Imagine: A Sustainable World: Utopia or Delusion

Abstract

Halfway through the fifteen-year period stipulated for the seventeen Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), it is evident that we are still far away from having a sustainable world and even complete compliance with the SDGs will only be a step in the right direction. The present paper reflects, with Earth Overshoot Day and the seventeen SDGs, as starting points, on the actual status as well as the possible way forward. A simple estimate discloses that we, based on the last 24 years, are lacking the resources from roughly ten additional earths due to the overexploitation of the available planetary resources. The paper looks at the relationships between the development in the Earth Overshoot Day and selected SDGs, which strongly suggests that at least in the wealthier part of the world growth, growth for the sake of growth, appears more in focus than sustainability. To actively focus on sustainability and environmental health, a stronger focus on the SDGs 4 (quality education), 5 (gender equality), and 17 (partnerships for the goals) is suggested as the cornerstones in a future approach.

“May our struggles and our concern for this planet never take away the joy of our hope” (Encyclical Latter LAUDATO SI’ of the Holy Father Francis on the care for our common home (24 May 2015)).

1. Introduction

Imagine a world, where we have NO POVERTY and ZERO HUNGER, where all people have access to CLEAN WATER AND SANITATION that will ensure GOOD HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, and all kids get a QUALITY EDUCATION, and girls and boys everywhere can use their full potential because we have GENDER EQUALITY. Due to sensible investments in AFFORDABLE AND CLEAN ENERGY, INDUSTRY, INNOVATION, AND INFRASTRUCTURE, we have created both DECENT WORK AND ECONOMIC GROWTH and achieved REDUCED INEQUALITY. We live in SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND COMMUNITIES and thanks to serious CLIMATE ACTION we have slowed down global warming. LIFE UNDER WATER and LIFE ON LAND is flourishing again because we have ensured RESPONSIBLE CONSUMPTION AND PRODUCTION. Last but not least all people can live safely because PEACE and JUSTICE are SAFEGURADED by STRONG INSTITUTIONS. All because we work together through PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE GOALS.

The above text is the author’s translation of a Danish text that has been used several times and summarizes the eventual objective when discussing a sustainable world. It is immediately noted that this quote addresses all 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) or Global Goals [1], the goals unanimously adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015 [2]. Originally, the goals were—ideally—supposed to be reached within fifteen years. However, looking at the work status midway through this period is unfortunately not promising [3,4,5,6,7], as it is obvious that we still have a long way to go, and it is further obvious that there is no quick fix, even though the former chairperson of the US Senate Environmental Committee James Mountain Inhofe at some point, with reference to the serious problems we are faced with, stated that “The reason I’m not impressed with science and scientist is because the Lord Almighty can overcome those so-called “facts” in the blink of an eye” [8]. Unfortunately, it is not that simple, i.e., there is no magic solution. However, “It’s easier to deny the reality of the problem altogether than acknowledge that it is real” [9] because as Micawber, in Charles Dickens’s novel David Copperfield, constantly assures that “something will turn up” [10] as an answer to his well-known principle: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery” [10].

This immediately raises the question: if we succeed in reaching all 17 Global Goals by 2030, does that mean that we have a sustainable planet? The answer is, unfortunately, a resounding ‘no’. Returning to Mr. Micawber, it might be that he manages to level income and expenditure, but that does not remedy the problems associated with many years of accumulated deficit; translating this into ‘absolute sustainability’, i.e., when we use nature’s tolerance limits as a yardstick for how much our products and actions burden the climate and environment. These limits of tolerance define a leeway, and we only have the planet’s total leeway for our activities. Within this scope, we must all have food, clean water, shelter, transport, etc., which presently is not the case as unambiguously disclosed through the so-called Earth Overshoot Day [11], i.e., the date where we used the “allowed” resources that would be renewable, i.e., a sustainable exploitation. In 2024, on a global scale, this limit was reached by 1 August with significant differences between nations [11]. However, on a global scale, assuming an equal distribution of the use of resources, this means that for 2024, we face a deficit of close to 0.5 planets (Table 1). For the period 2000–2023 the collective deficit amounts to 9.888 planets to claim absolute sustainability (cf. Table 1). The ethical challenges of this have recently been discussed [12]. It must also be stated that the 17 global goals are interconnected, i.e., touching with one goal may have positive or negative influences on one or more other goals (cf. ref. [12]).

Based on the most recent data for the development of the 17 SDGs during the period 2000–2023 (it should be noted that the period 2000–2015 is the 15 years prior to the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015), [3] will be addressed with their relation to the overexploitation of resources, mostly related to economic growth, as illustrated and documented by the Earth Overshoot Day [11]. In daily life, climate change and the environment have typically been used as indicators of a lack of sustainability. As stated by Michael S. Northcott: “That there are earthly limits to growth in economic activities in every nation is more clearly revealed by climate change than by any other feature of the ecological crisis” [13]. In other words, “growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell” [14]. In the final section, the author’s suggested focus points for the future will be presented.

Table 1. Earth Overshoot Day 2000–2023 in days (EODdays), the percentage (EODpct) of the respective year [11], together with the number of planets’ deficiency for sustainable use of resources and the World SDG index (SDGindex) [15].

Year	EODdays	EODpct	“Deficiency”	SDG Index
2000	290	79.45	0.259	57.77
2001	286	78.36	0.276	58.04
2002	292	80.00	0.250	58.25
2003	285	78.08	0.281	58.47
2004	275	75.34	0.327	58.75
2005	270	73.97	0.352	59.20
2006	267	73.15	0.367	59.49
2007	258	70.68	0.415	59.95
2008	259	70.96	0.409	60.20
2009	266	72.88	0.372	60.55
2010	253	69.32	0.443	61.12
2011	249	68.22	0.466	61.54
2012	247	67.67	0.478	61.96
2013	246	67.40	0.484	62.35
2014	248	67.95	0.472	63.14
2015	250	68.49	0.460	63.51
2016	252	69.04	0.448	63.82
2017	248	67.95	0.472	64.35
2018	244	66.85	0.496	64.77
2019	246	67.40	0.484	65.30
2020	259	70.96	0.409	65.69
2021	246	67.40	0.484	65.87
2022	244	66.85	0.496	66.15
2023	245	67.12	0.490	66.30

Table 1. Earth Overshoot Day 2000–2023 in days (EODdays), the percentage (EODpct) of the respective year [11], together with the number of planets’ deficiency for sustainable use of resources and the World SDG index (SDGindex) [15].

Year	EODdays	EODpct	“Deficiency”	SDG Index
2000	290	79.45	0.259	57.77
2001	286	78.36	0.276	58.04
2002	292	80.00	0.250	58.25
2003	285	78.08	0.281	58.47
2004	275	75.34	0.327	58.75
2005	270	73.97	0.352	59.20
2006	267	73.15	0.367	59.49
2007	258	70.68	0.415	59.95
2008	259	70.96	0.409	60.20
2009	266	72.88	0.372	60.55
2010	253	69.32	0.443	61.12
2011	249	68.22	0.466	61.54
2012	247	67.67	0.478	61.96
2013	246	67.40	0.484	62.35
2014	248	67.95	0.472	63.14
2015	250	68.49	0.460	63.51
2016	252	69.04	0.448	63.82
2017	248	67.95	0.472	64.35
2018	244	66.85	0.496	64.77
2019	246	67.40	0.484	65.30
2020	259	70.96	0.409	65.69
2021	246	67.40	0.484	65.87
2022	244	66.85	0.496	66.15
2023	245	67.12	0.490	66.30

2. The 17 SDGs and Overshoot

Earth Overshoot Day [11] illustrates the planet’s overexploitation. We have a maximum amount of material per year that will be renewed, which would, on a global scale, correspond to an Earth Overshoot Day on 31 December. Any overshoot day estimated to be before this date signals that we are using more resources at a speed higher than what the planet may be able to regenerate. This is not a new phenomenon. Hence, over the years, the date moved backward from 17 September in the year 2000 to 2 August in the year 2023, corresponding to 290 days (79.45%), and 245 (67.12%) of the year passed, respectively (Table 1), the relationship being visualized in Figure 1. The small peak in a positive direction in the year 2020 for the Earth Overshoot Day is associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

The simple graphical presentation (Figure 1) demonstrates clearly that although the overall global SDG index [3] is increasing over the 2000 to 2023 period, although leveling out during the later years, a simultaneous decrease, i.e., postponement of the Earth Overshoot Day, cannot be noted. In other words, this unambiguously points to the fact that although we are getting closer to complying with global goals, we are still far away from having a sustainable (planet) society.

An even more significant picture is seen in the visualization of the relationship between Earth Overshoot Day and the global development of SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure), which could be expected to be a goal that could possibly change the negative development of Overshoot Day (Figure 2) if the innovation was a focus for a reduction in resources and thus a sustainable development.

The discussion of whether some kind of technological solution can ‘solve’ our problems has been popping up in various forms in recent years [16]. However, looking at the diagram in Figure 2 does not support such a belief. Thus, although a steady increase in SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) is noted, it apparently does not have any specific effect on Earth Overshoot Day.

3. The Importance of Single SDGs for Overall Compliance

An interesting question obviously concerns the relative importance of the 17 SDGs. Based on the indexes for single countries, this information is achievable, e.g., through the application of partial order methodology [17,18,19,20]. The present study applies the data available for the fourteen different regions covering all 193 countries as given in the most recent Sustainable Development report [3,15], i.e., high-income countries (HIC), Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), low-income countries (LIC), lower-middle-income countries (LMIC), Middle East and North Africa (MENA), OECD members (OECD), Oceania (Oceania), small island developing states (SIDS), upper-middle-income countries (UMIC), Sub-Saharan Africa (Africa), BRICS members (BRICS), BRICS members (BRICSplus), and Eastern Europe and Central Asia (E-Euro_Asia), and East and South Asia (E_S_Asia). It must be stated that using these fourteen regions as representatives for the 193 individual countries obviously has some pitfalls, as it potentially may obscure, possibly significant differences between the single countries covered by the region. In Appendix A, the developments of the seventeen SDGs over the 2000–2023 period have been shown for the fourteen regions [3,15]. Based on this data, the Hasse diagram shown in Figure 3 is constructed. It should be noted here that possible effects of the interrelationship between the single goals is not displayed in the diagram, as this interrelation in general is not quantifiable.

The diagram gives a first impression of the development of the SDGs over the 2000–2023-year period; the most striking appears to be the low position of SDG 13 (climate action) and SDG 16 (peace, justice, and strong institutions). It should be noted that SDG 7 (affordable and clean energy) in the diagram appears as an isolated element and its location in the top of the diagram is by default as elements are placed as high in the diagram as possible [17,18]. A more detailed picture develops by calculating the average ranking of the SDGs as calculated by the LPOMext method [19] (

Table 2. Average ranking of development of the seventeen SDGs based on data in Appendix A.

Objects	LPOMext	Rank
SDG 9	16.142	1
SDG 1	14.919	2
SDG 5	14.836	3
SDG 3	14.679	4
SDG 4	11	5.5
SDG 10	11	5.5
SDG 17	9.333	7
SDG 7	9	8
SDG 14	8.25	9
SDG 15	7.333	10
SDG 6	6.667	11
SDG 12	5.833	12
SDG 2	4.883	13.5
SDG 8	4.883	13.5
SDG 11	4.1	15
SDG 13	3.65	16
SDG 16	2.347	17

).

The above statement about SDG 13 and SDG 16 appears a priori confirmed through the data in

Table 3. A world view of the average SDG indexes and the development of the SDG indexes for the 2000–2023 period.

SDG	Average	Development
SDG1	64.26	41.06
SDG2	60.93	2.89
SDG3	64.31	15.72
SDG4	76.38	6.07
SDG5	53.77	10.40
SDG6	59.28	5.95
SDG7	56.67	13.57
SDG8	71.24	0.93
SDG9	50.79	29.63
SDG10	36.51	6.86
SDG11	64.54	−0.26
SDG12	79.55	0.03
SDG13	87.26	−1.06
SDG14	59.29	5.51
SDG15	56.06	3.02
SDG16	57.21	−2.16
SDG17	54.87	5.63

. It is further disclosed that SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure) appears as the SDG that experienced the highest development towards compliance with the goal over the years. For an overall comparison, Table 3 summarizes the SDG developments as increases in the SDG indexes for the seventeen goals over the 2000–2023 period for the entire world.

Looking at the data given in Table 3, the most significant development appears in SDG 1 (no poverty), followed by SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure). This may seem somewhat strange compared to the above-average rankings (Table 2). However, scrutinizing the data presented in Appendix A, it can be noted that whereas the development on SDG 9 appears rather uniform over the fourteen regions, much more uneven development is, not surprisingly, noted for SDG 1, as, e.g., the HIC region basically has no increase, as they were already back in 2000 close to 100, whereas, e.g., for the regions UMIC, BRICS, BRICSplus, and E_S_Asia, increases around 60–65 were noted (Appendix A), which eventually in the average ranking caused the changing positions.

On the global scale (Table 3), an apparent slightly negative development in SDG 13 (climate action) is observed. However, taking this overall figure as an indication that climate action is rather close to complying with the SDG 13 goal is clearly misleading. Appendix B summarizes the 2000–2023 average values for the seventeen SDGs, and significant differences between the single regions can be noted. Thus, for LAC, an overall average of SDG 13 at close to 93% indicates that the goal is close to being achieved; the corresponding figures for the HIC and OECD values, i.e., the wealthier part of the world, is 64 and 69%, respectively, still leaving significant actions for the coming years. The detailed discussions of these trends are outside the scope of the present paper and they have been discussed in detail in the 2024 edition of the Sustainable Development Report [3]. Similarly significant differences can be noted for SDG 16 and SDG 12, respectively, which also indicates that the overall values are misleading due to the significant variations.

With the above in mind, returning to the relations between the sustainability goals and Earth Overshoot Day appears appropriate. It is noteworthy that a series of areas covered by the SDGs unambiguously contributes to resource drainage. In this respect, SDGs 1, 2, 3, 8, and 12 appear crucial.

In the first three cases, SDG 1 (no poverty), SDG 2 (zero hunger), and SDG 3 (good health and well-being) complying with these goals will draw on the available resources, not least due to the increasing global population. In Figure 4, the development in SDGs 1, 2, and 3 is shown together with the development in Earth Overshoot Day. The increase in these three SDGs is unambiguous due to allocating the necessary resources. This could call for an ethical discussion on the increasing world population; however, this discussion has previously been taken and is reported elsewhere [12]. However, it is crucial to note that the increases in these three SDGs can only be looked upon as positive. It should, as above, again be remembered that the present study focuses on regions; thus, possible differences on the country level are obliterated.

Turning to SDGs 8 (decent work and economic growth) and 12 (responsible consumption and production), these two SDGs appeared virtually stagnant throughout the 2000–2023 period (Figure 5).

It is tempting to explain the development visualized in Figure 2 and Figure 5 as a focus on maintaining continuous consumption and economic growth, not as an innovation focusing on reducing the drainage of the Earth’s resources. This is especially clear if we look at, e.g., the HIC group of countries where a significant innovation occurred over the year, expressed as the increase in the SDG 9 index, whereas there is virtually no increase in the SDG 12 index, i.e., stagnant sustainable consumption and production (Figure 6A). The textile industry may serve as a frightening example of (unsubstantiated) growth [21] that was nicely expressed by Abbey: “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell” [14], followed up by the saying by Sallie McFague that “It is notable that none of the world’s religions has as its maxim: ‘Blessed are the greedy’” [22,23].

Analogously, a stagnant climate action (Figure 6B) can be noted. Similar pictures develop for other groups of wealthier countries, such as, e.g., OECD, whereas the reverse picture develops for, e.g., LIC group, where the innovation index (SDG 9) over the years increases from approx. 13 to 21, whereas the corresponding SDG 12 and 13 indexes are 95+ and 98+ [15].

The above rather simple analyses clearly substantiate an unfortunately well-known conclusion that the wealthier countries are the “bad guys,” which has been elucidated through the discussions and outcomes from the long series of COP meeting; the last in Baku constitutes an exemplary case [24]. This obviously raises the question, or better, questions about what to do. It is outside the scope of this paper to initiate a discussion on the long series of reports that appeared over the last decades, which, up to date, had surprisingly little effect despite the constant, more and more gloomy, and depressing messages. Too much talk and too little action, or as a young American expressed it recently: “Everybody sort of know that the systems failed. We all have the internal feeling that the systems failed. Forget about solving the problem. Now we are just busy finding someone to point the finger at” [25]. To change this attitude, at least among the (younger) population requires focus on at least three of the Global Goals, SDG 4, 5, and 17, although this is not the Holy Grail for solving the problem; however, as these 3 SDGs most obviously focus on specific action, it appears as a good starting point eventually to turn the negative development so clearly displayed through the Earth Overshoot Day [11].

SDG 4 (quality education).

“Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all” [26].

It is not an exaggeration to claim that quality education, which also includes information, is a key point in the relation of several of the other SDGs, not least in relation to the goals comprising the “planet” pillar, i.e., the goals 6, 12, 13, 14, and 15, respectively [6]. Unfortunately, even today, millions of students do not have basic numeracy and literacy skills [26], which constitutes mandatory backgrounds for understanding and subsequently acting, e.g., for a better and more sustainable environment and thus positively contributing to the needed reduction in the overexploitation of the Earth’s resources.

SDG 5 (gender equality).

“Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls” [26].

Half of the world’s population is women, and as such, they constitute half of the potential. In relation to sustainability, and in particular the environment, it was already in 1989 observed that women are the worst victims of environment; the poorer, the greater the burden [27], and consequently that “environmental stress often disproportionately affects women” [28]. However, due to this, it may well be that “women possess greater knowledge and expertise in finding solutions to pressing environmental problems” and then be “in a good position to aid in creating new practical and intellectual ecological paradigms” [27]. Hence, women constitute a rather crucial factor in solving the sustainability and environmental issues we are facing. This was nicely formulated by Rosemary Radford Ruether back in 1975: “Women must see that there can be no liberation for them and no solution to the ecological crisis within a society whose fundamental model of relationships continues to be one of domination. They must unite the demands of the women’s movement with those of the ecological movement to envision a radical reshaping of the basic socioeconomic relations and the underlying values of this society” [29].

SDG 17 (Partnerships for the goals).

“Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development” [26].

It is obvious that despite that fact that we all can make our smaller or larger contributions towards a more sustainable (planet) society and thus a more sustainable use of the available resources, collaboration nationally as well as internationally is a mandatory prerequisite for the eventual success, which will require mobilization of both existing and additional resources.

4. Conclusions and Outlook

Is a sustainable world utopia or delusion? That is the question! Independently of how we look at it, we are still far away.

“We are in the process of losing the beauty and wonder of a gracious world designed in some manner as the place where the meeting of the divine and the human can be achieved in its full expression, a place suitable for the divine indwelling. Will we have the energy and the will to restore this world?” [30].

If that shall be achieved, which most probably is the overall wish for all of us, we may believe, analogously with 1 Cor, we learn that ”And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love” [31], and “now these three remain: Quality education, Gender equality and Partnerships. But the greatest of these is Partnerships”.

“You may say I’m a dreamer

But I’m not the only one

I hope someday you’ll join us

And the world will live as one” [32]

“May our struggles and our concern for this planet never

take away the joy of our hope” [33].