Humans’ populations are growing. We’re having more humans on earth now more than 200 years ago [1]. Alongside the growing numbers, our needs are also getting bigger — with more populations, more resources are certainly required to fulfill every person’s necessity. However, there is only one earth for us all. All these times, we’re always digging all of the resources we can put our hands into to satisfy our wishes. But if we keep taking our earth for granted, we will be counting the days until the earth can’t support us anymore. The Earth’s finite resources, of course, would not be able to support all the people.
A concept has been used, or rather overworked, in the context of growing awareness of an imminent ecological crisis — sustainable development. The roots of the concept of sustainability itself can be traced back to ancient times, but even strengthened after the Industrial Revolutions [2]. In the early 1970s, a popular report from a group of prominent economists and scientists was published under the title The limits to growth. The authors warned that ‘the Earth had a limited supply of physical resources and that exceeding the limits of exploitation could end in catastrophe’ [2]. Economic growth was essential, but natural capital (e.g clean air) can’t be substituted for by other forms of capital and shouldn’t be allowed to lessen over time [2].
In 1987, Brundtland Report, WCED, mentioned the term ‘sustainable development’ as ‘development that meets the end of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. This concept was claimed as a silver lining for progress, sustainability, growth, and development.
But how was this concept adopted for making achievable yet universal goals for the world? Was the concept inclusively just and holistic? More importantly, how can we participate in making the world develop sustainably?
The Big Targets
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development which provides a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, was adopted at the UN Sustainable Development Summit in 2015 [3]. Alongside the agenda, there are 17 Sustainable Development Goals (also known as SDGs) and 169 targets that address the urgency for actions by all countries. They balance the three elements of sustainable development: social, economic, and environmental.
The Goals and targets are not legally binding. However, as they seek to complete what the Millenium Development Goals did not finish, they were also set to be achieved by 2030. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has interrupted the progress that has been made over the years. It shows the real cards to the table: inequalities among countries, the climate crisis, weak public health systems, and other deeply rooted problems [4]. Transformational changes are needed, along with full participation of all societies to tackle and keep the 2030 Agenda on track for the current and future generations.
A Magnifying Glass
The SDGs are interconnected with each other. Niklas Hagelberg, Senior Programme Officer at UNEP, said that the best starting point is the natural world and the resources which sustain life on this planet [5]. Ecosystems are the base of delivering multiple layers of SDGs and therefore, it was essential to invest in the good management of ecosystems.
Hagelberg highlighted the interconnections by mentioning the benefits of fertilizer [7]. In the right amount, fertilizers can be used to increase crop yields. However, when the excess nitrates from the fields manage to go into the reservoirs, they trigger the algae to bloom, resulting in decreasing dissolved oxygen in the water and finally, interfering with aquatic ecosystems, causing fishes to die. This event can ruin fishers’ livelihood, in addition to increasing health risks for communities surrounding the water bodies that rely on the water for their daily activities.
“The interlinkages, these nexus issues, are particularly important,” summarized Harris. “Being aware of them will allow us to move towards more coherent policy formulation and better outcomes.”
The Thresholds
Something that’s too good may also be not true. The editors in World Nutrition [6] wrote that ‘The power-mongers who oversee Development Goals are either good-willed, and dreamin’ and hopin’, or else they are cynical, and use language to cover up reality. Just like the Millennium Development Goals, the Sustainable Development Goals will not be achieved, and every thinking person who wrote them or who reads them, knows so.’ Sustainable development, said the editors, is a contradiction in terms. They claimed that the way through is to leave the current dominant concept of ‘development’ altogether, or at least to diminish the association of development with material growth.
Kate Raworth, the founder of Doughnut Economics, proposed an inclusive, just, and safe space for humanity to thrive — with the foundation of social welfare and Planetary Boundaries as the ecological ceiling. The slogan was simple: leave no one behind, don’t overshoot the limits. It was an idea to keep humanity growing in a balanced dynamic because more growth without limits is found to be unsustainable.
In spite of that, the data published by scientists at the University of Leeds shows that all of the top-ranked countries in the SDG Index have overshot the Planetary Boundaries limits in terms of consumption [7]. It turns out that the countries with the highest scores on the SDGs index are some of the most environmentally unsustainable countries in the world [7].
There are three problems with the SDG Index, which is (1) imbalance weighing from the index that creates an illusion of sustainable development if most indicators were checked, no matter if the ecological ones didn’t, (2) only 4 (12–15) from 17 SDGs truly deals with ecological sustainability, and (3) most of them are still territorials, meanwhile, the ecological footprints and impacts that have been made may happen among countries [7]. From the ecological view, the SDG Index is incoherent, hence it may create an illusion that those countries have high levels of sustainability when, in fact, they don’t. A high index on development indicators can’t erase the destructive ecological impact that has been done.
The harsh truth remains under the question: are the Sustainable Development Goals sustainable?
A Bite at the Cherry
As an aspiring environmental engineer, I was raised to think about the solutions to create a sustainable environment that leads to healthy livelihood and well-being of living things. Environmental engineers have a lot of chances to participate in SDGs: from evaluating current situations of water and sanitation to growing ideas of clean energy, until taking part in policy-making that enhances the importance of cleaner productions and circular economy. It was a matter of interest and will to contribute to a better world, for the better futures.
The roles of environmental engineering in SDGs vary from achieving clean water and sanitation (No. 6), focusing on affordable and clean energy (No. 7), building sustainable cities and communities (No. 11), responsible consumption and production (No. 12), and also climate action (No. 13). Transforming changes that we create can also lead to good health and well-being (No. 3), decent work and economic growth (No. 8), life below water (No. 14), and life on land (No. 15). As it was mentioned before, the SDGs are interconnected with one another. Achieving one means paving the path for another, while closing one chance may risks another goal, too. Realizing this was critical to ensure the goals are achieved at the right stances for the environment.
However, I think that being critical about the goals is also important. We certainly do not want to destroy our own ecosystems by sacrificing our environment in regards to the economy — it is time to be smart, act smart, and stop the duality between the environment vs the economy.
As the front guard of the environment — the voices and fighters in the battle — it’s up to us to decide how and when we have to take action. The right one, no matter how hard the road gets. Are we staying on the same track towards chaos, or are we moving in another direction for a better life ahead of us?
If we, the future environmental engineers that uphold our principle to never take the environment for granted, let it slip under our noses, then the whole world perhaps will sleep all over it, too.
[1] Our World in Data. (n.a) World Population Growth. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth at March 11th, 2022
[2] J. A. Du Pisani, 2006, Sustainable development — historical roots of the concept, Environmental Sciences 3:2.
[5] United Nations, (n.a) THE 17 GOALS | Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved from https://sdgs.un.org/goals on March 11th, 2022
[6] United Nations. 2021. The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021.
[7] European Unioin (n.a), An Integrated Environmental Approach to the SDGs. Retrieved from https://europa.eu/capacity4dev/articles/integrated-environmental-approach-sdgs at March 10th, 2022.
[8] The editors. The unspeakable truth [Sustainable Development Goals]. [Editorial] World Nutrition, September-October 2015, 6, 9–10, 662–664
[9] Jason Hickel. (Sep 30, 2020). The World’s Sustainable Development Goals Aren’t Sustainable. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/30/the-worlds-sustainable-development-goals-arent-sustainable/ on March 10th, 2022.
This essay was submitted under the theme “environmental engineers’ roles in SDGs” for best students selection. FYI, I didn’t pass.
