September 29, 2015 | By Michael Tiboris

Global Goals: Can We Do More and Better with Less?

Courtesy of sustainabledevelopment.un.org

Between Pope Francis's address to the United States Congress and the United Nation's adoption of the new Sustainable Development Goals, it has been an auspicious couple weeks for powerful calls to action in the face of persistent global challenges.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), or Global Goals, are a reaffirmation and extension of the eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted in 2000. At that time, the focus was primarily on eradicating extreme poverty for the estimated 1.9 billion people struggling to meet their basic needs on a day to day basis. The number of people affected by extreme poverty makes it gravely urgent on its own terms, but poverty also impacts our collective ability to address a number of other related environmental and public health crises. The new SDGs include 17 targets. A cluster of these are still poverty-related, but a significant number of them are focused on climate change, ecosystem protection, cleaner energy development, and sustainable urbanization.

Sustainable development is broadly understood as economic development which is both socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable. The SDGs appear to fit snugly within this general definition, including targets for "Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure" and "Decent Work and Economic Growth" which suggest the belief that the best way forward for addressing global challenges is still fostering opportunities for collective global growth. Inclusive growth is especially important from this perspective because the traditional mechanisms of economic development have not spread the benefits of global development equitably. The wealthiest parts of the world have thrived on unsustainable consumption, but the benefits of this have largely remained with those countries while the burdens have been shared with, or even exported to, the developing world. The SDGs, and the MDGs before them, acknowledge that the developed world must do more to see that technological and economic gains that are the dividend on development make their way to the worst off.

According to the United Nations (UN), there has been significant progress in reducing extreme poverty and hunger since the original goals went into effect. The number of people living in extreme poverty has, by the their measurements, been reduced by half. As economist Jeffrey Sachs notes, major reductions in poverty produce cascading quality of life effects including greater access to health care, and thus reduced child mortality and increased prospects for getting an education.[1] Over 90 percent of the world now has access to improved drinking water sources, up from 76 percent in 1990.[2] But poor access to improved sanitation, a major disease vector, is still very common, leaving about a billion people entirely without access to toilets or wastewater treatment. Women benefit the most significantly from investments in alleviating poverty as it frequently means a chance to become educated, join the workforce, and to raise fewer children. Many of these gains do not require huge investments in new technology, and in fact they largely require intensive efforts to ensure that existing low-cost, effective solutions simply get into the hands of the people who need them. For instance, the widespread delivery of long-lasting insecticide treated mosquito nets has begun to make a significant dent in malaria (down 60 percent in the last 15 years).

The SDGs continue to put pressure on ending poverty and its associated challenges of hunger, clean water, health, education, and gender equality. In fact, the scope of the goals has been extended to include relative inequality as well. But most dramatically, they now include a much stronger stance in dealing with climate change. One of the deep complexities of sustainable development is the pent-up growth that successfully bringing the developing world out of poverty represents. Even if fertility rates fall along with decreasing poverty, people who have long been excluded from their share of global prosperity are set to put increasing demands on the shared resource base. It seems difficult for the developed world, which has long enjoyed its advantages (gained first through the active exclusion of colonialism and then at the cost of concerted environmental exploitation) to convince the developing world that now they must be more cautious. Sustainable energy and agriculture will be necessary here, and they are places where our faith rests largely on technological advances that have yet to arrive. The SDGs include targets for both of these problems, but they are unsurprisingly vague about the path to sustainability. 

In the face of absolutely unprecedented global threats like climate change, it is tempting to be skeptical about the value of the grand call to action that the SDGs represent. The SDGs, however, aren't meant to solve problems by themselves. They're meant for coordinating our attention on the sorts of challenges humans are especially bad at solving—ones that are slow to develop via lots of individually insignificant actions, most directly affect people with whom we don't have contact, and are intergenerational in their impact. The greatest threat to the SDGs satisfaction is not likely to be the failure of the developing world to progressively improve the lives of their citizens. It will, instead, be the unwillingness of the developed world to do its part in moving toward sustainable consumption and production. "Doing more and better with less," as Goal 12 requires, is unfortunately perceived as a heavy lift for places like the United States, which have been unwilling to accept limitations that potentially constrain its economic interests. This may be part of what underlies the assumption that sustainable development requires indefinite global economic growth. Even so, the Global Goals' manage to echo Pope Francis's  injunction that "we must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."  Whether we manage to act on that shared conviction will define both the prospects for sustainable development and the future stability of the planet.

About

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization that provides insight – and influences the public discourse – on critical global issues. We convene leading global voices and conduct independent research to bring clarity and offer solutions to challenges and opportunities across the globe. The Council is committed to engaging the public and raising global awareness of issues that transcend borders and transform how people, business, and governments engage the world.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is an independent, nonpartisan organization. All statements of fact and expressions of opinion in blog posts are the sole responsibility of the individual author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Council.

Archive

| By Brian Hanson, Salomón Chertorivski

City Diplomacy from Mexico City to Chicago

Mayors have to take care of their populations, and sometimes that means going to other countries. A delegation of Mexican mayors from Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Juarez came to Chicago to conduct city-to-city diplomacy during an "emergency time" in US-Mexico relations. Salomón Chertorivski, secretary of economic development of Mexico City, sat down with the Council's Brian Hanson to discuss what they hoped to achieve.



| By Brian Hanson, Cécile Shea

Deep Dish: US Intervention And Our Divided National Soul

Syria, Libya, and Iraq are the latest in a series of contentious US interventions. Forced to choose between leaving other countries alone or trying to run the world—Americans choose both, says author and journalist Stephen Kinzer. On this week's Deep Dish, Kinzer and career diplomat Cécile Shea discuss intervention done well, done poorly, and how the intervention debate has endured since the Spanish-American war. Subscribe now. 


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week’s Reads – Why Process Matters

The resignation of Michael Flynn as national security advisor "reveals an important truth, which all Presidents learn sooner or later, namely that when it comes to policy, process matters," says Council President Ivo Daalder. This Weeks Reads take a look at the major security issues facing the United States and provide some insights into the Trump administration’s approach to managing them.


| By Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Don't Go to Russia on Your Knees

A flare-up of violence in eastern Ukraine following a call between presidents Putin and Trump has many wondering what’s next in the highly combustible situation. On this week's Deep Dish podcast, former US Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst joins Russia expert Samuel Charap to analyze Putin’s goals and the likely outcome of a shift in Eurasian geopolitics.


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads – Culture and Conflict

In the early 1990's, famous political scientist Samuel Huntington posited a thesis that the major source of conflict in the post-Cold War world would not occur over ideological or economic fault lines, but cultural ones. Indeed, today we are beset with crises in the West and around the world—but to what degree is culture the cause? This Weeks Reads from Council President Ivo Daalder explores the ways in which culture is influencing our new era of global politics.


| By Kristin Ljungkvist

The Global City as Global Security Leader

The walled city once symbolized security. In these globalized times, leaders may build airports rather than walls, yet cities – not nations – once again increasingly stand on the front line of security. 


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week’s Reads - China Rising?

The coming months are likely to be a volatile and unpredictable time for US-China relations and for each country’s position within the global world order. This Week’s Reads shed light on the issues and dynamics at play in China’s potential rise.


One More Question with Richard Haass

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, says the world is entering an era of disarray. We asked him how he saw the role of think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs


| By Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Trump Immigration Ban – Making America Safe or ISIS Great?

President Trump’s executive order suspending new refugee admissions and blocking travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries has sparked protests across the United States and shocked the world. Ian Tuttle says Trump’s order is mostly right on substance but wrong on rollout, while Robert Pape says Trump is making ISIS great again. Listen to this episode of Deep Dish to hear two leading voices describe what’s at stake.


| By Brian Hanson

Deep Dish: Trump's Power in True Trade Wars

International trade was a centerpiece of President Trump’s campaign. This week's Deep Dish podcast discusses what powers Trump has to change trade policy and what it would look like if he or another nation initiated a true trade war. 


| By Ivo H. Daalder

This Week's Reads – Populism in Power

On both sides of the Atlantic, we have entered a new and uncertain era – one of nationalism and populism in power. This Week's Reads examine major speeches by President Trump and UK Prime Minister May and provide some perspectives on the shifting roles of United States and Britain in global politics. 


One More Question with Sarah Kendzior

Globe and Mail columnist Sarah Kendzior joined an expert panel at the Council on January 19 to discuss media and democracy in a post-truth era. We asked her for the best and worst case scenarios on how the media landscape may evolve—watch her response.