On 21st September 2015, leaders from 193 countries signed the adoption of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a roadmap till 2030, with a determination to put the global economy back into harmony with our living planet. It was a grand international event, branded as "the world's largest advertising campaign."[1] with a sophisticated social media campaign featuring youth icons like Beyoncé & One Direction. Since then, SDG has become a buzzword, celebrated around the world.
To measure where each
nation stands concerning fulfilling the 17 SDGs, the United Nations (UN) uses an
index developed by American Economist Jeffrey Sachs, comprising 169 targets and
231 indicators. These indicators include economic, social, and ecological
targets, and countries are given scores to measure the progress toward
achieving all 17 SDGs. As of 2022, the top rankers of the SDG index are
Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, along with most other wealthy Western
nations. So, it is evident that these countries should be our role models in
our quest for sustainability. Commendable, right!
It only has one problem.
The SDG Index, despite its name, has virtually very little to do with
sustainable development. Surprisingly, the countries with the highest ratings
on this measure are among the least ecologically sustainable nations in the
globe.
Take Finland, for example,
the topper in the class. Finland has a carbon footprint of roughly 13 metric
tonnes of CO2 per person annually. In terms of pollution per capita, this makes
it one of the most polluting nations in the world. Relatively, India has a
carbon footprint of less than 2. If the entire globe consumes as much fossil
fuel as Finland does, the earth would be uninhabitable.
There is a structural
problem when it comes to ranking. Only four (12-15) of the 17 SDGs measure ecological
impacts; all others are of socio-economic development. This means countries
doing well in socio-economic development goals can rank higher even though
their environmental effect is severely unsustainable.
In the last few years, SDGs
have been utilized as a worldwide framework for investment. This raises
questions on whether the goals sought incremental change or these sponsored
by corporations with a specific agenda? For example, Goal 2, "Zero
Hunger," rather than "Food Sovereignty," allows businesses to
distribute high-fat, sugar, and salt food to young children while claiming to
be eradicating hunger. Instead of ending hunger, such activities exacerbate
childhood obesity and other chronic disorders. Indigenous people, for example,
in the Pacific Islands, Southeast Asia, and Africa, are losing their capacity
to grow their own food. They are increasingly becoming consumers of junk food,
which is cheaper, more accessible, and less labor intensive.
Lastly, the primary problem
of SDGs is that it evolves around just one term, 'GDP.' The foundation of the sustainable
development and poverty reduction agenda is based on the traditional industrial
growth paradigm – ever-increasing levels of extraction, production, and
consumption. Goal 8 aims for “7% annual GDP growth in LDCs and improved levels
of economic productivity” worldwide. If we want to end poverty through GDP
growth, quoting Jason Hickel, “While global GDP has grown by 271% since 1990,
the number of people living on less than $5/day has increased by more than 370
million. Under best-case scenarios, if the poorest 60% of humanity receives
only 5% of all new income generated by global growth, it will take 207 years to
eliminate poverty with this strategy. And to get there, we will have to grow
the global economy by 175 times its present size.”[2] It's utterly ludicrous, yet it demonstrates
how deeply inequality is ingrained in our economic system.
The terms like ‘green
growth’ or ‘eco-friendly' sound sexy, but the thing is that no growth can be
green because growth cannot be achieved without material consumption of earth's
resources; no products can be made in factories out of thin air. The United
Nations Environment Program—once a major proponent of green growth
theory—tested a 'green growth' scenario in which carbon was priced at a
staggering $573 per metric ton, a resource extraction tax was imposed, and
rapid technological innovation was assumed to be fuelled by strong government
support. The result shows that by 2050, we will reach 132 billion metric tonnes
annually. For comparison, sustainable resource usage is around 50 billion
metric tons per year, which we exceeded in 2000.
Kenneth Boulding famously said,
"Anyone who believes in unlimited development on a physically finite
earth is either mad or an economist." Yet we are still relying on “improved
levels of economic productivity" fuelled by limitless consumption. There
is a dire need to look at alternatives ensuring "sustainable
well-being" instead of "sustainable development." In other
words, if Bhutanese people are happy without a 7% incremental economic growth,
let it be like that.
* This article is written in collaboration with my dear friend Sripad Ainavolu.
