Sustainable development means achieving economic growth that is widely shared and that protects the Earth’s vital resources, but our current global economy is not sustainable, with more than a billion people left behind by economic progress and the Earth’s environment suffering terrible damage from human activity. Sustainable development requires mobilizing new technologies that are guided by shared social values.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has rightly declared sustainable development to be at the top of the global agenda. We have entered a dangerous period in which a huge and growing population, combined with rapid economic growth, now threatens to have a catastrophic impact on the Earth’s climate, biodiversity and fresh-water supplies. Scientists call this new period the Anthropocene — in which human beings have become the main causes of the Earth’s physical and biological changes.
Ban’s Global Sustainability Panel has issued a new report that outlines a framework for sustainable development. The panel rightly notes that sustainable development has three pillars — ending extreme poverty; ensuring that prosperity is shared by all, including women, youth and minorities; and protecting the natural environment. These can be termed the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development, or more simply the “triple bottom line” of sustainable development.
The panel has called for world leaders to adopt a new set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that will help to shape global policies and actions after the 2015 target date for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Whereas the Millennium Development Goals focus on reducing extreme poverty, the SDGs will focus on all three pillars of sustainable development — ending extreme poverty, sharing the benefits of economic development for all of society and protecting the Earth.
It is, of course, one thing to set SDGs and quite another to achieve them. The problem can be seen by looking at one key challenge — climate change.
Today, there are 7 billion people on the planet and each one, on average, is responsible for the release each year of a bit more than four tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This carbon dioxide is emitted when we burn coal, oil and gas to produce electricity, drive our cars or heat our homes. All told, humans emit roughly 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year into the atmosphere, enough to change the climate sharply within a few decades.
By 2050, there will most likely be more than 9 billion people. If these people are richer than people today (and therefore using more energy per person), total emissions worldwide could double or even triple. This is the great dilemma — we need to emit less carbon dioxide, but we are on a global path to emit much more.
We should care about that scenario, because remaining on a path of rising global emissions is almost certain to cause havoc and suffering for billions of people as they are hit by a torrent of droughts, heat waves, hurricanes and more. We have already experienced the onset of this misery in recent years, with a spate of devastating famines, floods and other climate-related disasters.
So, how can the world’s people — especially its poor people — benefit from more electricity and more access to modern transportation, but in a way that saves the planet rather than destroys it?
The truth is that we cannot — unless we improve dramatically the technologies that we use.
We need to use energy far more wisely, while shifting from fossil fuels to low-carbon energy sources. Such decisive improvements are certainly possible and economically realistic.
Consider the energy inefficiency of an automobile, for example. We currently move about 1,000kg to 2,000kg of machinery to transport only one or just a few people, each weighing perhaps 75kg, and we do so using an internal combustion engine that utilizes only a small part of the energy released by burning the gasoline. Most of the energy is lost as waste heat.
We could therefore achieve huge reductions in carbon dioxide emissions by converting to small, lightweight, battery-powered vehicles running on highly efficient electric motors and charged by a low-carbon energy source, such as solar power. Even better, by shifting to electric vehicles we would be able to use cutting-edge information technology to make them smart — even smart enough to drive themselves using advanced data processing and positioning systems.
The benefits of information and communications technologies can be found in every area of human activity — better farming using global positioning systems and micro-dosing of fertilizers; precision manufacturing; buildings that know how to economize on energy use; and, of course, the transformative, distance-erasing power of the Internet.
Mobile broadband is already connecting even the most distant villages in rural Africa and India, thereby cutting down significantly on the need for travel. Banking is now done by telephone and so, too, is a growing range of medical diagnostics. Electronic books are beamed directly to handheld devices, without the need for bookshops, travel, and the pulp and paper of physical books.
Education is increasingly online as well and it will soon enable students everywhere to receive first-rate instruction at almost a zero “marginal” cost for enrolling another student.
Yet getting from here to sustainable development will not just be a matter of technology. It will also be a matter of market incentives, government regulations, and public support for research and development, but even more fundamental than policies and governance will be the challenge of values. We must understand our shared fate and embrace sustainable development as a common commitment to decency for all human beings, today and in the future.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of economics and director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute. He is also special adviser to the UN secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs