough global ecovillages.

Researchers would study scientifically whether three ecovillages can provide comfortable and affordable housing, a culture promoting optimal metabolic health, and well compensated hard work directly related to reversing climate change and associated crises. If this Point Reyes experiment is successful economically, metabolic health wise, ecologically (e.g., net sequestration of greenhouse gases), and socially, it may be copied globally to the benefit of current and future generations.

‍

Beyond its climate and health benefits, the Point Reyes project also offers a potential model for tackling one of California's most pressing issues: housing affordability. Housing in Marin County, California cities for 3,000 people costs as much or more than in any place in the US.

• The estimated total cost of new housing in cities for 3,000 California residents would be over $2.0 billion once all the costs are factored in.
• If this Point Reyes project is successful, this could lead to a strategy to address California’s estimated 2-3.5 million housing unit shortage involving approximately 6 million housing insecure Californians.
• The cost of housing in cities for the 6 million housing insecure California residents could reach or exceed $1-$1.7 trillion (About three to six times California’s yearly budget).
• On the other hand, ecovillage housing and other infrastructure costs could be paid by the ecovillagers over time.
• If successful and scaled up to 4 billion ecovillagers, this ecovillage experiment could lead to reduce global greenhouse emissions by 98%. This accounts for a dramatic drop in fossil fuel use and huge increase in carbon sequestration in the ground.

A successful ecovillage project in a place like Marin County would demonstrate that it is possible to build sustainable, community-oriented ecovillage housing for diverse residents, including low- and middle-income residents. This could encourage public and private investment in similar projects across the state and beyond.

Implementation and Expansion

Recruitmentfor ecovillages could be conducted locally, highlighting job security, middle class income, improved health, and a life of meaning and purpose. Applicantswould be required to document their health practices (diet, exercise, etc.)using a health practices app such as Levels.

Funding could come initially from donations and research grants. Over time, the ecovillages would become self-sufficient with the sale of organic food and renewable energy as well as hosting non-ecovillagers interested in learning and adopting metabolic health practices. The success and net earnings of the initial pilot projects would facilitate the exponential global spread of the ecovillage network. Pay for ecovillagers should average or exceed the pay of workers in nearby cities. After all, these workers would be necessary for humanity to thrive.

‍

Ecovillages offer a compelling, scalable solution to the intertwined crises of climate change, metabolic health, and housing insecurity. The Point Reyes pilot could demonstrate that community-driven, regenerative living is not only viable—but essential—for a livable future.

I invite collaboration with policymakers, investors, and community leaders to further develop this model and explore its potential for a sustainable future.

My website is http://www.grandbargainsbook.com.

‍