Module 1.3 Discussion (Critiquing the UN's SDGs)

3/24/2020

Directions: Use information from the following articles (or other articles you find online - if you do find other bits of information please provide a more full citation in your response or link to the article) to answer the prompt below. Create one original post with your own answer to the prompt with reference to at least one article (cite the article in your response by including the name of the author in parentheses ex. (Hickel)). You will also need to post a response to a classmate's post with a refuting argument (again citing information from an appropriate article).

Suggested Sources:
- Dr. Jason Hickel, Five Reasons to Think Twice About the UN's Sustainable Development Goals
- Dr. Kathleen Smyth, A Historian's Critique of Sustainability (pgs. 921-924)
- Andrew Urevig, How are we doing with the Environment-related Sustainable Development Goals?
- World Economic Forum (WEF), Which countries are achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals Fastest?
- Kaysia Brown and Krista Rasmussen, The Sustainable Development Goals in 2019: People, Planet, Prosperity in Focus

Prompt: Are the UN's Sustainable Development environmental goals too lofty? Are the world's environmental issues better left to national or local levels of government to try to address?

64 Comments

M. Milner

1/11/2021 11:28:41 am

UN Summits this week are not only a missed opportunity, but actively dangerous because they lock the global development agenda around a failing economic model.
SDGs are being ignored because, unlike with the encyclical, there is nothing in them that’s really new.
Growth does not reduce poverty
inequality gets ignored
Surprisingly, the SDGs offer little by way of solutions to many of the biggest known drivers of global poverty.
Nowhere is the compromised nature of the SDGs more evident than in their proposal to eradicate extreme poverty, which they measure at only $1.25/da
Inconclusive, There okay. I think that they need to increase their poverty requirements to make it $5 a day not $1.25. That they need to change the way they do some marketing and really drive home how they plan on fixing it. LIke how they plan on helping countries with their issues. Yes there are problems and the SDG could use some revamping. However, they are doing some good and if we don't have them what do we have

Wattles

1/11/2021 03:37:44 pm

Their goals are too generalized, and really don’t have plans in place for how countries can execute these goals. In response to one of the SDGs, Hickel says, “it’s not clear what this means,” and he says things similar, as their goals are so vague. I think it’s good to set these goals so that way everyone can be on the same page on how to target issues, but since the United Nations cannot implement laws, it has to be up to the nations or local governments to do what they deem necessary in terms of policy decisions. Even if the untied nations could create world-wide laws, its not going to work everywhere, since different areas have different problems.

Izzy Martin

1/13/2021 01:15:57 pm

I definitely agree with you! Hickel’s article really hit it home with pointing out how little specificities are established with the UN’s SDGs. Maybe if they set individual goals for each Nation it could be a little more realistic / easier to enact? I think that would help with other countries being in different stages of development in relation to climate change. I think the SDGs should be more specific for each country and that would make them feel more feasible.

Haley Bates

1/11/2021 10:24:34 pm

I don't feel as if the United Nations goals are necessarily "too lofty", but instead the way they are going about achieving them is just unrealistic. Hickel's article points out that the United Nations aims to prevent the 2 degree increase, though also has a goal of increasing GDP by 7%. The article also argues that an increase in GDP does not equate to reducing poverty and the measure of extreme poverty itself is too low at $1.25 per day rather than the more realistic $5 per day (Hickel). The argument of Hickel's article suggests that for the SDGs to be accomplished, a new economic system would be necessary as capitalism encourages the unsustainable practice of overconsumption. In order to effectively utilize resources to reduce climate change and poverty levels, wealth would need to be redistributed in a new economic model (Hickel). This rejection of capitalism by Hickel is a very bold claim, however the facts hold some weight. Ethical consumption is a necessity to reduce emissions and in turn prevent a temperature increase. Ethic consumption would also help to redistribute wealth and reduce poverty. I believe the UN should have big goals toward global improvement, but they need more action behind the "plans". Urevig's article calls for updated data collection technology and increased international sharing of data. Though data is important to make adjustments, the adjustments need to actually be put in place. The United Nations seem to be having a lot of conversations about future goals but individual countries need to start committing to tangible action plans.

Virginia Holtzclaw

1/13/2021 08:23:53 am

I agree with the idea that a new economic system is needed to properly address the United Nation’s goals, and that while it is a good idea that the SDGs are vague, the UN needs to have plans to reach those goals. The industrial growth model relies on increasing levels of extraction production and consumption (Hickel). The SDGs directly contrast this by calling for “sustainable patterns of production and consumption,” and disregard the facts that growth does not fix poverty. Hickel states that the poorest 60% of humanity only receive 5% of income generated by global growth, which only serves to show why capitalism cannot support sustainable production and consumption and therefore will not help those in poverty. The UN needs to recognize that the current economic system won’t support its goals, and figure out how to address this problem. Simply stating the goals won’t help them be reached. Tangible action plans are needed, and countries need to commit to them.

Alyssa Williams

1/12/2021 02:56:25 pm

I think at least in the environmental situation, the United Nation plays the role of a friend whose just going to tell it to you straight. Their goals might be big but they aren't unattainable especially with all the resources we have globally. Having a plan isn't the United Nations job, their job is to make suggestions to countries be an adviser not a law maker. I think that's getting lost in translation. In Andrew Urevig's article he says the following "If stakeholders around the world can take action to close these knowledge and information gaps, the report makes clear, we’ll have a better grasp of the challenges ahead" (Urevig). Which implies its an ignorance and lack of education issue, not a lack realism (goals being to lofty). Yes, I think the environmental crisis should be handled or at least overseen by an organization like the United Nations.

Amelia Collins

1/13/2021 08:08:27 am

I agree with your statement that the United National job is to make suggestions and not to be the lawmaker of its member country. I also agree that the SDGs aren’t necessarily too lofty and that it is getting lost in translation. As mentioned in Hickel’s article, the biggest issue with the SDGs is that they are either not being specific enough or are going about their goals in a flawed way. The article even mentioned how there was a point in the SDGs where too of the SDG’s contradicted themselves. So I think you are correct in saying that they aren’t too lofty like a lot of people point to, but that they are confusing and misleading. It’s hard for the member countries to reach these goals if there’s a misunderstanding of the correct way of attaining these goals. Comparing the United Nations to a brutally honest friend is a great representation of the relationship between the UN and its member countries.

Alyssa Williams

1/14/2021 02:35:19 pm

I would even disagree that they're misleading. If you go to their website there are clear cut goals that use straight forward. Yes, I agree in the sense that if the country lacks resources to connect and ask questions to get towards their goals (like scientists or credible environmentalists, people that are knowledgeable about the the current environmental crisis's in that specific country) that could be confusing. However, the UN also connects nearby countries and cities to advise the latter. So I'd agree to disagree with you, but you have interesting ideas.

Alyssa Williams

1/14/2021 04:23:18 pm

straight forward language**

Snarky

1/13/2021 08:11:32 am

I agree, and I like the way you put it too. You put it in very understandable terms that even someone who isn’t an environmentalist per say would get, which is another important topic by itself. However , back to the main point, as you mentioned, it isn’t the United Nation’s job to write out a step by step plan for everyone. They simply propose the ideas and goals we all very well can meet, and let countries figure out their individual plans. That’s actually really clever, as trying to make all countries follow the same plan simply wont work, as it would be rather ignorant, and wouldn’t pay attention to individual countries’ individual needs. It’s good to have an overseer like the U.N, to make sure goals are in fact met, and closely watched, however leaving it lofty and open for individual interpretations Isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I don’t know if any of this makes sense to be honest, i hope it does.

Alyssa Williams

1/14/2021 02:43:26 pm

Thank you for your compliments! I too think this worldwide advisement system is clever, and works well.

Emma Broshar

1/12/2021 03:19:45 pm

no thoughts head empty
jk

I believe That the goals aren't necessarily too lofty but they don't seem very clear or thought out. "A number of recent studies suggest that if people are to achieve normal life expectancy and meet their basic needs as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they need closer to $5 per day. So why do the SDGs stick with the discredited $1.25 measure? Because it’s the only one that will allow them to get anywhere near their goal of eradicating poverty by 2030." (Hickel). In this quote it is evident that these goals are not properly planned out and I think that is the main issue. These goals could work but only if they are planned out in a more realistic manner. I think the world's issues should be left to both types of government to appeal to the many similar and different issues found around the world.

other emma b

1/13/2021 08:16:37 am

I agree with you. The goals are not planned out and they don't give a solution to fix the problems that the UN is trying to solve. In Hickel's article, he explains how the UN isn't really trying to fix poverty, they just put it off until it gets big enough for people to truly be bothered by it. And when that happens, countries won't be bound by a contract so there is no need for them to actually try and help out people in poverty.

Keyana Burries

1/13/2021 08:24:50 am

I totally agree with your statement that they aren't totally clear or well developed Hickle said that they are asking for more but less at the same time, this is going to cause confusion between countries because no one knows what they are doing. Not to mention that they are outdated and that's why no one is talking about them according to Hickle. They would be way more productive if they just developed the goals and updated them like you mentioned in your comment.

Alex Foltz

1/13/2021 01:12:15 pm

The goals are quite vague, and I agree, they seem extremely unclear and not thought out. "Do more... Improve national statistical systems... Overcome water resource challenges" (Urevig). These are not clear at all. How would we achieve these? What specific things can we do more of? How can we improve national statistical systems and overcome water resource challenges? Of course we can think of things to do for these, but they're up for so much interpretation, the idea is slowly losing it's meaning.

Kyler Harvey

1/14/2021 02:29:47 pm

I completely agree especially when there are so many other factors, when the UN could step in and actually make a considerable difference in the way different events play.

Amelia Collins

1/12/2021 04:28:43 pm

I would say that the SDG’s aren’t too lofty, but aren't specific enough. One of the articles (Hickel) talks about how Goal 8 calls for 7% GDP growth but also signals that our current industrial system is causing problems. I think clarification for how people can grow their GDP while also not following our current industrial trends was needed in this scenario. As pointed out in the first article, it is not a question of whether it's too lofty but of flawed thinking. They claim that the SDG’s think the solution to our problems is growth and not solving the problems of inequality in our world. You could argue there is some level of loftiness that is hindering the SDG’s because they are so overarching and overwhelming they are pushing the deadlines to be a problem of the future. Still, the overwhelming consensus from the first article is a lack of explanation and specifics. To eradicate poverty they lowered their requirements to people making $1.25/day to avoid the goal becoming too lofty. In the third article (Urevig) they briefly mention that the UN needs to focus on local and regional contexts if they want to reach their goals. It points out that countries are at different stages in the process and many of the goals demand specific attention. Some of these situations include support for local water management plans, local breeds for agriculture, and disaster risk reduction by local governments. This points to the issue of whether environmental issues should be left to national or local levels of government to address. I believe through reading this part of the article some level of power should be given at the local level because they have the most expertise on issues within their communities.

Riley Martin

1/13/2021 01:09:23 pm

I agree, I feel like the goals are what they should be. There needs to be someone who brings up those issues, but the SDGs fall short of accomplishing those things. They are both unspecific about completing global issues and unnecessarily working towards thing that can be dealt with at a local level. I think for the time being they need to take a step back and work on smaller more specific things before taking on so much.

Haley Bates

1/13/2021 01:10:22 pm

I really like the approach you took when answering this prompt. I would agree with you that the SDGs need to be more specific in order to achieve real progress. Hickel's article states the "SDGs are committed to shelving the problem until 2029". In many ways the UN is shelving the issue. Its a lot of discussion and agreement that there is an issue that needs to be addressed. However, it seems the United Nations have not made specific plans on how to go about solving the issue. I also agree that plans should be created with regional issues in mind. I really liked the examples of local water management plans, local crops, and natural disaster risk reduction. These are excellent examples of projects the United Nations could assist with that would help move the planet towards the SDGs. Urevig's article points out that progress is hard to track, with 68% of environmental indicator reports conclude there is not enough data to properly assess. Regional projects would be a great place for the United Nations to start working towards the SDGs, and in conjunction they could improve data collection systems.

Emma Brown

1/12/2021 04:54:56 pm

I wouldn't say they're lofty per se, but they aren't very specific. The UN goals are vague and don't really give an idea of what you should actually be doing to achieve said goals. An example of this would be that it doesn't consider the obvious inequality of wealth in almost every economy worldwide. Hickel says that they allows the inequality to grow before it actually becomes a problem. After the problem is "worth solving", the countries involved in the UN won't all be in a binding contract anymore. Instead of giving a definite answer to try and solve problems, they put it off for a later date until it's not their problem to solve anymore.

Other Emma

1/13/2021 08:10:50 am

I agree with this statement. I have nothing to add because this statement is so fantastically written that I feel that writing anything more would dampen its greatness.

other Emma again

1/13/2021 08:16:44 am

I agree with this statement. It is obvious throughout Hickel's article that the goals are extremely vague and unrealistic. "A number of recent studies suggest that if people are to achieve normal life expectancy and meet their basic needs as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they need closer to $5 per day. So why do the SDGs stick with the discredited $1.25 measure? Because it’s the only one that will allow them to get anywhere near their goal of eradicating poverty by 2030." With this quote we can see that the government is not prepared to take on such issues.

Izzy Martin

1/12/2021 06:42:51 pm

The SDGs are not necessarily too lofty, but they are certainly vague. For the most part, their means to achieve the SDGs are nonspecific and kind of just point towards kicking the issues towards future generations. “ Instead, the SDGs quite literally pass this urgent challenge down to the next generation: buried at the very bottom of Goal 17 is a flimsy commitment to, ‘ by 2030 build on existing initiatives to develop measurements of progress on sustainable development that complement GDP.’ In other words, the SDGs are committed to shelving the problem until 2029 “ (Hickel). The SDGs seem to just point out the problem and an ideal outcome, but don’t do any of the word of figuring out the solution.

M.Milner

1/13/2021 08:11:22 am

I agree with you. The SDG is vague and rather idealistic. I think that the SDG would have far more respect from the youth and other people if they created a more realist plan. Then made actions on said plan. The time for education is over. It is time for action.
However, the SDG is pretty much the only large government organization that works on changing the effects on climate change. I think that with some changes in their action plan they could do a lot more.
They do make changes for the better. They do actually help. Just not as much as they say. I also really like the having a famous person represent things. I think it's cute.

Axel

1/13/2021 08:14:02 am

I think they are definatly way to lofty to be anything actually important. There goals of "Produce less waste but make more economically" is like telling someone to drink more water and make less pee. It's a ridiculous and absurd contradiction that frankly an organization as professional as the U.N. shouldn't even be associated with.This is literally the same as what people do when they just say "oh i'll do the dishes next week" they don't do the dishes until they're literally out of bowls and plates to eat from, except you can't just give earth a good scrubbing and a soap bath and go on with your day like nothing happened. This is a problem that needs to be taken FAR more seriously than it currently is.

Alyssa Dillon

1/13/2021 01:05:59 pm

I partially agree with you. This is because that we can absolutely see procrastination within our goals and how they don’t give out a total plan. However, I don’t think all of their goals are totally unimportant. They tell us what they want to accomplish, but again they don’t go into detail about how we are supposed to do it. The UN needs to dedicate time to go in and work out an actual plan.

Izzy Martin

1/13/2021 01:53:03 pm

I definitely agree that they’re contradictory, but not necessarily that they’re not important. Things like climate action and sustainable cities are certainly important, but being vague about them doesn’t do anyone many favors.

McQuillen

1/13/2021 08:18:34 am

I agree with your statement that the SDGs are too vague and how they are leaving the true hardships for future generations. They claim that the goals will only “kick the hard challenge of real transformation down the road for the next generation to deal with (Hickel).” The goals aren’t truly solving any issues of present day, but are rather stating their ideal goals that won’t happen until a big transformation happens within the development industry. Overall, like you stated above, the SDGs only point out the problems, but don’t figure out the solution.

Donovan Smith

1/13/2021 08:24:20 am

i believe this is very well put. when addressing issues, the artical seems to procrastinate quite severely. i very much agree with the statement of how the argument of how they blatantly say they will address the issue at a later date.

Julia Garcia-Deabreu

1/13/2021 08:28:28 am

The SDG's are definitely too vague. They present goals but don't give any specific course of action in order to reach those goals, so it just feels like empty promises. The goals for climate change also present problems like increased poverty. Hickel also says that the goals of poverty and climate change contradict each other which prevents growth in either direction. Honestly I think that the SDG's don't work because they are trying to fight the entire worlds problems with one general solution and thats never going to work out. Each country has completely different situations that they have to deal with and ways that they can reduce their carbon footprint, so the SDG's will never bring change because they can't define a single course of action that applies to everyone.

Alyssa Dillon

1/12/2021 07:15:48 pm

I wouldn’t say their goals are too lofty, but rather too broad. The goals also want to accomplish way too much in such a little amount of time. Some of the goals list steps that would take the UN years, if not, decades to accomplish fully. One of the goals Andrew Urevig lists in his article that is too broad is the very first one he talks about. He says to just “Do more”. Do more what, exactly? Andrew doesn’t go too far into explaining a lot of his other goals either, which then makes his article very hard to follow and trust. I personally believe that national levels should continue to take on this role, but do it in a more orderly fashion as in further educating the public and putting more steps into their goals. It’s okay to have longer goals. We don’t need to accomplish all of these goals in a set amount a time, but rather, in a way that would make the after effect of these goals stick around for generations.

Slacker

1/13/2021 08:07:00 am

This post is a perfect example of the major problem of SDGs. Their goals includes a meticulous change in a country's habits which requires time which the SDGs fail to see. Their lack of reasonable time management could lead to impatience and consequently the abandonment of the project. The generations of unhealthy agriculture, border disputes, etc.

Slacker pt2

1/13/2021 08:15:37 am

To elaborate, China has the largest output of pollutants of any country. While they are making huge steps towards a healthier China, their dependency on industrial manufacturing will be a very timely and costly change that in the end will be better for the environment but will it be better for the economy? The economy is a very fickle aspect of government that many environmentalist groups and the SDGs often forget. One small change could lead to a catastrophe, the transition from industrial manufacturing to environmentally friendly solar-powered system could absolutely destroy the economy.

Wattles

1/13/2021 08:18:59 am

I 100% agree!! The goals are too vague and the time frame set is not adequate. Hickel also couldn’t give deeper information about the goals, because the UN never expanded on them. I would not trust him either if he’s not willing to go deeper into his own goals. I also agree that national governments should be handling these issues and creating a more structured set up for it. I do think we should have some timeline set up because we are reaching a point of no return. I do agree that it is gonna take more than just a year or two to accomplish these goals. The UN needs to get more specific goals with better time management.

Colby Hehnke

1/13/2021 08:21:34 am

I agree, I think if the UN wants to actually get anything actually done they need to focus on only a few problems and find reasonable solutions for them. If we want to get anything done we need to focus all our resources on a few problems and get them out of the way and find a new set of problems. An example of this is the UN wants a 7% industrial increase but it is counter-productive because they also want to adress the global warming problem, so these to problems that they are trying to fix clash because industrial growth = more global warming.

liv

1/13/2021 08:26:45 am

I think that what Alyssa is saying is very accurate. I agree with what she says about the goals being too broad. They also fail to realize that these changes will take time to achieve. The lack of a reasonable time frame, it will put a lot of pressure and stress on these countries and they may abandon the project. This post is a perfect example of the major problem of SDGs.

Lauryn

1/13/2021 08:28:21 am

I agree. It's not too lofty its just not reasonable with the given time frame. As the environment does not change within 24 hours, it will be hard to see which policies are actually effective or not. I also agree that since Andrew does not go through what his plan is, it is hard to consider him a reliable source. It should not be so much of a "we need to completely change the environment right now" and more of a what we can do now to eventually change the environment.

Sienna

1/13/2021 08:38:58 am

I agree with your statement that the goals are too broad. I think that if the SDGs want to be effective they need to focus on a few of the most important issues. I think that the time frame given was not too short, at the time that they were released they gave 14 years for countries to make progress on these things, not fully reach them. If the UN wanted them to be effective they needed to be more direct and ready to become "controversial." Just telling countries to do things that most have already been trying to do won't help them get their faster, they need resources and help. I think that having worldwide standards is a very good idea but for that to work national governments need to come together to come up with the best action plan.

Raven Winter-Barden

1/13/2021 01:12:01 pm

I agree with this, the goals are too broad and there isn't enough short term direction with the long term.

McQuillen

1/12/2021 08:31:27 pm

The UN’s Sustainable Development environmental goals aren’t too lofty, but rather too broad. They address the same old goals and thinking of previous years, so nothing is new or exciting to them. People see how they address many issues, but nothing will truly get done with their plans as they create them to work in an economy that is presently unavailable to start with. This leads the goals to be stuck within a 15 year development plan that won’t work due to the economy and instead will only lead the issues to be dealt with by future generations (Hickel). Dr. Jason Hickel believes that the purpose of the SDG’s goal program in regards for development and poverty reduction is based on the idea of industrial growth and the failing economy, which won’t help poverty or development at all. This issue is primarily based on the fact that “...the number of people living on less that $5/day has increased by more than 370 million (Hickel). If the SDG goal want to actually increase development and reduce poverty, they first have to acknowledge that today’s economy will not allow those to people to get out of poverty only on $5/day. The SDG goals need to narrow their ideas and fix the issues that can be fixed first before they and create other makeshift ideas that can only occur in a perfect world. The main issue the SDG goals should focus on is being realistic within today’s society and economy if they wish to help the world’s environment. However, these goals could be helpful on a smaller scale like local or state governments. Smaller governments are able to focus on pressing environmental issues within their community like growing poverty and can possibly have an easier time at eradicating it through changing the local economy. The SDG goals might work better if they were implemented on a smaller scale, so they can be more effective within each unique community as they can change them to fit their needs. Plus, changes might happen faster if they were implemented on a smaller scale instead of a world wide scale.

Cariena Murray

1/12/2021 09:04:13 pm

I don't think that these goals are "too lofty". I think the goals themselves are great, however if we truly want them to be more then just happy thoughts, then they should have been less vague with their suggestions. The united nations offered some really vague recommendations in their review such as "Overcome water resource challenges"(Urevig), but with no description or recommendation on how to actually do that. They only say why we need to do that, but that is a huge beast to go after with absolutely no game plan. They also said things like "do more" and "Improve national statistical systems"(Urevig). These "recommendations" don't help anyone because no one knows what the best way to go about doing those things is.
Environmental issues need to be faced head on from both the national and local levels. They need to be working as a united front. With this approach, the national level can focus more on making goals and plans that will benefit everyone generally, and the local level can focus more on executing said plans and pointing out new specific issues for the national level. In order to tackle these monstrous issues, we all have to work together.

mlang

1/13/2021 08:08:59 am

I think the goals as well are a great starting point. I agree with your explanation on the SDGs and how they need to make them less vague. If they were less vague they would have more of an impact based on the fact that it would have a more set plan and how to adminstrate it. The undersetanding of why is very important to establish like the US did but with no plan like u said, it would be extremely difficult to actually create a change. I really agree with issues needing to be faced head on, and with both levels of government. They need to work united. I agree about the fact they need to help eachother for anything to ever be accomplished. Local levels can provide information that national levels would never know because they are not living in the environment like the local levels are. I think your perspective on this topic was very well explained and had many points explaining how SDGS aren't lofty just not detailed enough

maya lowndes

1/13/2021 08:22:19 am

This post is a great example of the major problem of SDGs. Their goals includes the change in a country's habits which requires time which the SDGs dont see. Their lack of good time management could lead to impatience and lead to the abandonment of the project. The generations of unhealthy agriculture, and border disputes

Hannah Reynolds

1/13/2021 08:22:28 am

I agree with your statement that we need to work harder and be more specific to make these more than just ideas. Hickel talks about how some things (the big drivers of poverty) are left completely unaddressed and does not help the goal at all. They are very vague about how things should really be achieved and dont do much for ideas they just state what they want to happen with no real way to achieve these ideas.Environmental issues need help from both national and local levels. If they work together there can actually be a good force working towards. I agree with the approach that the national level will make more broad goals and local ones can focus on making those goals work for their area and making them more specific.

Keyana Burries

1/12/2021 09:12:18 pm

Their goals need to be updated to be more focused on what is going on in the world now verses what was going on when they created them and they need to be more clear cut and concise. In Hickle's article he talks about how the goals call for more and less all at the same time. If countries cant understand what the goal is that they must achieve it isnt possible for them to work towards it. It is also said in Hickle's article that the SDG programme for development and poverty reduction relies precisely on the old model of industrial growth. If the goals aren't focused on stats and facts we have now it will just set us back. We wont see countries succeeding because everything is so outdated. Even if they work hard at achieving these nonspecific goals it won't reflect that. It was said in Hickle's article that people weren't excited about the SDGs because there is nothing in them that’s really new. At base, the Zero Draft reflects old thinking, and calls for little more than business as usual. If they were to update the goals and make them more specific they would get a bigger public response and making sure people are holding their homes accountable to help accomplish these goals. If they were to simply update the goals to reflect the new world we live in and be specific they would see better and concise results.

MLang

1/12/2021 10:39:55 pm

The SDGs do not have enough depth to be able to say they aren't loft. They need more details and prioritized for things based on how the environment is doing. Hickel says "they kick the hard challenge of real transformation down the road for the next generation to deal with – by which time it may be too late."(Hickle) this shows that the laws are not only lofty but they show no real change. They just go through th motions thinking they are happy. i think smaller governments will help vring awareness to the city and address it among their people. If it were in a larger government it make take a long time for the government to do anythign about it so a smaller government would be beneficial

Axel

1/13/2021 07:27:16 am

The SDGs are ineffective and will prove unable to accomplish anything. Hickel effectively said "they kick the hard challenge of real transformation down the road for the next generation to deal with - by which time it may be too late." With contradiction as a basis, by asking for both less waste but more production. Not to mention the fact that it address's poverty in a poor way, and doesn't get to the root of the problem what so ever! This outrageous and supposedly "profesional" plan is so absurdly foolish that I have half a mind to think they copy pasted it from a disaster movie trying to show how foolish the governments of the world really are.

Colby Hehnke

1/13/2021 07:29:35 am

The UN has some very big goals on paper and they would be virtually impossible for just one country to achieve but that is why it was made. The UN has many goals but many other problems are ignored like social injustices and the problems of inequality (Hickel). There is also another large problem with it, in the foundation of the UN they contradict themselves. They call for a 7% annual growth in the least developed countries but at the same time they want to hold global warming at the 2 degree Celcius threshold, these two problems contradict themselves if they want industrial growth there is going to be more global warming and thats where they contradict themselves.

donovan smith

1/13/2021 07:32:26 am

basically the artical says that poverty is a really big deal. it states that people often overlook the importantcy of poverty and are focused on the wrong things. also it states that people have the wrong idea about poverty. and when people try to donate or help, they put there time and money in the wrong area and do not maximize there potential.

alexis

1/13/2021 12:57:32 pm

i agree, more attention should be put on the over looked issues.

Sienna

1/13/2021 08:25:14 am

I don't think that the SDGs are too lofty. I think that the SDGs look more like a rough draft then a full comprehensive final copy. According the article "Five Reasons to Think Twice About the UN's Sustainable Development Goals." by Dr. Jason Hickel he states that the guidelines and goals stated go around in circles and in the long run will not help countries grow. Many of these goals will not help the poor these goals are more likely to increase the deficit. Inequality also goes unaddressed. For countries to grow environmentally and economically the gap between the rich and poor must decrease. Telling countries that the way to decrease poverty is to "encourage companies to adopt sustainable practices." (Hickel) won't solve anything.

Oswald

1/13/2021 01:15:15 pm

I agree with you on that. The SDGs do look more like a rough draft. Some of the ideas haven't been put into place. Right now, the ideas that they have in place are not being used, they are just basically sitting here doing nothing. It doesn't really make sense. I get the idea of that we need to do something more in order to help different countries grow. If the UN keeps on doing what they're doing now, I don't think we will get really anywhere in the next five years.

Slacker

1/13/2021 08:29:16 am

One of the major downfalls of SDGs in this century is that of their relative insensitivity towards inequalities. According to Dr. Jason Hickel the top 1% wealthy people own over half of the world's private wealth. The fact that there is such a ravine that separates the rich and the poor is evidence of the SDGs failure to recognize such an element as a problem worthy of their upmost attention. So I would suggest that instead of focusing on climate change since literally every environmentalist group is focusing on a natural occurrence that has just been fast forwarded focus on the entire canyon that separates even the middle class from the "elites." After all poverty is one of the largest reasons for crime. It creates anger, jealously, and discontentment and therefore violence or lawlessness.

Reynolds

1/13/2021 08:47:33 am

These SDGs are too lofty but necessary if we want to work towards making our world better. They need to focus these goals and make them more specific to be able to accomplish these goals in real life. Hickel says "the SDGs call for both less and more at the same time" they contradict themselves all the time while using an old model of industrial growth. If they want to succeed in making their goals actually work they need to work on a relevant source. They dont want to have to do the hard work that they need to so the solutions that they do offer are not good. "the prospect of growth allows our leaders to sidestep the challenge of having to distribute existing resources more fairly." Hickel states that the leaders are avoiding what really needs to be done because its difficult. Some things just get ignored completely. "Inequality has become perhaps the most pressing issue of our time, and yet the SDGs remain silent on it." Hickel brings up the fact that they have completely ignored inequality that is a huge issue in todays society. They have not addressed some of the big drivers of poverty. You need to address all sides to try and solve an issue, and when things get ignored it hurts your goal more than it helps it. They have very limited time to achieve these goals that have been in the making for so long. Trying to get everyone to work together in such a short amount of time is purely unrealistic.

Cariena Murray :D

1/13/2021 01:06:01 pm

While I don't agree with these goals being too lofty, I do agree that they are necessary to make our world better. I also agree with the fact that they don't give good solutions. Saying fix it doesn't give any type of plan as to what should be done, which just flat out isn't helpful. In order get countries to change we need to tell them specifically what to do to get better. However, I disagree with the fact that you said its not realistic to ask people to work together in such a short amount of time. I think the real problem here is that there isn't a plan, or at least ideas for a plan given. If every country committed to these ideas and worked hard at them, then they are absolutely realistic, the real problem is that we aren't doing that.

Riley Martin

1/13/2021 10:45:36 am

I feel as though the SDGs are extremely outdated and need a revamp. A lot of ideas are contradicting and some just dont work anymore. Or they are to general in their goals. Are they too ambitious? I dont think so, they are just bigger goals that will take a long time to achieve. The ways to solve these goals on the other hand are not good enough or won't work. That being said I think its a good idea to have a big overarching group to control and lead people to be better with all of these important issues but I dont think the SDGs are in a place currently to do so. It is possible for them to improve to become that but they are not there yet.

Riley Martin

1/13/2021 10:49:43 am

"People are not getting excited about the SDGs because they know that business as usual isn’t going to deliver the new economy we so desperately need," (Hickle). This is saying the because the SDGs are so outdated and aren't trying anything new people aren't paying attention or wanting to get involved. If they were to update their plans to be more realivant then more people would get involved.

Oswald

1/13/2021 12:25:58 pm

I think the some UN’s goals are too lofty it just depends on what they are. Some of their ideas could be big but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the goals can’t be reached. I think it might also be hard for people to go along with the plan or the ideas because they are big goals. "If stakeholders around the world can take action to close these knowledge and information gaps, the report makes clear, we’ll have a better grasp of the challenges ahead" (Urevig). This kind of shows that people around the world in the UN need to take action so that everyone can clearly understand what we need to do and why we need to do it. I understand the disagreements about the types of ideas as well. I think we also need to help keep the different countries accountable in the goals and plans.

Raven Winter-Barden

1/13/2021 01:07:03 pm

I would say that the UN's goals are too unspecific and not clear enough. There is also the issue of poverty, and the wealth gap between the rich and poor. The UN doesn't take this into consideration. The way their plan is set up is like a rough draft of the final copy.

Kyler

1/14/2021 12:57:49 pm

I totally there s a lot more that needs to happen and change within the UN for a better future.

Kyler Harvey

1/14/2021 12:55:58 pm

A large issue with the UN is that the organization only comes into action when there is a large threat, like a country being over thrown. A lot more good could be done be the UN especially since the UN is not specifically tied to one nation. People look at the UN as a last resort or a first responder organization. The organization has the power to do more its just a matter of the UN causing potential problems."Let us empower the United Nations to be more than a first responder or a last resort" (Ban Ki-Moon). Others believe that we have created a brilliant organization so why not help it do more good in the world.
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2013-09-24/address-general-assembly

Virginia Holtzclaw

1/19/2021 07:46:04 pm

The UN's sustainable development goals are not too lofty, but they lack proper planning to implement them. Additionally, some of the goals are contradictory. For example, Goal 8 calls for 7% annual GDP growth, but with the current model of industrial growth which involves increasing levels of extraction, production, and consumption, this growth would impede another goal of responsible consumption and production (Hickel). To achieve these goals, we would need a new model of industrial growth, but one that focuses on sustainability. The SDGs have offered no alternatives.
Goal 12, which is to increase responsible consumption and production, is one of the most important goals toward achieving the other goals (Urevig). Because various countries are all in different stages of development, this goal is best left to individual nations to attempt on their own terms. A blanket set of instructions in this case would put some countries at a disadvantage, and let others off to easy.

Julia Deabreu

1/28/2021 08:18:55 pm

I think that the SDG's have the right intention of unifying countries around the world in order to help improve sustainability and protect the environment, but they aren't effective. The SDG's are too vague and don't provide much guidance for countries to obtain the goals that they have set. Many of these goals also don't have a set measurement or numerical goal, so how do we register how successful we have been in these goals once we reach the deadline set? They try too hard to be a catch all that can apply to the entire world and as a result there is zero course of action as how countries can do their part to reach the goals. The other problem with the SDG's is that they tend to contradict themselves. Hickel explains how the UN says that they want 7% annual growth industrially in the least developed countries but at the same time they want to hold global warming at the 2 degree Celcius threshold. Unless the UN explains more in depth how they will manage to achieve both of these goals, then these statements are just contradictory. Overall I think that the actual content of the SDG's isn't the problem, I think that the entire concept of having SDG's is the issue because the world is too diverse to have such generalized environmental goals.

Forget

2/3/2021 01:26:09 pm

The SDG's has great ideas and intentions. The one issue there is with them is there game plan. They have these great ideas, they just do not know how to put their idea into action and make a difference. Hickel says "they kick the hard challenge of real transformation down the road for the next generation to deal with – by which time it may be too late." This says they are taking their time and when they decide to do something it will be to late to change any environmental issues. The SDG's do not want to make small changes because they think they would cause bigger problems or won't change anything. But the truth is, if you make small changes they really can affect big issues at hand.

World Environmentalism Forum

Welcome to the Forum! Here is where you will be answering your daily warm-up questions. Please do not enter your last name for privacy reasons, and you may use a nickname if you would like (Just make sure Mr. Tredinnick is aware of the nickname you are using). Write out thoughtful responses to the forums on the days they are assigned. If you miss a day please take it upon yourself to complete the Forum you missed. Each Forum has the targeted Learning Objective(s) there so you can see what the focus of the day's class will be.

Module 1.3 Discussion (Critiquing the UN's SDGs)

Leave a Reply.

World Environmentalism Forum

Archives

Categories

Home

Geography for Geographers

Geopolaris Education Publications