You and the Global Goals

On 25 September 2015, all 193 Member States of the United Nations adopted the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), aka the Global Goals. This book articulates a path to make these Goals appear manageable, to implement in your life, adapting the 120 indicators used by the SDG Index to the individual level. The scope of the Goals is gargantuan, ill-fitted for individual countries, let alone individual people, implying their international nature.What follows is a loose method to apply to your life, to keep yourself accountable to your responsibility toward the Goals as a global citizen.What is sustainable development?Sustainable development is a way of thinking about and uniting all the complicated, yet intersecting issues we’ll come to explore ahead, centred on three pillars:Economic growthSocial inclusionEnvironmental sustainability Three pillars of sustainable development  The genesis of the concept of sustainable development at a UN level is 1972 in Stockholm, where a UN conference linked human development with the environment. 20 years later, in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, the UN held the Earth Summit, the biggest summit of world leaders at the time, putting environmental sustainability at the forefront. From this summit came three important treaties:UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)Convention on Biological DiversityUnited Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)20 years hence from the Rio Summit, the UN held another conference in Rio in 2012, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. Upon reflection and assessment of the above three treaties ahead of Rio+20, the scorecard of their progress was scathing. It was at this conference the impetus solidified to form what would become the SDGs.The UN’s primary agenda from 2000 to 2015 was the era of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The concept central to the MDGs was international development, as sustainable development is to the SDGs. In 2000, a summit of world leaders at the UN Headquarters, known as the Millennium Summit, adopted the MDGs.The MDGs were eight goals, on the topics of:extreme poverty and hungeruniversal primary educationgender equality and women’s empowermentchild mortalitymaternal mortality and healthHIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseasesenvironmental sustainabilityglobal partnership The Millenium Development Goals  In 2000, a count of those living within the definition of extreme poverty (which we’ll define in the next chapter) was 1.7 billion. At the end of the MDG period in 2015, this was down by a billion, to 750 million people. China bears most credit for this, from a worldwide height of 2 billion people in extreme poverty in 1990, when two-thirds of the Chinese population lived within the definition of extreme poverty. The period from 1990 to 2015 accounts for approximately 750 million Chinese coming out of extreme poverty to less than 1% of its population.Though the principles of international development guided the span of the MDGs between 2000 and 2015, a sentiment grew that the MDGs needed to emphasise some key issues. Inequality within countries had become a prevailing concern, as well as strengthening the environmental component of MDG #7. Humans had been making as much money as we could, much of it at the expense of the Earth’s ability to heal itself along the way. Environmental advocates had been crying out about the human effects on nature and ecosystems for decades, but by the 2010s, it was evident the effects were catastrophic. Humanity was edging toward a cataclysm imperilling our species, as well as courting a mass extinction of other species.In the twilight of the MDG period, the UN was considering what would follow to guide its agenda after 2015, the due date of the MDGs. The conception of sustainable development as the guiding principle for this post-2015 UN agenda took shape.In September each year, a new session of the UN General Assembly opens to address the forthcoming agenda. The opening session of the UN General Assembly on 25 September 2015 passed a UN Resolution titled Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The 2030 Agenda, including the 17 Goals, now guides the UN and its member states between 2015 to 2030.SDG IndexTo better break down how to act on the 17 SDGs, the UN divides the Goals into 169 targets, and below these targets, 236 measurable official indicators. Within this book, we’ll instead use the indicators used by the SDG Index, produced by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN).The SDSN is the greatest source of this book, a knowledge network of universities and research institutes around the world, under UN auspices, chartered by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon. Much of this book is a distillation of the SDSN’s SDG Index, to which the world’s foremost academics in their respective fields have lent their knowledge and research efforts toward.The lead authors for the 2022 SDG Index are Professor Jeffrey Sachs, Guillaume Lafortune, Professor Christian Kroll. Grayson Fuller and Finn Woelm. Also integral to the SDG Index and SDSN legacy is Guido Schmidt-Traub, former SDSN Executive Director, and co-author of the SDG Index reports from its first iteration in 2016 to 2020.Professor Christian Kroll authored a report alongside the SDSN before the adoption of the SDGs in 2015. With a foreword by Kofi Annan, the format of the report acted as a progenitor and template of the SDG Index. Kroll’s report selected indicators well ahead of the UN, as even the Goals were yet to become official, displaying an index for scores in SDG preparedness for the rich countries.The 2022 SDG Index consists of 120 indicators corresponding to the 17 Goals, with each country’s indicator scores combined into a composite index score and ranking. The Index score reflects a percentage of progress toward full achievement of all Goals i.e., 100. Therefore Finland, top of the rankings for the 2022 Index with a score of 86.51, is 86.51% of the way toward achieving all 17 SDGs. By contrast, bottom-ranked South Sudan scores 39.05, meaning it has a great distance to get from 39.05% progress toward achieving all the SDGs by 2030.To illustrate, the SDG Index uses a traffic light system, with green indicating an achievement of the respective Goal, or otherwise being on track to achieve it by 2030. Red is the opposite, being far off course, with major challenges remaining. In between, yellow and orange are gradations of the middle light, orange suggesting further off course than yellow.Using the example of the first indicator we’ll explore in SDG #1 (% of population living on less than $1.90/day), the bounds for each colour in the SDG Index for this indicator correspond to the below. Paramount to the SDG Index is priority. This colour coding serves to illustrate chromatically where we’re at in our progress, to guide our prioritisation. The importance placed on countries scoring red or orange per indicator or Goal will be an overriding refrain throughout the book. If your country scored green on an indicator, you can put your feet up for that issue, and instead turn to those Goals or indicators for which your country has scored red.The Global Goals are ambitious in breadth, intimidating at times to what we’re to do in what seems like a tiny frame of less than eight years at the time of writing. The purpose of the SDG Index is to show us which Goals and indicators need our immediate attention and energies, because the gap between where we need to be by 2030 and our present state is too far off course.I’ll use my two countries of citizenship as an illustration. In the 2022 SDG Index, Australia scored red for:SDG #2 (Zero Hunger)SDG #12 (Responsible Consumption & Production)SDG #13 (Climate Action)SDG #15 (Life on Land)Therefore, I focus on these Goals as a matter of prioritisation.I hold dual citizenship with Malta, so incorporate it into my prioritised, red Goals. In the 2022 Index, Malta scored red for Goals #2, 6, 12 & 14, so I prioritise the extra Goals for which Malta has scored red i.e., Goals #6

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #1 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day (%)The definition of extreme poverty is an international poverty line, as deemed by the World Bank. The World Bank is an international financial institution within the UN System, with the task to provide loans to developing countries with the goal of poverty eradication. The World Bank measures the international poverty line as living on $US1.90 a day or less, which is less than enough to meet the basic needs of safe drinking water, food at or below subsistence, and access to health and education.Approximately 740 million people met the definition of living in extreme poverty upon the adoption of the SDGs in 2015, the overwhelming majority living in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Before the industrial era, beginning in the middle of the 19th century, close to all the human population lived in a state of extreme poverty. Since the turn of the millennium, there has been a steady decrease in the number of people living in extreme poverty, as well as a decrease in the percentage of extreme poverty for the global population.One of the key reasons for this encouraging drop in extreme poverty rates was the power of the Millennium Development Goals. The sister goal of SDG #1 was MDG #1, to halve extreme poverty levels by 2015, again using the international poverty line measure. The world met MDG #1 five years before its due date in 2010, due to the astounding growth rates of China in the period of the MDGs between 2000 and 2015. This meant MDG #1 saw a billion people lifted from extreme poverty compared to 1990, when almost half the population of developing countries lived under the international poverty line. Yet the three-quarters of a billion still left behind at the end of the MDG period in 2015 is an enormous number of people continuing to live in destitution and penury.How to measure this Goal’s target to eradicate extreme poverty - those living under $1.90 a day - by 2030? The first indicator in use by the SDG Index is the poverty headcount ratio at $1.90/day.As of June 2022, 682,614,000 people lived in extreme poverty, with a rate of one person per second escaping extreme poverty, an estimated metric you can view in real-time at the World Poverty Clock website. Yet the target rate to be met for those escaping poverty to eradicate extreme poverty by 2030 is 2.5 people per second. In total, this means the world is off-track by 254,758,130 people. Yet, as some escape poverty, others enter it, with the COVID-19 pandemic impacting progress on this target - though there were signs of slowing progress even before, compounded by conflict and climate change.In 2015, the world’s extreme poverty rate was 10%, dropping to a low of 8.3% in 2019, then back up to 9.2% in 2020, equated with throwing up to 93 million people back into extreme poverty. This means the global extreme poverty rate rose in 2020 for the first time in over 20 years. The above trend projects 262 million people would still be living in extreme poverty in 2030, missing the extreme poverty eradication target - unless we instead accelerate our efforts between now and 2030.It’s difficult, verging on impossible, to lift oneself from such an extreme poverty trap. Professor Jeffrey Sachs, co-author of the SDG Index, explains why in his magisterial book, The End of Poverty, using the analogy of the ladder of development. The End of Poverty outlines how we can end extreme poverty as though it were procedural, illuminating how achievable and within reach it is.Those living in extreme poverty live hand-to-mouth, day-to-day. As such, they fail to produce a surplus e.g., from a crop’s harvest for smallholder farmers, thus without anything to sell to the market for a profit. Due to a high proportion of citizens living by such means in a country, a tax base to draw revenues from is missing. Thus, the government is missing the means to provide healthcare, education, or for any services to increase well-being and relieve extreme poverty. The least developed countries need aid to allow them to get their hand on the bottom rung of the development ladder. Then they have the means to lift themselves out of poverty. Without aid, this cycle will proceed mercilessly, compounded by climate change, disease, famine, demography, etc. The aim of development aid is to improve the economic and social development of humans living in countries which have yet to industrialise and are considered ‘developing’ in the parlance of the field of international development.Aid has been chronically below the amount promised by developed countries to their developing counterparts for a half-century. Thus, the first task of the reader in high-income countries is to act on behalf of the 682 million living in extreme poverty.The measure of aid used by the high-income OECD countries is known as ‘official development assistance’ (ODA), a concept defined in 1969 by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the OECD. The DAC consists of 30 OECD members, making up the largest aid donors, as a forum to discuss aid and poverty reduction efforts. Map of OECD DAC members The predominant means of measuring donor amounts is as a percentage of the donor country's gross national income (GNI), a concept like GDP (gross domestic product). Whereas GDP is the value of all goods and services produced in a period, by contrast GNI includes the economic output of foreign residents of the country. The OECD DAC has an official List of ODA Recipients, all the developing countries and territories eligible to receive ODA. Included are dollar flows made via so-called ‘multilateral institutions’ e.g., the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and UN agencies like UNICEF and the WHO. To count as ODA, donor flows must come from government agencies, and the aim of the flows must be economic development and the welfare of developing countries. They must either be free of the obligation to be repaid, or otherwise loans with much more generous repayment terms than available in the commercial market.The spending counted toward poverty reduction for ODA includes food aid; basic health; education; water and sanitation; population programmes and reproductive health. Separate, though entwined, to development aid, is humanitarian aid - synonymous with logistical help in the face of disaster or conflict.The 30 high-income country donors of the DAC spend 0.33% of their collective GNI on ODA - far below the 0.7% of GNI committed by these countries across decades, though reneged upon.The only 2021 exceptions among the DAC members to meet or exceed the 0.7% commitment were Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, and Germany.The international agreement whereby high-income OECD countries were supposed to give 0.7% of GNI as ODA goes back to 1970, affirmed in repeated agreements since. This means for every $10 made in high-income countries, for around 50 years now, they’ve committed, yet failed to produce, 7 cents of every $10 for the world's destitute. 7 cents which would otherwise solve extreme poverty by 2030. Instead, like my country Australia, our government, out of our tax revenue, for every $10 of GNI, produces 2 cents for ODA - a 5-cent differential from its pledge. Yet my country, and all other developed countries except five, withhold upon the opportunity to end extreme poverty in a decade. Why dither over 7¢ on every $10?According to the principles of the poverty trap, 700 million are unable to escape from extreme poverty without this ODA. Their only lifeline from being an orphan of famine or infectious disease is foreign aid. For indicators related to living under the poverty line, it would be insensitive to set the task to readers to try to live above the poverty line. Who is the responsibility falling to? This book, rather than being about the government’s responsibility, is about your responsibility. There’s a solution to this, which is where OECD/DAC country readers come in. The affirmed commitment of 0.7% of GNI represents what the government is to offer in ODA. Whatever the gap between 0.7% and what your country’s government is providing in ODA, your opportunity is to step in to bridge the gap. Of course, as with every action in this book, it requires a scale of near ubiquity to have the desired impact, but the behaviours and attitudes of several million of your compatriots are outside your immediate control. Again, the focus of this book is you, and what change you can affect.This is to achieve the Goals globally - in a sense, on behalf of the low-income countries, which barring a miracle, appear to be unable to meet the Goals. I’m

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #2 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Prevalence of undernourishment (%)The aim by 2030 is to achieve zero hunger as part of SDG #2. As of 2020, a tenth of the global population, equal to 811 million, experienced hunger and undernourishment. Due to the effects of COVID-19, the number of people suffering acute hunger may have doubled by the end of 2020, and may also have pushed up to 132 million into chronic hunger. The global proportion of those living in hunger has been decreasing, though the total number of those living in a state of hunger has risen - the main causes due to climate, conflict and recessions.This indicator’s definition is the portion of the populace unable to meet dietary energy requirements for a year or more, defining energy requirements as maintaining body functions, health and normal activity. As with ending extreme poverty, this indicator aims for a 2030 goal of eliminating undernourishment, aligned with Goal #2 (Zero Hunger).SDG #2 flows on from SDG #1, implying the interrelationship between poverty and hunger. One of the reasons for this is the poor are among the most sensitive to fluctuations in food prices. Undernourishment is often due to geographical isolation. Hunger affects the most vulnerable regions of the world, represented by the LDCs, landlocked developing countries, and small island developing states.Hunger, in the context of sustainable development, is different from the sensation of being less than satiated. In the context we’re looking at, it’s the global leading cause of death, to be unable to meet the essential nutrients humans need to sustain healthful lives over a long period. The global areas most vulnerable to acute hunger are those experiencing wars, pandemics and extreme weather. Undernourishment is a diet with insufficient nutrients, meaning calories providing us with energy. The right biochemical combination allows for proper metabolism in the form of proteins, carbohydrates, fat, vitamins and minerals. At the extreme of undernourishment is starvation, as well as micronutrient deficiency, when an individual is experiencing the undernourishment of a particular vitamin or mineral.Many of us are familiar with the heart-rending images of starving children. The medical term, marasmus, is often characterised by the wasted mass of emaciation from energy deficiency, occurring from a diet of starchy carbohydrates offering little nutritional value. We recognise the symptom of distended abdomens, caused by a swelling of fluid retention, and a liver overwhelmed with fatty deposits. Sufficient calories, but protein deficiency, causes this condition, termed kwashiorkor.A clear remedy to preventing and reducing undernourishment is food aid in the form of dietary supplements to fortify food with micronutrients.Aid can assist the development of sanitation systems to ensure drinking water and sewage remain separate, which can otherwise lead to infectious diseases causing undernourishment. This can also lead to dehydration, further exacerbated if the drinking water is contaminated by infectious pathogens.For readers from high-income countries, your commitment is to give 0.7% of your gross income as foreign aid. This captures the necessary expenditure to help low-income countries scoring red for this indicator. The remedy once again lies in the wealth transfer from those with means to those without. Foreign aid satisfies this, with food aid a component of ODA. Ensure whichever charity you’ve donated the 0.7% of your gross income to also includes a food aid component, whether famine relief, or more long-term remedies ensuring food security. This could even mean sharing technologies with communities for more productive food yields.What about readers from middle-income countries which scored red or orange? Is it too much to ask of the nourished citizenry of these countries to make up the shortfall? If this is you, ask yourself if this is workable or realistic. Cash amounts might seem burdensome, but food aid to a food bank - even giving first-hand - may feel less of a big ask. In any regard, to remedy this, the ultimate responsibility should live with the DAC countries. The priority of their aid dollars will be the LDCs, but will touch any developing country experiencing the serious malady of undernourishment.Summary: For OECD country readers, annually give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming to end undernourishment by 2030.Prevalence of stunting in children under 5 years of age (%)This indicator, like the one before, considers the effects of undernourishment manifesting in the form of stunting for children under 5. Again, the 2030 goal is 0%, ending stunting for kids under 5. Stunting is the prevention of the development of height in a child due to malnutrition, often caused by diarrhoea or infection by parasitic worms. Open defecation in the absence of toilets and sewage systems creates such conditions. 149.2 million children under 5, or 22% of all children, suffer from stunting, down a quarter from 2015.Stunting occurs for two-fold reasons. One is due to lack of food, overlapping with the undernourishment indicator. Another reason is enough food, but the inability of a child under 5 to absorb the nutrients due to ongoing infections drains the body of more nutrients than it absorbs. Such infections are common in environments with poor sanitation, explored in SDG #6 (Clean water and sanitation).The promotion of breastfeeding in these early years from infancy is especially important, though there may be misconceptions in some developing countries about the importance of breastfeeding. Mothers may substitute baby formulas, mixed with contaminated water. Furthermore, if the mother’s undernourished, it makes sense her ability to breastfeed is also affected.If you’re a mother in a country off-track to achieve this indicator, the WHO encourages breastfeeding instead of formulas for the best nutrition in infants. If a medical professional has indicated to you to use formula rather than breastfeed, then observe this expert medical advice. Note, the above only applies to countries experiencing a high proportion of stunting, indicating unsanitary water sources are being mixed with formula. Otherwise, it’s between you and your doctor or maternal nurse whether you choose to breastfeed.As much as possible in your circumstances, assure your own nutrition during pregnancy and breastfeeding years. Even if you’re considering planning for a family, this pre-natal period will affect the stunting potential of the child. Further yet, responsibility for the encouragement of breastfeeding extends to employers, as well as societal and cultural attitudes in public and private toward breastfeeding.Also of immense importance is the period when a mother weans a child from breastfeeding. Whether this is due to the birth of another child, the mother must ensure the weaned child transfers to a balanced diet i.e., enough vitamins, minerals, proteins, and fats. This is of emphasis as children may be weaned onto African staples such as cassava, yams, and plantains - all starchy carbohydrates missing critical nutrients.For parents of children in these countries scoring red for this indicator, be mindful of risks for children around the water they drink or play nearby, which may be subject to contamination of infectious diseases. This may be a particular challenge for slum dwellers. Also, if you live in a malarial zone, use bed nets and other means of prevention where available.Another factor in stunting is the age of marriage and childbirth for girls. Cultural attitudes surrounding this may often be strong and difficult to break down. But looking at it from the perspective of the child's health, the younger a bride and mother, the less chance the mother has to develop her healthfulness and ability to sustain a dependent infant.Summary:For OECD country readers, annually give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming to end stunting worldwide by 2030.For developing country readers off-track for the Goal/indicator:Delay marriage and childbirth to adulthood.For prenatal, pregnant, and breastfeeding mothers:ensure infants are breastfedensure weaned children transition to a balanced, nutritious dietensure your own health and nutritionFor parents and carers of children under 5, monitor children near unsanitary points.Prevalence of wasting in children under 5 years of age (%)This measure is like the previous, substituting stunting for wasting, whereby muscle and fat waste away from the body. The long-term global goal is to eliminate wasting for kids under 5, down from current levels of 7%, or 45.4 million children, though it’s anticipated 15% more children will experience wasting due to the current pandemic.Famine is an obvious cause of wasting in children. The arid band of the African Sahel and Arabian Peninsula has been at significant risk of acute famine, and will continue to be because of climate change.As with stunting, infections can hinder the intake of essential nutrients in children, lost to diarrhoea or other symptoms of diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS.What can each of us do

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #3 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births)This indicator measures the estimated number of women between the ages of 15 and 49 dying from pregnancy-related causes whilst pregnant, or within 42 days of the pregnancy’s termination. The long-term aim is 3.4 deaths from these causes per 100,000 live births. Globally, the estimated maternal mortality ratio was 211 per 100,000 live births as of 2017, well above the long-term goal.The maternal mortality rate is a proxy for the quality of a healthcare system. Complications due to pregnancy and childbirth can be common, but with proper care, healthcare professionals can handle difficulties, preventing the worst outcomes. Without proper healthcare available, it’s more difficult to prevent, diagnose and treat any complications arising due to pregnancy.The LDCs and sub-Saharan Africa and mostly off-track on this measure, with the rest of the world on track, an illustration of the link to insufficient health care.The same is true here for other indicators already mentioned which have a strong correlation between a red score and LDCs i.e., OECD countries will shoulder the responsibility on behalf of the LDCs in the form of giving 0.7% of gross income as foreign aid. This giving will afford an army of skilled birth attendants in rural areas, as well as affording medical techniques taken for granted in the developed world e.g., blood transfusions, asepsis and preventive prenatal care. A skilled health attendant can curtail these risks by caring for the mother during the pregnancy, childbirth, and postpartum period, including any postpartum bleeding or obstructed labours.If aid flows to the LDCs and other aid recipient countries, the global maternal mortality rate can drop, achieving a measure which had a dedicated Millennium Development Goals (MDG #5 - Improve maternal health).Summary: For OECD country readers, annually give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming to reduce the global maternal mortality rate to 3.4 per 100,000 live births by 2030.Neonatal mortality rate (per 1,000 live births)This indicator measures the number of newborns per 1,000 live births who die within 28 days following birth, with a long-term aim of a neonatal mortality rate of 1.1 per 1,000 live births.Causes of infant mortality in the first 28 days include deprivation of oxygen; congenital birth defects; prolonged labour; infection; low birth weight and poor sanitation.The absence of healthcare raises the risk factors for neonatal mortality. As with the prior indicator, such is the priority of infant mortality, it warranted its own Millennium Development Goal (MDG #4 - Reduce child mortality).The correlation between extreme poverty and high birth rates also exacerbates neonatal mortality. As we reduce extreme poverty, birth rates will in turn reduce, as is the demographic trend observed worldwide. Therefore, we must encourage gender equality, women’s empowerment in the labour force, as well as educating girls.The 2022 SDG Index map for this indicator is uniform with the prior indicator, again highlighting the link between mortality rates for both mothers and neonates. Again, there’s a strong correlation between LDCs and those countries with red scores.Thus, the responsibility again lies with the OECD countries to finance improvements in healthcare in the LDCs. The 0.7% of gross income of OECD citizens will finance the outreach of a mass workforce of skilled community health workers, with resources on hand to meet the needs of rural areas.Summary: For OECD country readers, annually give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming to reduce the global neonatal mortality rate to less than 1.1 per 1,000 live births by 2030.Mortality rate, under 5 per 1,000 deathsThe distinction between this indicator and the previous is age - this indicator measures the number of children under 5 per 1,000 who’ll die before reaching age 5. The long-term aim for this indicator is 2.6 deaths for children under 5 per 1,000, down from the 2019 rate of 37.7. As such, this measure of children under 5 also includes neonatal and infant mortality.The leading causes are premature births and infections, especially pneumonia, diarrhoea and malaria. But the prevention measures are alike to the two prior indicators i.e., we need to finance public health needs. Most child deaths are preventable, and cheap to treat and prevent, yet the cost is irrelevant without the meagre funding forthcoming. We therefore need to fund vaccines, antibiotics, mosquito nets, fluid replacement, promotion of breastfeeding and handwashing, as well as improved sanitation and drinking water facilities.A meagre 0.7% of your income will make you a literal hero, saving lives - without a cape, cowl or superpowers - just a bank account, a charity, and a device to make the donation. Rather than treating a diarrheal infection or making the trip to Africa, you pay someone to do it on your behalf, then get to go to bed knowing you’ve saved the lives of helpless children.Summary: For OECD country readers, annually give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming to reduce the global under-5 mortality rate to less than 2.6 per 1,000 live births by 2030.Incidence of tuberculosis (per 100,000 population)This indicator estimates the number of cases per 100,000 people with either new or relapsed cases of TB, inclusive of cases for those also living with HIV. The long-term goal is 0 cases of TB per 100,000, from a current global rate of 127 per 100,000 in 2020.TB’s an infectious disease caused by a bacterium, Mycobacterium tuberculosis affecting the lungs. Symptoms include coughing bloody mucus, fever, and night sweats, though TB cases can be asymptomatic whilst contagious. The bacterium spreads by aerosol droplets micrometres wide.Before the COVID-19 pandemic, TB was the highest cause of death from an infectious disease. A quarter of the global population may carry the disease in its latent form, with an annual rate of new infections of 1%. An estimated 10 million people have active cases worldwide, resulting in 1.5 million deaths, close to half occurring in Southeast Asia, and a quarter in Africa. TB is a disease of poverty, exacerbated by slum living, as well as malnutrition and poor sanitation conditions.As suggested in the indicator’s definition, cases of TB often occur alongside HIV/AIDS. We’ll address HIV/AIDS in a later SDG #3 indicator, but taking preventive measures for HIV infection will affect the degree to which one may be at risk of TB.In many countries, the diagnosis and testing of TB can be difficult, slow, or unavailable. Many poor countries, or poor parts of middle-income countries, are without affordable x-ray facilities, or affordable and accessible testing based on sputum cultures or other means.A preventive measure is keeping from contact with known TB cases. You’ll be at greater risk if your immune system is low, a risk factor often caused by the generalities of poverty. Enter the responsibility of high-income readers to improve poverty in all its dimensions via aid.Prevention is difficult, due to the poverty conditions TB thrives in, so treatment may be our best option. The vaccine for TB is the most widely used in the world, with an estimated 88% of all children vaccinated for TB, though the vaccine has less than complete efficacy.TB can be treated with antibiotics, but resistance has become an issue with a growing prevalence of drug-resistant cases. TB carries with it many factors affecting successful prevention and treatment, sometimes with complexity on a scale addressed by public health efforts of national governments, or international agencies like the WHO.For new cases of active TB, the patient should seek medical care where available, to undergo a regimen of antibiotic medications for up to six months. For recurrent cases of TB, a medical professional will need to find out which antibiotics in a treatment regimen are proving resistant. Testing may need to investigate whether the strain of TB in one’s system is multi-drug resistant, whereby the patient may need the other antibiotics in their regimen which are yet to prove resistant for a longer course up to 1-2 years.If you’re finding it challenging to scrounge enough money to feed your family and yourself, having ready access to testing and treatment - if paid out of pocket, in contrast to government-funded - could be crippling to a household. You see how important it is for us to fund organisations like the WHO to carry out the work either households or national governments are unable to. Humanity has been battling TB since antiquity - a formidable foe. But we can manage TB at the population level if resourced and financed, as the rich countries did within their societies. The aid dollars we’ve been discussing from our rich country readers are going to go toward TB to aid public health efforts. The path to achieving the long-term aim of this indicator lies in the larger vantage of SDG #3 i.e., healthcare for all.Summary:For OECD country readers, annually give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming to end TB by 2030.For developi

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #4 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Participation rate in pre-primary organized learning (% of children aged 4 to 6)This indicator defines pre-primary as one year before primary school entry.Over the past decade, based on research, the recognition has grown as to the importance of early childhood education as among the most important for a child's development to help them thrive later in life.Many of the countries off-track for the indicator are LDCs - the same countries off-track for the following indicators for primary and secondary schooling. More striking however are the middle-income countries off-track, in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as several post-Soviet states.Summary:For OECD country readers, annually give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for all children aged 4-6 to participate in pre-primary organised learning by 2030.For developing country readers off-track with children aged 4 to 6, enter your child in early childhood education, where available and affordable.Net primary enrollment rate (%)This indicator measures the percentage of school-age kids enrolled in primary school, consistent with the singular target of MDG #2, aiming for 100% enrollment by 2030.For MDG #2, the aim from the previous 15-year period preceding the SDGs focused upon universal primary education, which reached a primary school net enrolment rate in the developing regions of 91% by 2015. This was an increase of 8% from the beginning of the millennium, with a 20% rise in sub-Saharan Africa during the same period, but still leaving 57 million primary school aged children out of school worldwide in 2015.As we saw above, the gap to 100% primary enrolment is small, though still in the tens of millions in total numbers. The countries facing major challenges on this indicator are consistent with the Sahel, as well as Syria and neighbouring Jordan, the latter in likelihood due to the presence of Syrian refugees.Will aid alone make for a 100% net primary enrolment? If we regard the countries with major challenges for this indicator, there are other factors at play, complicating the path to universal primary enrolment e.g., disease, cultural attitudes toward girls’ education, and effects of climate change. As with all issues we’re looking at, each application in a different culture and environment entails trial and error, with the MDG period displaying the challenges facing development in sub-Saharan Africa.Summary:For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for 100% net primary enrolment rate by 2030.For developing country readers with school age children, enrol your child in primary education, where affordable and available.Lower secondary completion rate (%)Here, the distinction is made between enrolment to completion, in this case lower secondary, rather than primary, again aiming for 100% by 2030. The 2020 world total shows a rate of 77% lower secondary school completion.Lower secondary is the seventh to ninth years of education, with completion of the ninth year classified as ‘basic education’. Upper secondary education begins in the tenth year of education, before any tertiary education. Lower secondary education is a human right, enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by every UN member state except the USA.You know by now what you must do if you’re a reader from a DAC member on behalf of the LDC countries with major challenges remaining on this indicator. But what of the middle-income countries? Many of the middle-income countries scoring red for this indicator are on the DAC’s List of ODA Recipients, and there are segments of the population in these countries affected by extreme poverty.What if you’re a reader from a middle-income country, and your national government fails to ensure your right to accessible and available education, per the Convention on the Rights of the Child?We all must observe this treaty on behalf of children, obliged to act in their best interests. This means to attempt to provide for your child’s basic needs, to ensure a life of opportunity and social mobility. Anything short of the completion of a basic education (primary and lower secondary education) risks dislocating your child from society.Summary:For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for a 100% lower secondary completion rate.For developing country readers:For parents with children enrolled in lower secondary education, ensure your child completes lower secondary.For adults yet to complete basic education, complete lower secondary education.Literacy rate (% of population aged 15 to 24)The definition of literacy for ages 15 to 24 is the ability to read and write a short, simple statement on everyday life, with an understanding of this statement, aiming for 100% literacy by 2030.We know from our Goal #4 results that LDCs have major challenges remaining, and we know the remedy for the LDCs on this indicator.Pakistan, a middle-income country, should have a literacy rate above LDC countries. Pakistan’s Constitution codifies the obligation for the state to provide free and compulsory education for all. Yet 22.8 million children, or 44% of the population of school age, are out of school. How do the Pakistani government expect to see any economic growth with such a dismal literacy rate?Regional differences are one reason, as is gender, a phenomenon popularised by Malala Yousafzai. Pakistan’s north-western border region with Afghanistan offered refuge to the Taliban insurgency, along with their accompanying attitudes toward female education. Further, literacy in the tribal areas of this region is low compared to the country’s metropolises, and national government spending on education is a disappointing 2.9%.In a country with widespread illiteracy, can prosperity be around the corner, or ever be in reach? Pakistan is an Islamic republic (which differs from a theocracy), combined with a patriarchal societal structure. Pakistan thus leaves half of society on the sideline, when it could be participating in the economy, and educated to a tertiary level, beyond mere literacy.Addressing any Pakistani readers, I acknowledge 5% of Pakistanis live below the international poverty line of $1.90 a day. This country, with a population nearing a quarter of a trillion, is wanting. Yet the escalator to even a modicum of meeting basic needs, as well as climate change resilience, is education. Without advancing on Goal #4, Pakistan holds the potential to find itself in a similar standard of living in decades to come.The nature of the country’s values places Islamic principles central, as the state religion, per the Constitution. Pakistani laws must be in harmony with the Quran, and the traditions and practices of Muhammad via constitutional bodies. Yet the government of Pakistan must weigh the advice of these, whilst considering its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The same applies to Pakistani citizens. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines freedom of religion. Two other UN member states are Islamic republics, and a little under 30 UN member states explicate Islam as the state religion within their respective constitutions. Each UN member state must balance their respective state religion with being a party to international treaties. If you’re a Pakistani parent of a child, there is a need to compromise. This may mean acknowledging the limitations of your own education. Enquire within yourself whether those who’ve passed their wisdom on to you could be of a limited education themselves. Humans are fallible, even well-intentioned pious people.If you find yourself in this scenario, you have a choice to make, which might place you between your religion and the importance of literacy and education. You may perceive the two as incompatible. If you were God, setting the precepts for the humans you created, would you inscribe into the programming of life to keep half of your creations in depravity of knowledge? I expect you’d have the sense to blanch at any belief suggesting as much. You believe in a God who wants the best for everyone. Any suggestion otherwise is due to the interpretation passed down by fallible humans.Summary: For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for a 100% literacy rate of the global population aged 15-24 by 2030.Tertiary educational attainment (% of population aged 25-34) *Most OECD countries are close to on track for this indicator, aiming for 52.2% of the population aged between 25 and 34 to complete some tertiary education i.e., universities and vocational schools, resulting in an academic certificate, diploma or degree.If you’re in a country with challenges remaining for this indicator, and between the ages of 25 and 34, consider applying for and completing some tertiary education. Even a certificate at a vocational school ought to provide valuable skills to boost your income in the workforce.Summary: For readers in countries off-t

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #5 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Demand for family planning is satisfied by modern methods (% of females aged 15 to 49)This indicator measures women of reproductive age (15 to 49) whose demand for family planning is being met using modern methods of contraception, aiming to meet 100% of demand by 2030.Sub-Saharan Africa has major challenges remaining, according to the 2022 SDG Index. As do most of the Islamic republics, most of the countries in the Middle East, as well as the Balkans, and a couple of Latin American and Southeast Asian countries.The lack of availability in sub-Saharan Africa ought to be clear by the implications of extreme poverty, disallowing the affordability of modern contraceptives unless state-supplied. Projections show a population boom anticipated for the rest of this century to occur in the region, due to the demographics of extreme poverty and its correlation with population growth. The use of condoms serves double duty as a form of contraception, in addition to protecting against the transmission of HIV and other infections.Other barriers include difficulty in access for young and unmarried people; uncertainty around side effects; the assent of a male partner; religious belief; cultural attitudes, and healthcare providers posing a barrier for the above reasons. Though cultural attitudes, even if rooted in religious belief, as well as governmental policy efforts, need to propel the shift.If you live in a country where your contraception needs are unmet, religion may well be the culprit. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines freedom of religion. But how we reconcile the human right of freedom of religion with reproductive rights is a bit of a minefield. Even the branches of each religion differ, an example being Catholicism’s prohibition against condoms in contrast to Protestantism. The Quran appears quiet on the topic, yet a stigma surrounds the use of condoms in Islamic countries, synonymous with illicit sex. The low rates of contraception seem more related to the cultural ethos in the Islamic states, with a tenuous invocation of Islam to condemn contraception by leaders in the region. Malaysia and Pakistan are lagging. India has a Hindu population of 80%, but its government has played an active role in family planning for its country of 1.35 billion. The Philippines, with an 80% Catholic population, has also scored red. Ireland, also close to 80% Catholic, has scored green for the indicator, though contraception was illegal there until 1980. If you’re a reader in a country off-track, you’ll need to consult your conscience as it relates to your relationship with religion. Complicating this will be the availability of family planning methods in religious cultures, even via a physician.What can you do as an individual in a country which hinders sourcing contraception? If you live in a country where the stigma is so high you face ostracism, this is a big problem. If you’re observant of a faith preaching the profanity of contraception, we’re also at an impasse. How deep to dig in our heels in such instances? Is a how-to book about the Global Goals the forum to persuade you away from the doctrines of your faith? With good fortune, according to the indicators we’re drawing from, we’re only looking to meet the demand for contraceptives i.e., if you are without demand due to your beliefs, then this is to be respected.Serbia offers an example of impeding the issue of family planning in a middle-income country on the European continent.Serbian gynaecologists still appear to struggle to have moved away from a culture whereby they have undergone abortions themselves at a rate of 61%.37% of Serbian gynaecologists practise coitus interruptus as a contraception method, or no method at all.51% were unwilling to prescribe the combined oral contraceptive pill to girls under 18.76% advised women against using the pill for more than two years.If this reflects the personal practices of a decent portion of Serbian professionals, experts in their field, unable to draw upon modern knowledge, what hope can there be for the general population?The African continent, the poorest on the planet, is facing a demographic explosion. It is imperative women have the opportunity they desire for birth spacing. This dynamic highlights how entwined the matter of family planning is with poverty reduction.The UN treats the individual's right to decisions on fertility with care. Both people and the planet will benefit if we’re able, across generations, to shift the total fertility rate below replacement levels. A demographic transition to the lower-end scenarios of population growth gives the greatest chances to the benefits of sustainable development.If you have demand, make your first port of call a physician, should you have access to one. It may even be worth seeking counsel before conception - either with your physician or a midwife - in relation to your thoughts and intentions around attempting to become pregnant. Sex education is also important, so you can weigh attitudes held around contraception according to the correct information. The form of birth control, rather than condoms, could be a method drawing on fertility awareness to the menstrual cycle, though different methods have varied levels of efficacy.Males in partnerships or marriages, when planning to have a family or not, may also play a forceful position, which a reader may feel at the mercy of, complicating matters further. This is where the importance of Goal #5 comes to the fore. This indicator requires an overarching achievement of Goal #5, such as we engender (so to speak) gender equality in the country’s mores and healthcare system. The decision of the woman in a partnership or marriage ought to be of equal grounding respective to the male partner or husband.Summary:For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for 100% demand for family planning satisfied by methods for females aged 15-49 by 2030.For readers in countries off-track, reduce any barriers preventing women from accessing family planning.Ratio of female-to-male mean years of education received (%)This indicator compares the average years of education for women over 25-years-old compared to their male counterparts. The aim is by 2030 for the ratio of years of education to be on equal footing for both sexes.The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - the definitive distillation of morals for the world's populace to live up to - enshrines the right to education. Upholding a basic human right alone ought to be reason enough to educate girls.In girls' education, we hold among the greatest drivers of actualising the SDGs. Many societies have marginalised the value of women in their societies, whether due to tradition or religion. If the choice between educating a boy or a girl is a decision a household faces in low-income countries, the choice often falls toward the boy, hindering the girl's prospects of income generation later in life. Many of these same societies marry off girls at an early age, instead of allowing them to work, or giving them the gift of education. After marriage comes babies, some of which will die, hence more babies follow to hedge this tragic bet. Affecting their ability to build upon and invest in the livelihoods of vulnerable mothers is the short cycle between high fertility rates, coupled with high infant mortality rates and high maternal mortality rates.If we educate girls rather than marry them off young, the primary and secondary schooling gender gap would narrow in the developing world. After a girl graduates high school, they have the prospect of tertiary education, and increased power to seek employment and earn a living wage in the labour market. She'll delay marriage and childbirth, have more power in the household, as well as more power in society due to her earning potential. This couples with what is understood to be a woman's sounder managing of household finances in the developing world. The fertility rate drops. The infant mortality rate drops. The pace of population growth decreases. The rate of personal savings rises, allowing for greater personal investment, and investment in a woman's enterprise, which she now has the confidence to conduct. It may even be possible for the taxable income of the population to rise enough for the government to use any tax revenues received to invest further, creating more opportunities to lift others out of extreme poverty.Imagine half a society's labour market left unused - one entire gender marginalised for either traditional, religious, or societal reasons. How could such a society expect to prosper? Since the 1980s, China has pulled an overwhelming proportion of its enormous populace from extreme poverty. One of the key drivers was the empowerment of women, educating and entrusting them as valuable members of the workforce driving an economy.Educating a girl is the clearest path to lift 700 million from extreme poverty by 2030. Take it from former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan:"Study after study has t

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #6 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Population using at least basic drinking water services (%)As of 2020, 90% of the world has basic drinking water services, with a steady upward trend since the start of the MDG period. Yet the 10% left over is still too much, with the 2022 SDG Index scores showing us the LDCs scoring red for this indicator. We’re aiming for 100% of the population to use basic drinking water services, defined as an ‘improved source’, meaning due to its “design and construction it has the potential to deliver safe water”. This definition is further categorised by whether the water is accessible on the premises, available when needed, and free from contamination.Types of unimproved sources include:unprotected springs and wellssurface water from sources such as rivers, dams, lakes, streams, and irrigation canalsAn example of an improved source is:water piped to the homeprotected wells and springsharvested rainwaterpackaged or delivered waterPer the definition of this indicator, a ‘basic drinking water service’ is an ‘improved water source’, requiring a 30-minute or less round trip, including queuing. The definition of a source taking longer is ‘limited’, in contrast to ‘basic’.To make this a little easier to conceptualise, UNICEF and the WHO use a ladder of drinking water: Source: https://washdata.org/monitoring/drinking-water Consider the role drinking water has in your life, and how you depend on its quality. You rely on it for basic survival, secondary in urgency to oxygen. Our planet’s surface area is 71% water, but 96.5% of this is saline, with only 2.5% fresh water.Diarrhoea is the second leading cause of death of children under 5, killing over half a million every year. Imagine your parents conceiving you, brought to term by your mother, only losing you to diarrhoea within 5 years of birth. When I picture the children in my life below age 5, the thought of them dying is shocking. If the cause were something as feeble and preventable as diarrhoea, it’d be even more senseless.How are you going to respond to this challenge to make up the shortfall of the 10% of the global population without basic drinking water services? You’re a step ahead of me. You’ve already concluded that because the countries far off-track are LDCs, the responsibility falls upon the DAC country readers to finance what's required to provide basic drinking water services.The main point is providing quality drinking water up to the standard of the ‘basic’ rung on the above ladder, meaning free of pollution, including when the pollutants originate from the original groundwater.Summary: For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for all to have at least basic drinking water services by 2030.Population using at least basic sanitation services (%)A similar worded indicator to before, albeit focused upon sanitation, in contrast to drinking water, aiming for 100% coverage of a population using basic sanitation, to bridge the gap of 78% of the world population.The definition of an improved facility is designed to separate human waste from human contact, meaning it’s:not shared with other householdstreats the waste and disposes of it on-sitestored, then emptied, and treated off-sitetransported via a sewer along with wastewater, and treated off-siteExamples of improved sources include:flush toilets (connected to a sewer, septic tank, or pit latrine)pit latrines, with slabs covering the pitcomposting toiletsUNICEF and the WHO likewise has a ladder for sanitation, as it does for drinking water: Source: https://washdata.org/monitoring/sanitation The upward trend has been steady and positive from the beginning of the MDG period in 2000, when only 55% of the world population had access to a basic sanitation service.What to do? We’ll follow the same prescription as above for water, with LDC countries cared for by the foreign aid donations from our DAC readers.What about middle-income countries? As mentioned earlier, DAC aid reaches recipients beyond the LDCs prioritised as neediest, but for this indicator, we have middle-income countries with portions of the population still living in extreme poverty. South Asia has scored red in the 2022 SDG Index for this indicator, as have Mongolia, Papua New Guinea, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Guatemala.Let’s lean on the ability of foreign aid to resolve this. In the event you’re reading this perched on the stilts of a hanging latrine, then above is the standard of what’s required for a ‘basic’ sanitation service where you live to help you to meet this indicator of 100% of the population.Summary:For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for all to have at least basic sanitation services by 2030.For readers in countries off-track, use a basic sanitation service from an improved sanitation facility, where available.Freshwater withdrawal (% of available freshwater resources)Water is renewable but finite, so we’re considering the measure of all available renewable resources, minus what’s required by the environment. By 2030, the aim is a withdrawal of 12.5 % of available freshwater sources or less. In an era of increasing climate change, what was already a swath of dryland (Middle East and North Africa; Central and South Asia) will face increasing pressures on freshwater withdrawal.This indicator reflects water stress, measuring the proportion of freshwater withdrawn from all freshwater sources, applied to households, but also, due to the scale of their withdrawal, from industry. So please take heed if you’re a business owner, or if your influence in your role as an employee affects the outcome of freshwater withdrawal. This takes on pertinence within the industries of agriculture, forestry and fishing, manufacturing, and the electricity sector. Some common uses for these sectors include public water supply and irrigation, industrial processes, and electric power plant cooling. Agriculture accounts for 70% of the freshwater withdrawal. Food production has doubled in the past three decades, with estimates we’ll need 60% more food by mid-century, along with the accompanying intensity of water withdrawals.In a household, most adults have a sense of how best to economise on using freshwater, so our focus turns toward agriculture. Very few readers will work in the agricultural sector. Agricultural productivity is important, though heading further into this century, we’ll be asking more of the planet to feed more human mouths. Our demand and consumption affect what is produced by the agricultural sector, thus easing production eases the demand for freshwater sources. We need to harness agricultural technology and emphasise those techniques making efficiency gains, both in water use, but also cost. We’re looking for water productivity i.e., a good crop yield compared to the ratio of water used. This is done by improving irrigation and water management, including efficiency. One of the means of this is through drip irrigation via pressurised pipes, rather than surface irrigation. Maximising outputs and minimising inputs are central, being mindful of natural resources. As a consumer or an intermediary in the supply chain, you can do your bit from contributing to food waste. Importing food may become a reality for some countries off-track for this indicator, if they continue to be unable to meet the needs of domestic irrigation, a drawback we’ll face again in the next indicator. North Africa and the Middle East may need to look past agriculture and industrial processes as a living, as it’s appearing unsustainable unless the inputs of water are more efficient, or the government or private sector remediate this.Summary: For readers in countries off-track, conserve water and use efficiently, in residential, agricultural, and commercial settings, aiming for a national withdrawal of 12.5% or less of available freshwater resources by 2030.Anthropogenic wastewater that receives treatment (%)This indicator aims to treat 100% of wastewater for contamination of pollutants, either via sewage from t

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #7 ratings Data source: sdgindex.org Population with access to electricity (%)Much of the world population is on track to meet the 2030 goal of 100% access to electricity, except for the low-income and lower-middle income countries, plus Libya. 90.5% of the world population has access to electricity, with an upward trend, though still leaving 759 million people without electricity. We can leverage so much economic growth off electricity, including access to remote health care and education via broader internet connectivity - a key driver for the poorer countries to converge in living standards with more developed countries.The key issue is rural electrification, managing to ensure remote communities have access to electricity. Spare a thought for someone living in rural Africa, without even the notion of what an air conditioner is. Blankets of sub-Saharan Africa are devoid of electricity. It takes little imagination to envisage the relative deprivation it must be to live without it. Africa holds the capacity to transform from the Dark Continent, in terms of access to electricity, to a giant of energy exporting. This is a feasibility, in contrast to foreordained, and would rely on myriad factors to actualise, such as:investments in long-distance transmission linesgrids to connect the continent to supply other regionsmassive engineering projects, such as harnessing the hydropower of Congo’s Inga Falls, a project with potential as the world’s biggest power stationWe need to be able to raise the funds to pay for the electrification of those developing countries off-track to meet this indicator.Summary: For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for all to have access to electricity.Population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking (%)The other side of the coin for SDG #7 is the cleanliness of the cooking methods used. The ‘cleanliness’ of energy is a serious factor for those living in poverty. The use of certain fuels results in smoke in confined mud-brick huts, polluting the home, and damaging health to the point of fatality.Within SDG #3, we explored the topic of chronic respiratory disease, and saw how dirty cooking fuels contribute to illnesses from indoor pollution. Such dirty sources include stoves burning charcoal, coal, crop cuttings, animal manure, kerosene, and wood.We’re aiming for 100% of a population with access to clean fuels and technology for cooking, from 70% of the world population with such access as of 2020.Clean cooking fuels and technology include electricity, liquefied petroleum gas, natural gas, biogas, solar, and alcohol fuels like methanol or ethanol. We’re trying to dissuade people from burning fossil fuels like LPG and natural gas, so electricity generated by renewable energy is our primary aim.High-income country readers know by now what the solution is, vis-a-vis the LDCs, to afford access to clean fuels. But for all readers living in countries off-track, where available and affordable, cook with one of the above-mentioned clean fuels.Summary:For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for all to have access to clean fuels and technology for cooking by 2030.For developing country readers: use clean cooking fuels, where available and affordable.CO₂ emissions from fuel combustion per total electricity output (MtCO₂/TWh)This indicator measures the intensity of carbon emissions in the production of electricity. To quantify this, we use the amount of carbon dioxide released by burning the fuel which results in electricity, divided by the amount of electricity output. At the national level for which the SDG Index deals, this measure is in megatonnes (Mt) of carbon dioxide i.e., a million tonnes. To measure electricity output, it's terawatt-hours. Watts is a measurement for units of energy - if you know where your electricity meter is on your property, you can look at the dial measuring the electricity you’re using moment to moment. The meter measures in kilowatt-hours, which is also the unit of energy displayed on your electricity bill. A kilowatt-hour is the use of a thousand watts in an hour, whereas a terawatt-hour is a trillion watts an hour. So, a terawatt-hour is the best scale of measurement for describing the annual output of electricity for a whole country for a year.The aim by 2030 is to bring the emissions of carbon dioxide (i.e., a carbon atom bonded with two oxygen atoms) released from the burning of fuel for electricity to zero. For every terawatt-hour a country uses for electricity, this power will result in no CO₂ being emitted.Power plants emit CO₂ when they burn fossil fuels to generate electricity, but there are other ways to generate electricity besides burning fossil fuels e.g., renewable energy. Therefore, electrification is one of the most important pillars of decarbonisation. We can electrify as many power sources as possible, so long as the primary source of this energy is decarbonised.So many countries are lagging, yet the solution is to decarbonise, ensuring the electricity you use is generated from renewable sources.Now, let's bring the scale used to measure this indicator down to the level of you, the individual. Here, we'll measure in kilowatt-hours and tonnes of carbon dioxide, rather than terawatt-hours and megatonnes. If the electricity you get from your electric utility is from a power plant burning fossil fuels, then it’s emitting carbon dioxide. Remember, we’re trying to decarbonise whatever number of kilowatt-hours you’re using in your home or business.So long as the electricity and heating sources we use emit carbon dioxide, the surface temperature of Earth will warm, endangering our existence. One way or another, you have nine years to figure out a solution appropriate to your circumstances, whether solar photovoltaic, geothermal, hydropower or wind.Summary: Use 100% electricity generated from either renewable or carbon neutral sources, aiming to end CO₂ emissions from electricity output by 2030.Share of renewable energy in total primary energy supply (%)If as a reader, you live in a developed country, with the option available of 100% renewable energy supply to your home or small business, get it. The price of renewable energy is now - thank goodness - at parity with fossil fuels.What’s to be overcome is the politicisation of the issue. The press of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp has a potent stranglehold on political discourse, as is true in the US and UK. In Australia, such media seems tied up in coal and other fossil fuel-producing interests, colouring the everyday discourse of average citizens.This indicator looks at the portion of renewables amongst all energy sources (e.g., oil, coal, gas, nuclear, etc.), including imports and excluding exports.As of 2019, the global share of renewables in the total primary energy supply was 14%. With renewables at price parity with fossil fuels, 29% of the share of electricity was generated from renewables as of 2020. For this indicator, we’re aiming by 2030 for a 51% share of renewable energy among primary energy sources. By this definition, renewable energy includes hydropower, geothermal energy, solar energy, wind power, tidal and wave power, biofuels, and power generated from municipal waste when renewable. Excluded is pumped-storage hydroelectricity, a type of hydroelectric power storage used in an electric power system to balance loads.We need all these primary energy sources to generate our electricity, heat our spaces and water, for air conditioning, transportation, as well as stand-alone off-the-grid power systems. The present reality is solar and wind power is cheap. Beyond 2030, we need to get to 100% renewable energy by 2050, and wind and solar are our easiest paths. Innovative technologies will play a part in our decarbonisation plans past mid-century, as well as for net negative emissions, which involves removing carbon already in the atmosphere and storing it in carbon sinks, like soil or vegetation. Part of the solution also entails ceasing fossil fuel subsidies.Below is how the above energy sources work, in a basic way:geothermal gets thermal energy from the Earth’s crustsolar power converts sunlight into electricity, using photovoltaics, or concentrates sunlight using mirrors. When photovoltaic panels are exposed to light, they create an electric current. The materials used to make photovoltaics are semiconducting, meaning the electric current flows less free than along copper in electrical wire. Solar-heated water receives sunlight’s heat via the solar thermal collector sitting on roofsWind turbines convert the kinetic power of wind for electricity generationHydroelectricity converts the force of moving water into electricityBiofuels create electricity or heat by burning as a fuel, the same as fossil fuels, except without the greenhouse effectNote, consumption of energy is different from the supply of energy. You may supply some renewable energy if you have solar panels which feed-in to the grid. But to tailor this indicator to your pe

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #8 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Adjusted GDP growth (%)This indicator measures the annual growth of GDP (gross domestic product), the total of everything produced (products and services) within a country.In 2020, the per capita GDP of the world (or GWP, gross world product) was $17,061, growing from $5,529 in 1990. At the beginning of the MDG period in 2000, this was $7,998 per capita, and in 2015 was $15,137.Rather than economic growth being a filthy term, we need to take measures to ensure it's coupled with environmental care and social inclusion. Sustainable development aims for economic growth in harmony with ensuring the other two pillars i.e., economic growth which is inclusive and sustainable.We’re trying to adopt a macroeconomic concept to the scale of the individual reader here. Rather than the average individual having their hands on the levers of economic policymaking at the national level, let’s keep it simple, without putting onerous responsibilities on your shoulders. If you live in a country scoring red for the indicator, aim to increase your annual income by 5%. There will be so many factors at play out of your control, bearing down on you, but aim for 5% annual income growth. Figure out how much income you made in the past year, multiply it by 5%, and aim for this amount in the coming year. Divide the increase by 52 weeks or 12 months, if you think you’ll find it easier to set smaller targets, rather than a big one for year-end. How you go about increasing your income is up to you - the main thing is we set the intention to go out after the goal.Summary:For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid.For readers in countries off-track, attempt to increase your annual income by 5% a year.Victims of modern slavery (per 1,000 population)It’s unbelievable a practice such as slavery can continue to prevail in the 21st century, least of all ever occurred at all. Treating humans as property takes many forms, including:human trafficking for forced laboursexual slavery and forced prostitutionconscription in national military servicepenal labourdebt bondagebride buyingsome conditions experienced by migrant workersThe definition of modern slavery for this indicator counts as forced labour or forced marriage, aiming for elimination by 2030.The results for this indicator in the 2022 SDG Index are ugly. Due to what we can agree is a heinous practice, even the yellow scores are grotesque. For each of these countries, the reasons for high rates of forced labour and marriage are particular to each society. Some instances of forced labour may even entail state sanction of law, as in the case of conscription. Let’s instead focus on the instance of the individual reader. Rather than imposing responsibility on the victim of slavery, instead it ought to be on the enslaving person, whether ‘employer’, husband in forced matrimony, or parents of a bride in a forced marriage.Summary: End forced labour and forced marriage by 2030.Adults with an account at a bank or other financial institution or with a mobile-money-service provider (% of population aged 15 or over)This indicator aims for 100% of a population, aged 15 and over, to have an account at a bank or other financial institution, either by themselves, or shared with someone else, or to have used mobile payments in the past year. In 2021, 76% of the world population owned such an account.The beauty of mobile banking is in the unexpected ubiquity of mobile devices in low-income countries. There’s little incentive for a bank to open a branch in a far-flung, rural part of a low-income country. Populations in low-income countries can instead use a mobile app to transact, whether they own a device themselves, or share within a family or community.Depending on the country and mobile payment service, this could rely on SMS technology, or more advanced mobile apps. Kenya is the success story, due to the success of M-Pesa, which also features a micro-financing function. M-Pesa has since expanded to more countries, but looking at the 2022 scores for this indicator, with unequal success as its native Kenya. When a survey asked respondents why they were yet to open a bank account, the most common answers were a dearth of funds to deposit, as well as cost and distance. If someone has only a couple of dollars to rub together, it’s only going to compound the issue of opening a bank account if this comes with account fees.Summary: For readers in countries off-track, open an account at a bank, or a mobile-money-service provider, if affordable and available, aiming for all to have such accounts.Fundamental labour rights are effectively guaranteed (worst 0 - 1 best)This indicator measures the effective enforcement of fundamental labour rights, including:freedom of associationright to collective bargainingabsence of discrimination related to employmentfreedom from forced labour and child labourThe data source for this indicator is one of the factors of the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index. A score of 1 is the best score, with 0 the worst. In the context of this indicator, countries are aiming for a score of 0.85.Depending on the country you live in, you may be familiar with the presence of trade unions and would have experienced the relationship between employers and employees and contracts. Your national government may have an agency upholding employment standards. In some countries, there’s a very prominent history of labour law in different guises, dating back to the cotton mills and factory systems of northern England at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and in other forms before industrialisation.What should be the legal price floor for the exchange of payment for work, otherwise known as the minimum wage? What is the threshold of a living wage? What framework exists to ensure occupational health and safety? Are anti-discrimination laws applicable and enforced in workplaces? What are the grounds for unfair dismissal in terminating employment? What prohibitions exist around the use of child labour? Is freedom of association permitted, allowing groups to form a club and take collective action, such as a trade union?Some countries have developed a tradition of co-determination, a model of corporate governance representing workers among the board of directors. The intention of this is to ease a more harmonious process of collective bargaining in negotiation, mitigating the risk of strike action.The impacts of globalisation put a lot of pressure upon labour, and the UN has a body to oversee this field, the International Labour Organization, which brokers international labour law - both as it relates to international law, but also the conflict of laws between countries in dispute.Summary: For readers in countries off-track:as an employer:ensure freedom of associationensure collective bargainingdesist using forced or child labouras employers and colleagues, ensure workplaces are free of discriminationFatal work-related accidents embodied in imports (per 100,000 population)If we cast our minds back to the concept of something being embodied in an import, as we did with the earlier indicator about scarce water, a similar principle applies here. Developed countries import goods from countries with lower labour costs, by extension meaning lower labour standards, heightening the risk of accidents in the exporting country. Developed countries have robust health and safety standards in workplaces across all industries, enjoyed at the expense of importing from other countries, where standards may be so low that they risk fatalities. The 2030 aim for this indicator is to end fatal work-related accidents embodied in imports.The indicator’s data source is an academic journal article titled Trade in occupational safety and health, looking at the role of labour conditions in developing countries for export markets, exploring the harms embodied in the global supply chain.Only a handful of countries have scored red, including Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Mauritius and Singapore. Referring to data you can explore in the SDSN website which tracks bilateral spillover effects, we can identify which imports from which countries are contributing to fatal work-related accidents. Based on this information, readers from countries off-track can identify imports from certain countries they should find alternative sources for, lest they create demand for fatal work accidents.For Kuwait and UAE, most of these fatal accidents are being exported from India, and for Mauritius, from Madagascar.Summary: For readers from countries off-track: research the countries from which the accidents are embedded in imports at https://environmentalimpact.global/spillovers/seek alternative sources for these imports without embedded fatal work-related accidents, aiming to end global fatal work-related accidents embedded in imports by 2030Unemployment rate (% of total labour force)This indicator is an estimate of how much of the labour force is unemployed, yet is free to work, and looking for work. The indicator speaks to an economy-w

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #9 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Population using the internet (%)The definition of this indicator is using the internet within the last three months, whether from a fixed or mobile network, aiming for 100% of the world population to use the internet by 2030.Since the era of COVID-19, life has accelerated into the digital sphere. The path out of such a setback as the pandemic is to orient society and the economy around a green and digital transformation.As of 2021, an estimated 4.9 billion people, or 63% of the world population, are using the internet, a growth from 3 billion, or 41%, in 2015. Of the internet users in 2021, 92% accessed from a mobile device, which is encouraging for rural areas in developing countries. But as we’ll see from the Index scores, the developed countries have a clear lead over developing countries. China has the most internet users, totalling 1.01 billion, or 71% of the population, followed by India with 833 million, or 61% of the population (thus scoring red for this indicator), then the US with 312 million and 95%.The common thread of red scores in the 2022 scores are LDCs, small island developing states, states in conflict or post-conflict, and landlocked developing countries. A couple of middle-income countries are ciphers with red scores i.e., Philippines and some Central American countries. Reasons why each of these countries have such low internet usage include:costavailability of servicelack of ICT infrastructurecensorshippredominance of English on the internetdearth of uses for the internet in the local tongueThere’s little question in 2022, to be without the internet in the developed world feels on par with the electricity going out - life halts. In developing country situations, foreign aid is needed to broach the digital divide. This is the path to achieving this indicator’s long-term objective of the whole world population using the internet.Summary:For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for all to have internet access by 2030.For readers in countries off-track, use the internet, where available and affordable. Mobile broadband subscriptions (per 100 population)This indicator focuses on subscriptions to mobile networks with an added data plan offering internet access, aiming for 100 mobile broadband subscriptions per population of 100. Furthermore, it requires the connection to be running at broadband speed (250 kilobits per second or greater), whether used on a mobile phone, tablet, or any other device.Many readers will have memories of an era before broadband was available, or when mobile devices were akin to what's now known as feature phones, with data and internet access, but without broadband capabilities. Now, using our phone as a modem, we're untethered. Mobile phone subscriptions already outnumber the world population, estimated at around 6 billion as of 2020.The picture painted by the 2022 scores for this indicator tell a similar story to the indicator before, with similar countries represented in red - as such, the recommendations are similar. The foreign aid of readers must aid the shortfall of financing to develop cellular network infrastructure. Bringing people out of poverty allows them to afford whatever cost a subscription might entail, and with it the wonders of global connectivity, as well as some of the drawbacks, as we all experience in different guises of life online. But for the LDCs, a mobile subscription can mean remote access to education, health, and myriad social services, as well as e-commerce. It unleashes the unlimited possibilities the internet affords all those who use it. To connect at broadband speeds, on a mobile device, also mitigates the need for fixed landlines, as the installation of electrical or telephone lines in remote spaces is still non-existent in some areas.Thus, for our DAC member country readers, we already know the recommendation on behalf of our developing counterparts. For those in countries off-track for this indicator with the means to afford a mobile broadband subscription, it’s as simple as subscribing to the mobile network operator of your choice.Summary:For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for mobile subscriptions for all by 2030.For readers in countries off-track, get a mobile broadband subscription.Logistics Performance Index: Quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (worst 1-5 best)This indicator measures a country's quality of trade logistics and transport infrastructure e.g., ports, roads, railroads and IT. 1 is the worst score and 5 the best, aiming for a 2030 score of 3.8. To give an idea of what 3.8 looks like, using 2018 Logistics Performance Index scores, the US scores 4.05 and China 3.75. Germany is the top-ranked, with a score of 4.20. The world Logistics Performance Index score is 2.72 in 2018.Logistical systems like roads, ports and railroads need large investments of capital, often on the scale of billions of dollars. There’s almost nothing an individual can do to affect change at their level for this indicator. It’s good to know where the opportunities for improvements lie and where the global logistical blind spots are, but there’s little you can do to help achieve this indicator.The Times Higher Education Universities Ranking: Average score of top 3 universities (worst 0-100 best)This average of the top three universities in a country is from two lists of the top universities in the world. The 2030 goal is to reach an average score of 50. Most countries are close to on-track for this indicator, which is of benefit, as it'd be unfair to ask students, or prospective students, to increase the quality of the top 3 institutions in their country. Thus, you can aim for your home country to have an average score of 50 for this indicator by 2030, but it’s beyond the scope of the individual to affect this change.Articles published in academic journals (per 1,000 population)This indicator counts the articles cited in journals in the past three years, attributing the country based on the location of the institution of the work. The aim by 2030 is for 1.2 scientific and technical journal articles per 1,000 population.China had the highest number of scientific and technical journal articles for 2020, but per capita, scores yellow for this indicator, with Switzerland topping the list, with 5.5 journal articles per 1,000 population.This requires the infrastructure of a country’s educational system to foster students from early development, with a good foundation in STEM subjects into tertiary education. This allows for higher education at a post-graduate level, allowing for publication in journal articles.We can only hope to ask readers in countries off-track to consider the commitment to join the ranks to publish scientific articles. Another more lateral solution could be academics from OECD countries migrating their careers, contributing to the stock of expertise and contribution of journal articles. Then, knowledge will accrue in developing countries, much as doctors from the West bring their expertise to assist in developed countries.Summary: For readers in countries off-track, consider publishing in an academic journal.Expenditure on research and development (% of GDP)The 2030 objective for this indicator is 3.7% spending on R&D as a percentage of GDP. The 2020 world average is 2.63%, a total of $US1.7 trillion, up a little further than the earliest data point of 1.9% in 1996.To anyone with an eye toward the global innovation centres, none of those countries and regions with green scores will be surprising. A digitised globe is dependent on technological innovation to grow, dislocating other countries without the budget to invest in R&D, or unable to prioritise it.My suggestion to adapt this indicator to the level of the individual is left-of-centre. Based on the top 10 companies by spending on R&D, aim to spend the target of 3.7% of your annual income on the products of these companies.Most of these companies are the most valuable in the world, and for income inequality reasons explored in the next chapter, I advocate refraining from giving them your custom. My suggestion is to spend on used goods, purchased by someone else before you.I’ll list those companies below at the time of writing in 2021. For later years, check online for the top R&D spending companies for the given year:AmazonAlphabet/GoogleHuaweiMicrosoftApple & Samsung (equal)Meta/FacebookVolkswagenIntelRocheFor the above, if you’re buying a service e.g., Facebook or Google advertising, you’re paying them directly. I’m suggesting buying used hardware e.g., phones, computers, even components like an Intel CPU as part of a new PC. Computer stores can assemble these for you at little cost.At the forefront of my thinking for this indicator, given the digital era we live in, is Moore’s law, the principle coined by Gordon Moore, co-founder of Intel, whereby the number of semiconducting transistors fitting on an integrated circuit doubles every two years. By this principle,

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #10 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Gini coefficientThe most well-known measure of income inequality is the Gini coefficient, developed by Corrado Gini, an Italian statistician. 'Coefficient’ may harken to high school maths in a way you’d prefer to repress - if so, we can consider the Gini coefficient to be a score, like the SDG Index scores. A Gini coefficient of 0 would mean perfect equality i.e., everyone in the country has an identical amount of income. A Gini coefficient of 100, by contrast, would mean the entire income of a country was in the hands of one person, to the exclusion of all others. For this indicator, the lower the Gini coefficient, the better. The aim by 2030 for this indicator is a Gini coefficient of 27.5, rather than aiming for full equality, which by 2030, seems utopian. To give a sense of what 27.5 looks like, and how healthy a society it results in, think of Norway, which had already achieved this indicator in 2015, with a 2018 Gini coefficient of 27.6, compared with the US’ Gini score of 41.4 in 2018.Inequality’s effects can be insidious, corroding society in imperceptible ways. The example of the Nordic countries displays what a model country can be, with Gini scores between 27 and 30. Nordic countries are prosperous, and egalitarian by cultural norms of the ‘law of Jante’, which dissuades self-aggrandisement and non-conformity. Attitudes toward equality between and within cultures often vary. Some political philosophies infusing the mainstream or its fringes hold inequality to be natural or desirable, an outcome of evolutionary survival of the fittest. Some countries' cultures reward individual success in the form of stratospheric incomes and wealth. The law of Jante, influencing the Nordic cultures, vilifies shows of wealth, or considering oneself better than others. Each country is bound by the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both affirming the dignity of all and their equality.We can draw the answer to income inequality from a hint given in the last indicator of SDG #1 i.e., taxes and transfers. To best illustrate, I’ll refer readers to SDG Index co-author Jeffrey Sachs’ book The Price of Civilization. On the face of it, the book is about the ills of the US, and its failure to tax and transfer sufficient to ensure the wellbeing and cohesion of its people. Yet Sachs acknowledges in the preface the prescription is applicable to any country. The titular ‘price of civilization’ is the willingness of the citizenry to be taxed by the government, and to then transfer such tax revenue to redistribute income and wealth.For this however, we need to both trust one another and the government, something in scarcity in America, which Sachs studies in the book. Trust and social cohesion are why the Nordic countries are so equal. In sum, however, if we’re to overcome disparities in the form of the Gini coefficient, transfer payments are our best hope.You’re welcome to redistribute your own income as best you see fit, though my suggestion for this indicator involves the government, as calculating who is contributing to income inequality is difficult according to the Gini formula. As such, the suggestion is to contact your government to advise of your willingness to be taxed more, and for those revenues to be put toward redistributing the nation’s income and wealth in the form of transfer payments. Another alternative is making such decisions at the ballot box, voting for candidates running on platforms to remedy income inequality via higher taxation and redistribution of income.Proposing new taxes is oft considered political suicide, the point Sachs’ Price of Civilization aims to make: if we want cohesive, prosperous societies, the price is higher taxes. If we get it right, rather than being a burden, it can be a societal boon, as it is in the Nordic countries.Summary: Contact your government to advise of your desire for higher rates of taxation and transfers to remedy income inequality, aiming for a national Gini coefficient of 27.5 by 2030.Palma ratioThe Palma ratio is another measure of inequality alongside the Gini coefficient, developed by Chilean economist Gabriel Palma. It is the share of income of the top 10% of disposable income, divided by the share of income of the lowest 40% of disposable income. The supposition is that the middle classes tend to represent half the population, whereas the top 10% and bottom 40% divide the balance.When looking at a global map for this indicator, it's clear major challenges remain. The shining lights are in many of the former communist countries in Eastern and Central Europe, as well as the Nordic countries. Other countries that have achieved this indicator are Kazakhstan, also a former communist state, and Algeria. It would appear the legacy of communism had done its job in levelling the society, though communist China scores red (so to speak) on the scores for this indicator, as do fellow communist states Vietnam and Laos.The aim for the indicator is a Palma ratio score of 0.9. A ratio of 1 would mean the top decile and the bottom two quintiles have identical amounts of disposable income. Sweden has a Palma ratio of 1 as of 2019, whereas the US has a score of 1.81, indicating the top 10% have 81% more disposable income than the bottom 40%. Notable for a communist country, China’s Palma ratio is 3.86, more than twice that of the United States.If you’re in the bottom 40% of your country, apply upward pressure to your circumstances, and the inverse for the top 10%. Even if it were implemented at both ends of the income distribution, there will always be a bottom 40% and a top 10%, but if both parties apply pressure toward the middle of the distribution, this would lead to a Palma ratio of the targeted 0.9.A further suggestion for countries off-track is to seek alternatives to the top 10 companies by revenue, both in your country and worldwide. You could do the same for the business interests of the top 10 richest individuals, both in your country and worldwide.According to the 2022 Global Fortune 500 (excluding state-owned companies), this would be:WalmartAmazonAppleVolkswagenCVS HealthUnitedHealthExxonMobilToyotaBerkshire HathawayShellFor individuals, according to Forbes in September 2022, this was:Elon Musk (Tesla)Bernard Arnault (LVMH)Jeff Bezos (Amazon)Gautam Adani (Adani)Bill Gates (Microsoft)Larry Ellison (Oracle)Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway)Mukesh Ambani (Reliance)Larry Page (Google)Sergey Brin (Google)If you apply this suggestion, and it had the desired effect, another business or individual would fill the top 10 spots, for which you could apply the same to them.Summary: For readers in countries off-track:lowest 40% of disposable income: attempt to earn more incomehighest 10% of disposable income: attempt to earn less incomeconsider seeking alternatives to the top 10 national and global companies by revenue, as well as the businesses of the top 10 national and global richest individuals Elderly poverty rate (% of population aged 66 and over) *This indicator measures those aged 66 and over whose income is below half the median household income of the population for each country, aiming for an elderly poverty rate by 2030 of 3.2%.The OECD country with the highest rate of elderly poverty is the Republic of Korea, at 43%, with the lowest being Iceland, with 3.1%, already achieving this indicator. Besides Korea, only the Baltic countries scored red among the high-income countries.The prescription here is the same as for the above Gini coefficient i.e., tax and transfer payments. To use my own country as an example, though Australia has scored orange for this indicator in the 2022 SDG Index, the biggest expense in the Australian government budget is age pensions and income support for seniors, plus aged care services. As Peter Lindert points out in his book Making Social Spending Work, this doesn’t mean huge spending on elderly pensions is a good investment. Some countries offer poor examples of transfer payments, prioritising aged care pensions at the expense of early childhood development and primary and secondary schooling, which pay greater social dividends than aged pensions. Taxes and transfers are a solution, but it's to be weighed against other social spending, being mindful of keeping political interests out of inflated pensions in countries where this may be an issue.Summary: For readers in countries off-track, support taxation for transfer to elderly populations, aiming to reduce the elderly poverty rate in OECD countries to 3.2% by 2030.

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #11 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Proportion of urban population living in slums (%)The definition of a slum is a group of people living under the same roof without access to one, or a combination of:improved water sourceimproved sanitation sourcesufficient living areahousing durabilitysecurity of tenureOver a billion people remain in slum conditions, compounded by a rural flight of migration to urban settlements. As such, for those living in poor countries to uproot a precarious rural existence to seek opportunities in a city may result in living in slum conditions.We’ve seen in earlier chapters how slum conditions can breed malnutrition because of poor sanitation, resulting in disease, and hindering the intake of nutrients. Further yet, because of vulnerable land tenure, residents may be preyed upon by authorities for slum clearance.How to solve a problem ensnaring a billion people at the individual level? DAC aid comes into play, rather than the responsibility being levelled at the feet of those living in slums amidst extreme poverty. We may think of Tokyo, or any metropolis in Japan or South Korea as an extreme example of urban living, yet none of these human settlements meets any of the above criteria. To expand on the condition of ‘sufficient living area’, the definition is more than three people sharing the same habitable room.All countries scoring red or orange for this indicator in the 2022 Index are developing countries. The most unifying way to curtail the population living in slums is foreign aid, as in essence slums are a symptom of poverty.Summary: For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming to end slum living by 2030.Annual mean concentration of particulate matter of less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) (μg/m³)A topic we touched on in the chapter for SDG #3, this indicator measures particles in the air with a diameter of 2.5 microns (PM2.5), a micron being a thousandth of a millimetre. This is small enough to make its way through our airways, penetrating the gas exchange pockets of our lungs. Sometimes the particles lead into our circulatory system, which over the long term, is bad.The indicator measures how much PM2.5 is in the atmosphere per cubic metre for an urban population on average for the year. The 2030 aim is to reduce such particulates to 6.3 micrograms (a millionth of a gram, expressed by the symbol ‘μg’) per cubic metre. There are other particle sizes of different diameters of micrometres which affect us, some larger than PM2.5, others ultrafine particles at the scale of nanometres in diameter. Some of the particulates are natural (from volcanoes, dust storms and wildfires) yet others are man-made hazards. Furthermore, particulates affect rainfall and solar radiation, which has climatic effects.The microscopic matter suspended in the air people are breathing in countries with red scores is killing them. Particulates are a Group 1 carcinogen, and can cause heart attacks and lung diseases, including asthma and lung cancer. As PM2.5 can penetrate our blood vessels, it can even result in atherosclerosis, whereby artery walls develop lesions.Some countries have set limits on PM2.5, and Australia, Canada and the US have had success, scoring green in the 2022 Index, whereas the individual EU member states, despite EU emission standards, have mixed.Summary: For readers in countries off-track, reduce the release of particulate matter in the air, including dust, smoke and burning fossil fuels.Access to improved water source, piped (% of urban population)You’ll recognise the similarity of this indicator to some of the topics discussed within SDG #6 (Clean Water & Sanitation). The definition of an improved water source is protected from contamination, especially human faeces, and is piped to the premises. The distinction of piping to the premises contrasts with sources more familiar to rural settings:public tapsstandpipeswellsboreholesspringsrainwater collectionThis indicator aims for 100% of urban populations to have access to such improved water sources, piped to the premises, by 2030.What to do for the low-income and lower-middle-income countries scoring red? We must transfer wealth, resources, and knowledge. Can we expect much from those living in the desperation of teeming, steaming metropolises? With low levels of income, education, and health, how can they figure out how to navigate the urban jungle to find a water source free from contamination?We must correspond to this reality with aid. You must be so fed-up reading this again, but this is our global status quo. Modern conveniences the developed world affords in surplus will surround most readers - others live in cities which have water in their home with shit in it.Summary: For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid, aiming for access to all for a piped, improved water source.Satisfaction with public transport (%)The threshold for this indicator is a question posed to a survey respondent: "In the city or area where you live, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the public transportation systems?" For this question, the 2030 aim is for 82.6% of a surveyed population to respond ‘satisfied’.It’s difficult to perceive how an individual could improve the quality of public transport, being public and infrastructural as it is. Different countries and regions have different models for how to manage and finance public transport - in some localities, this is by fares, free public transport, or government taxation.There could be many reasons a surveyed population may deem public transport unsatisfactory, whether due to issues with the public transport timetable, or any configuration of drawbacks. Individuals are unable to shape their satisfaction with public transport. They can lower their expectations, though we want to use a better mechanism to get our desired outcome. Only the government - as demanded by its citizens - can fix this public good.The mechanism we’ll use is to contact a government representative to request improvements, communicating such needs at the level of government in which public transportation operates in the city or region where you live.Summary: For readers in countries off-track, contact your government to request public transport improvements.Population with rent overburden (%) *The definition of rent overburden for this indicator is total housing costs greater than 40% of disposable income, with a 2030 aim of 4.6% or less of the population living with rent overburden. None of the OECD countries measured in this indicator have scored red in the 2022 Index.An individual experiencing rent overburden could move to another area e.g., a rural community, which is a dramatic departure to suggest, and could entail being distant from family, social networks, and job opportunities. If someone associates their local neighbourhood or city as their home, it’s a bit rich to suggest someone move out of town altogether to avoid rent overburden.Another path one could take to remedy rent overburden is to attempt to increase one’s disposable income to fall below the threshold of 40% disposable income toward the housing costs.Summary: For readers in countries off-track:attempt to increase income so your rent is less than 40% of your disposable incomerelocate to a rental property where the cost is less than 40% of your disposable incomeconsider whether home ownership is a feasible reality

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #12 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Electronic waste (kg/capita)This Goal and indicator’s 2022 score results paint an ugly portrait of the industrialised world. Most Goals heretofore align with poverty or inequality, though Goal's #12 to #15 focus on the environmental pillar of sustainable development. The environmental Goals are scathing of the developed countries, an inverse phenomenon whereby sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are often on track, and the high-income countries score red.The definition for this e-waste indicator is waste of both an electric and electronic nature e.g., TVs, mobile phones, computers and computer accessories, game consoles and printersBe mindful about your disposal of electronic and electric waste, beginning from the initial purchase. Assess whether you need an item in the first place, flowing through to the care given to it after purchase. Once it has ceased to serve your ends, are you able to find another life for it? Could you donate it to a charity shop, or even strip it of its components? You can research if there’s a facility taking e-waste in your local area. Many of us have encountered the alliterative ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ - though hackneyed as it is, it holds merit vis-a-vis e-waste.Summary: Limit your e-waste to 0.2kg or less per year by 2030.Production-based SO₂ emissions (kg/capita)This indicator measures emissions of sulphur dioxide from the production of goods and services (in contrast to natural emissions, e.g., volcanoes). Sulphur dioxide is one sulphur atom attached to two oxygen atoms. When you light a match, burning sulphur, the smell is sulphur dioxide.Those who may take part in the production of sulphur dioxide may be those working in industries and occupations burning sour gas and sour crude - both instances of fossil fuels bearing considerable amounts of sulphur. The extraction of copper can lead to emissions of SO₂, as can cement production, and the process of producing sulphuric acid. The biggest sources though are burning fossil fuels, smelting and metals processing. Rather than being a greenhouse gas itself, fossil fuels contain this polluting chemical, which can result in acid rain. We already know we should be decarbonising and shifting to renewable energy. Part of the global decarbonisation path will be decarbonising industrial processes, reducing the emissions of SO₂ in the process.Only Kuwait scored red in the 2022 Index, with emissions counted as those consumed from production, as well as exports.Summary: For readers in countries off-track working in the fossil fuel industry, or other heavy industry, end emissions of sulphur dioxide by 2030.SO₂ emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita)The 2030 aim for this indicator is to end the emissions of sulphur dioxide embodied in imports, aiming for citizens of countries off-track to end the outsourcing of emissions to countries off-track from the previous indicator. We learned in the previous indicator this means cutting back on the use of fossil fuels, as well as cement and metals production. It asks you to reconsider your use of goods and services using these inputs. We’ll discuss further the impacts this may have on the country which originated the embodied emissions within SDG #13 - the same principle for sulphur dioxide will hold up for carbon dioxide emissions.Summary: For readers in countries off-track, seek alternatives to imports by 2030 of fossil fuel, cement, and metals from countries off-track in the prior indicator.Production-based nitrogen emissions (kg/capita)This is another ‘production-based’ indicator, akin to the indicator we looked at earlier relating to production-based sulphur dioxide. The indicator’s 2030 aim is to reduce production-based nitrogen emissions to 2 kilograms per capita.In SDG #2, we explored the indicator for the Sustainable Nitrogen Management Index, and the importance of balancing the Earth’s nitrogen cycle. One of the major greenhouse gases is nitrous oxide, a compound of nitrogen, often emitted from agricultural soil, in tandem with the use of fertilisers. Nitrogen is essential to food production to provide nutrition to the plants, but it pollutes the ecosystem. It’s often overlooked that agriculture is a key driver of the greenhouse effect causing climate change, albeit without the nefarious reputation of fossil fuels. We need to recognise agriculture for its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, often in the form of methane emissions from livestock, or even deforestation to clear land for agricultural use.This indicator measures a country's nitrogen emissions according to production for domestic consumption, as well as export, including nitrogen compounds such as:ammonia (one nitrogen atom and three hydrogen atoms)nitrogen oxide (a family of compounds with different combinations of nitrogen and oxygen atoms)nitrous oxide (two nitrogen atoms and one oxygen atom)The kind of nitrogen compounds this indicator measures are reactive nitrogen compounds, meaning they support the growth of life. Unreactive nitrogen exists in the environment, only supporting some growth. Reactive nitrogen supports the conversion of proteins within plant life, leading to a loss of oxygen. In bodies of freshwater, this leads to a process known as eutrophication, overwhelming water bodies with nutrients, sometimes developing algal blooms, creating a dead zone for other life forms living in the water.Summary: For readers in countries off-track, especially those working in agriculture, limit individual annual emissions of reactive nitrogen to 2kg by 2030.Nitrogen emissions embodied in imports (kg/capita)The previous indicator focused on attributing emissions related to nitrogen production - this indicator looks at the other side of the equation i.e., demand for goods causing nitrogen emissions in the form of imports.A research team studied the origin of nitrogen emissions, finding developed countries drove demand. So, what can readers from developed countries scoring red or orange for this indicator do to reduce their demand for embodied imports of nitrogen? Few of us think of ourselves as being responsible for the import of nitrogen and its compounds, but what goods and services will you find it in? The focus is on agriculture, in particular meat and dairy consumption as a driver. This is due to the implications of nitrogen-based fertiliser use, as well as intensive farming and food waste, because the runoff of the fertiliser in the soil makes its way into the water cycle. The textile industry is also a major driver of embedded emissions, especially leather, furs, and down feathers.Summary: For all readers, seek alternatives to imports by 2030 of meat, dairy and manufactured products from countries off-track for the prior indicator.Exports of plastic waste (kg/capita)Would you believe the mass of plastic on our planet outweighs the biomass of all living things? This indicator measures exported kilograms of plastic waste per capita, with many OECD countries off-track as of 2022. Across a total population, the biggest exporter of plastic waste for 2021 were Germany, Netherlands and Japan, each exporting more than 600 million kilograms. The biggest plastic waste exporter per capita however is Belgium, exporting 29 kg per Belgian over the past five years.The biggest plastic polluter overall is China, accounting for an estimated quarter of plastic waste ending up in the oceans, followed by Indonesia with a tenth of the global total. However, China was both the largest producer of plastic, as well as the chief destination for exports, until it restricted such waste several years ago, diverting it to Southeast Asia. The companies producing the most plastics include ExxonMobil, Dow, and Saudi Aramco.Furthermore, the top 10 companies found in brand audits driving plastic production are:Coca-ColaPepsiCoNestléDanoneMondelezProcter & GambleUnileverPerfetti Van Melle (Chupa Chups; Mentos)MarsColgate-PalmoliveI ask, when you have the conscientiousness to look around the gutters of your neighbourhood, to look out for these brands, and let such observations inform your reconsideration of giving these brands your business in the first place.Many of us are now aware of the harms of plastic pollution due to the resistance of the large molecules of polymers to degrade in the environment, threatening ecosystems, and the functioning of life. Certain plastics affect lifeforms at the hormonal level, acting on the thyroid and sex hormones, even affecting gene expression. This pollution could threaten wildlife with extinction, and deplete the health of soil and water, even destroying habitats.So, once plastic has served its utility to us, how can we get it out of our lives? As of 2015, a quarter of global plastic waste was incinerated, which can be a major source of pollution. More than half was sent to landfill, which is less than ideal, and a fifth was recycled, which is the more ideal of these three outcomes.A positive development is an amendment to the Basel Convention, a treaty controlling hazardous waste being sent from developed to developing countries, which now includes plast

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #13 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production (tCO₂/capita)One of the first things worth noting about SDG #13 is the Goal works in symbiosis with the UNFCCC’s Paris Agreement. The UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) is the primary international forum for tackling climate change. The UNFCCC and Paris Agreement are international agreements which your country has signed and ratified. Mentioned in the introductory chapter was the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, where the UNFCCC was adopted. Article 2 of the UNFCCC encompasses the treaty’s goal, which is:“…stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.”So where does the Paris Agreement come into play? The history of the negotiations and their mechanics is demoralising, despite what I imagine to be the best efforts. Each year since 1995 (except for 2020, due to COVID-19) the Conference of the Parties (COP) has met. The COP are all the countries which signed the UNFCCC, which continue negotiations within the framework, to put into action the intention of the treaty.You may remember having heard about the Kyoto Protocol in the past, which was to guide how the UNFCCC operated, intended to translate it from words on a page to mechanisms for action. The US Senate failed to adopt the Kyoto Protocol at the time of its signing by the Clinton Administration, nor did they reconsider under later Congresses thereafter. This was due to the Senate’s perceived unfairness of the treaty concerning the developing countries. China was the largest of these developing countries, thus free from being subject to the terms of the Protocol, as at the time of negotiation, developed countries were responsible for the most emissions. Thus, in many senses, without the participation of the largest emitter of all time - the US - the Kyoto Protocol was somewhat of a lame duck.The COP invested much effort in an agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol at the summit in Copenhagen in 2009, but alas failed. The COP postponed the task to the 21st Conference of the Parties, meeting in December 2015 in Paris, a couple of months after the unanimous adoption of the SDGs. In Paris, all countries of the world reached an agreement to guide the glide path for the coming decades of decarbonisation. The Paris Agreement’s strength has been its meaningfulness to signal to the globe to decarbonise, with pathways planning toward this goal now in the mainstream. The world will leave behind industries and businesses failing to attend to this reality. Such businesses will strand their assets, and will have to account to irate shareholders why management failed to heed what was evident in the headwinds of a shifting status quo.Two important numbers quantify Article 2 of the UNFCCC: 2°C and 1.5°C. We measure this temperature rise against the average temperature of Earth before the Industrial Revolution. The UN considers a rise of 2°C to give us a two-thirds chance to meet Article 2, revised down in the past couple of years to 1.5°C, which is scary since the increase is already about 1.2°.Thus, highlighted below, Article 2a of the Paris Agreement calls us to:“Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels…”We measure the number of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere via ‘parts per million’ (ppm). In May 2022, the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were 418ppm. If we are to live according to Article 2 of the UNFCCC, we must limit this concentration to a level below what is considered dangerous human-caused climate change.Because of the greenhouse effect, greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. In the absence of these gases suspended in the atmosphere, sunlight would enter Earth’s atmosphere, reflect off the surface of the Earth, then exit the atmosphere. As the sunlight is trapped by these gases, the effect is a warming of the planet, much like sunlight trapped in a greenhouse. Across the globe, this effect causes climate change. The main greenhouse gases driving climate change are:carbon dioxide, emitted from the burning of oil and coalmethane, from natural gas and cattleThe most notorious greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, of which the biggest source is fossil fuels, which are hydrocarbons - meaning their chemical mix is a combination of carbon and hydrogen atoms. When we burn fossil fuels, they create energy, but also release carbon dioxide.The major fossil fuels are coal, oil and natural gas. Coal is a fossil fuel, combustible once extracted from the Earth’s rocks via mining. Likewise found in the geological formations of Earth is petroleum. As we have a solid in the form of coal, and a liquid in the form of petroleum, we also have a gas, known as natural gas, a hydrocarbon combination known as methane (one carbon atom, four hydrogen atoms).The two biggest emitting countries by a wide margin are the US and China. The US is the biggest historical emitter, and China the current biggest emitter, with most of the latter's emissions from burning coal.The biggest players in the petroleum industry split between public corporations and the OPEC member states, the latter acting as a cartel of countries. Many of the biggest emitting companies since 1988 are state-owned:Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabian state-owned)Gazprom (majority Russian state-owned)National Iranian Oil Company (Iranian state-owned)ExxonMobilCoal India (Indian state-owned)Pemex (Mexican state-owned)ShellBPChevronPDVSA (Venezuelan state-owned)Alongside those state-owned companies mentioned above, I include the UK as a proxy for BP and Shell, and the US for ExxonMobil and Chevron. As public limited companies, each exists by incorporation according to a country's company law, even though the companies’ operations are multinational. Likewise for the Netherlands and Shell, until it ended its dual listing in that country in 2022, and dropped the ‘Royal Dutch’ from the name on the heels of a Dutch court decision in 2021.Beyond burning fossil fuels, cement production is also a strong source of CO₂ emissions, because the limestone input heats to extremely hot temperatures to create lime - a process known as calcination. Limestone’s chemical make-up is calcium, plus one carbon atom and three oxygen atoms. This latter portion is similar to carbon dioxide i.e., one carbon and two oxygen atoms. Calcination of limestone emits carbon dioxide from the chemical reaction, as well as via the energy used to heat it. As a reader, a solution to this is to use less cement i.e., lowering demand. Cement production will, for the medium term, remain one of the main long-term challenges, as there are yet to be any available solutions to decarbonising the process. The cement production industry must invest in R&D for alternatives emitting less carbon dioxide. Cement will continue to be a necessary material in the industrialised world, but we can evaluate each construction decision with a mind to the environmental consequences.So now we know what's causing CO₂ emissions, we have the means to research a little into what power source our own power utility draws on. Armed with this knowledge, we can switch utilities with relative ease to an alternative using renewable energy. Or we can switch to a different plan using renewable energy with our existing utility. It could be debatable whether you as the consumer are to incur the responsibility for the emissions, or instead the utility. But for our purposes here, let’s take personal responsibility.If your electricity comes from a utility, then the utility, or the power distribution company connecting your home or business, draws from a grid, with this energy flowing from the generating facilities of many different companies. If your power plan has a share of renewable energy, it’s still drawing on power from the same grid and pool of energy. If you’re yet to get a renewable energy plan, the generating assets your utility owns may come from coal-fired power plants. You may already know enough about your utility to know what source your utility uses to feed into the grid. Do some research about what power sources are owned by your utility. The bottom line for you is to choose a renewable energy plan if utilities servicing your home or business offer it. The cost of fossil fuels is at parity with renewable power, depending on the country you live in, so the situation is optimistic.A transition to electric vehicles will help, though to emphasise, they are short of being a silver bullet. At scale, the manufacture of vehicles requires a lot of material input, and the attendant extraction of earth resources. EVs are an important part of the energy transition, but I’d encourage people to consider their relationship with their personal vehicle. Many of us have grown up in an era accustomed to, and unquestioning of, the centrality of private car ownership, as commonplace as a kettle or toaster. I’d hope COVID-19 lock

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #14 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Mean area protected in marine sites important to biodiversity (%)Goals #14 & #15 are the biodiversity goals. We’re amid a crisis of enormous magnitude when it comes to mass species extinction, and we’re in a real pickle with oceans and seas, or pickle juice, to be more apt.The 2022 SDG Index results for this Goal and first indicator, see many countries scoring red. Protected marine areas are the marine equivalent to national parks. Their existence means we get to preserve habitats of species crucial in Key Biodiversity Areas, which shelter the greatest concentrations of biodiversity. Protected marine areas allow marine life to catch its breath, a chance to regenerate from what humanity has subjected it to, crucial to the future health of life on this planet. I’ll expand more on the importance of protected areas in the following chapter, which mirrors Goal #14 except for terrestrial and freshwater life, rather than marine life. Marine protected areas include saltwater environments, whether in the seas and oceans, or in estuaries where the water is brackish, home to ecosystems of myriad species of plants, animals, and all kinds of organisms.The title for the largest protected area in the world goes to the Marae Moana in the Cook Islands, at 2 million square km. The World Database on Protected Areas, which collates all the world’s protected areas, counted an approximate 17,781 marine protected areas at the time of writing, equal to 8% of the planet’s marine area.Humans have a propensity to view nature through the prism of the resources it can offer us. Though since industrialisation, we're yet to account for sustainability, paying far too little attention to conserving nature. Ecosystems can offer us plentiful services, but with this comes the responsibility to act with sustainability and reverence. Extraction of natural resources can be quite ugly, and we ought to give pause to our attitudes of how we treat the environment offering its services.If we shun such protection, we know the risks: greater ocean acidification due to oceans absorbing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We know what happens when petrochemicals or petroleum spill or leak into marine environments. Even tourism can degrade environments unless managed.None of us can declare a legal marine protected area in an area important to biodiversity, thus our sole route is to advocate for protected areas to the government.Summary: Contact your government representative overseeing marine protected areas in your country or region, requesting the government protect 100% of marine Key Biodiversity Areas.Ocean Health Index: Clean Waters score (worst 0-100 best)The Clean Waters score is one component of the broader Ocean Health Index, measuring within each country’s maritime jurisdiction the level of contamination from four categories of pollution:chemicals (oil or toxic spills from maritime vessels; agricultural pesticide/herbicide runoff)nutrients (agricultural fertilisers)pathogens (untreated sewage; livestock waste)trashThe highest score for the Clean Water goal is 100, with 0 being the poorest result. What can you get right as an individual to improve your country’s score in the Clean Waters goal of the Ocean Health Index? How can you help achieve the 2030 aim of a score of 100 for the goal?It is doubtful readers will be spilling oil into marine environments. But what about our demand for commercial shipping, and our consumption of goods produced and transported using a global supply chain? This creates opportunities to release chemical effluent in ports and shipping traffic. In this sense, you can reconsider any imported goods you’re demanding which require shipping. Yet it can be difficult to consider what all the inputs are going into a final product. You might buy a packet of biscuits from the supermarket, manufactured in your country, but with some of the ingredients imported, and what is the source of the packaging?As we’ve seen, fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides used in agriculture can find their way into the marine environment. You can think about the foods you buy, and consider whether organic or another sustainable alternative may be worth considering. It’s also possible for chemicals from urban environments to find their way into the seas, therefore worth thinking about how you handle chemicals.Where negligible wastewater treatment facilities exist, this means viruses and bacteria from sewage can make their way back into the water cycle in which marine life abodes and people swim.You’ve got a broad sense of how perilous the state of water quality is for much of the world due to human activity. Please consider how your actions may drive some of the above instances where you can place pressure upon the health of oceans.Summary: For readers in countries off-track, keep water clean via avoiding being responsible for the release of the above four pollutants, aiming for the best score in the Ocean Health Index’s Clean Water goal.Fish caught from overexploited or collapsed stocks (% of total catch)Each country with a coastline, by way of a UN treaty, has authority within the bounds of the coastline, known as the exclusive economic zone (EEZ), where countries can exploit and explore the marine resources. The definition of this EEZ is 200 nautical miles from the coastline, equal to 370 km.This indicator measures those species within an EEZ classified as overexploited or collapsed, with a 2030 aim to catch 0% of fish from overexploited or collapsed fish stocks. Estonia scores highest, with only 1% of its fish caught from overfished stocks.Fish populations are declining as humans overfish, depleting a resource, as humanity is wont to do. This also has knock-on effects on the surrounding marine environment, placing at risk species to become threatened with extinction. Such stocks are harvested for commercial fishing, including apex predators like threatened shark species, and invertebrates like coral, sponges, and shrimp. This risks a ‘regime shift’ within an ecosystem, when a complex system alters due to the collapse of a species’ stock, with far-ranging ramifications beyond the ecosystem. A destructive pattern of subsidising fishing compounds trends leading to overfishing, leaving such regions afflicted for decades.Aquaculture - in contrast to wild fisheries - is a step toward sustainable fishery. But would you like to be trapped in a net, a web of nylon between you and unlimited oceans? Picture yourself trapped, deprived of exploring such oceans, swimming cheek-by-jowl with your brethren, in a tumultuous soup of each other's excrement.We’re served by taking a step beyond aiming for a sustainable fishery to instead avoid seafood altogether, based on an ethic of veganism. You could also use the source of this indicator, the Environmental Performance Index, to identify overexploited and collapsed species of fish in your country’s EEZ, and instead avoid these species from your consumptive habits.Summary:plant-based dietend the catch of fish from overexploited or collapsed stocks by 2030Fish caught by trawling and dredging (%)The 2030 aim for this indicator is to catch 1% or less of fish by trawling and dredging. Some trawler nets on commercial fishing vessels are the size of a gridiron field. Is this a level playing field with our prey? Dredging drags the surface of the sea floor, excavating the floor itself, plus all the superfluous fish it catches.I know humans enjoy oysters, crabmeat, or scallops, but is it worth excavating the bottom of the sea for these culinary delights? If you’re going to buy seafood, give a wide berth to seafood imported from the countries scoring red for this indicator (Uruguay, Morocco, Albania, Bulgaria, Vietnam, and Cambodia in the 2022 Index). For fishermen in these countries, keep trawling and dredging to below 1% of your catch.Summary:plant-based dietreduce fish caught by trawling or dredging to 1% by 2030Fish caught that are then discarded (%)The aim of this indicator is to end the discarding of fish by 2030. Discards occur in the enterprise of fishery, whereby fishing nets capture species and sizes of fish other than those sought. For instance, professional fishers may be seeking large tuna fish, but in the process, catch a myriad of smaller fish of little economic value. These fish are instead discarded, known as bycatch.There’s also a bit of political chicanery at play, whereby fishermen sometimes discard fish to sneak under quotas, or discard for minimum landing sizes classifying the legal fish measurements to keep and sell.In the absence of these smaller fish, of negligible worth for human use, there are knock-on effects on the food web it leaves behind, both to aquatic life and seabirds.Fisheries ought to be better managed than they are, due to the enforcement of existing laws and regulations, if they exist at all. The mindset of those in the fishing industry needs to be mindful of what they’re doing too.The other Goal #14 indicators may suggest your country’s EEZ can sustain its fisheries population, but my emphatic suggestion is to abstain

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #15 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.org Mean area that is protected in terrestrial sites important to biodiversity (%)Biodiversity is the variability of life on Earth. What happens without the richness of biodiversity in the form of healthy populations of myriad species? What other species beside our own could drive a million species to the bleeding precipice of extinction? What in our lives is worthy of this cost? Why are we all complicit in extinction, both of our own kind, and millions of others?Unless you lived in a Third World country, your lifestyle - innocuous and well-intentioned - has left the planet worse off than when you got here. You partook in agriculture and were a cog and beneficiary in the consumption and production of the global economy. Other lifeforms are in a more precarious state than when you found them.The Convention on Biological Diversity is the treaty adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit, the same UN conference adopting the UNFCCC. The Convention on Biological Diversity treaty ought to be a central pillar of our societies and governance, yet to most governments, it is a footnote.The biodiversity Goal's, #14 and 15, get my vote for being among the most under-served of the Goals. We are in deep shit when it comes to biodiversity loss, and the outcome thus far is among the most tragic. It’s sad enough we’re unable to lend a hand to three-quarters of a billion individuals of our own species living on less than $2 a day. It’s quite another matter again to take a broad swath of life with you on the path to extinction. Tragically, there appears to be some sort of an innate mechanism within our species allowing us to ruin our ability to perpetuate.Some may consider the following sacrilege, but if fate holds humanity to wipe itself out in the coming century or two, I’m uncertain planet Earth will miss us much. “Good riddance,” I would’ve thought would be closer to the sentiment. Such an outcome would see the end of the geological epoch of the Anthropocene, whereby one species i.e., humans, dominated so much, geologists monikered a geological span after us.I want to ask you to reflect on how you feel about animals and plants, the world around you which fits into the definition of nature. Other species are more vulnerable than us. Even the monarchs of the jungles, savannah, and oceans - lions, tigers, and sharks - are vulnerable to human technologies able to kill from afar. Does the destruction of swaths of the planet - habitats of endangered species - cause heartbreak within you? If the answer is no, why not? A different disconnect altogether is when humanity cuts down an old-growth forest for forestry production. It goes to pulp processing, manufactured into our cereal boxes, or newly built homes. We'll knock the home down in 15 years anyway, as the housing stock changes over to catch up with a more modern style.I bet each of us seldom thinks about these things. Even if we sometimes do, we can somehow make wild gymnastics of logic to ourselves, identifying as a tree-hugging greenie, yet also building a new house with fresh timber. It’s classic human behaviour. Humans equate natural resources as resources for utility and consumption in the context of economic growth in tandem with a pattern of environmental degradation. Life is a commodity to us.What’s the answer? With SDG #15 languishing as it is, we have to be missing something heretofore we’ve been neglecting within ourselves. The Anthropocene extinction is happening right now, and has been for many years, but we instead live reactively according to daily news headlines.The prescription is the same as its counterpart for marine Key Biodiversity Areas in Goal #14. Contact your government to demand the protection of terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas.Summary: Contact your government representative overseeing terrestrial protected areas in your country or state, requesting the government protect 100% of terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas.Mean area that is protected in freshwater sites important to biodiversity (%)This indicator is similar to the previous, with close to the whole world scoring red. Again, the same prescription applies to the previous i.e., contacting your country and/or state government, calling upon them to protect freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas.Summary: Contact your government representative overseeing freshwater protected areas in your country or region, requesting the government protect 100% of freshwater Key Biodiversity Areas.Red List Index of species survival (worst 0-1 best)Here, dear reader, we find ourselves pressed-up alongside the sad indignity of our species: the Red List, a list of those species at risk of extinction.The Red List Index is a score, like the SDG Index - 1 being the highest score, and 0 the least optimal score. The Red List Index is our best measure for each country’s trends of biodiversity loss.What for those countries scoring red for this Red List indicator? It's doubtful you're combing the taxonomy of species, setting forth into habitats to commit genocide upon birds and amphibians. But then who is responsible for biodiversity loss, as humanity is the driving force behind it?My suggestion for this indicator draws on the initiative of the late E.O. Wilson, a biologist who endeavoured to catalogue all known species. Your task is to familiarise yourself with those species on the Red List for your country. The data is available on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List website for each country, along with profiles of each species. There’s a search bar at the top of the page - enter your country’s name, select it, and explore the species on the List for your country, putting names to some faces. Also, check out the categorisation of each species e.g., 'least concern' through to 'critically endangered'. The reason for this is if you’re able to articulate what is being threatened by your lifestyle, how can you err on the side of conservation. You can also narrow the data by threats, of which there are 11 options, with further sub-options within each:Residential and commercial developmentAgriculture and aquacultureEnergy production & miningTransportation and service corridorsBiological resource useHuman intrusions and disturbanceNatural system modificationsInvasive and other problematic species, genes and diseasePollutionGeological eventsClimate change and severe weatherSummary:For readers in countries off-track:Search for your country at the IUCN Red List websiteNarrow your search by Red List Category, selecting the categories of ‘Critically Endangered’, ‘Endangered’, ‘Vulnerable’Explore these species with a curiosityPermanent deforestation (% of forest area, 5-year average)This indicator reflects as tragic a phenomenon as the previous indicator: permanent loss of forest cover, measuring between 2014 and 2018, for reasons of clearing land for:urban areasagricultural farms and ranchescommodity productionThis excludes temporary forms of deforestation like wildfires. The 2030 aim is to end permanent deforestation.An obvious contender for an individual to respond to deforestation is reforestation. However, the damage may already be done if a habitat has been lost, with the resultant hit to biodiversity, leading to extinctions. Potential aridity, soil erosion and loss of soil health may set into the former forested area, with deforestation also affecting the water cycle, contributing to desertification. Deforestation also contributes to climate change, as forests have the effect of the biological sequestration of carbon dioxide from the Earth’s atmosphere.A tremendous framework through which to perceive a solution to the dilemma of deforestation is REDD+, an acronym standing for 'Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation’. REDD+ allows us to achieve two things: mitigating climate change and forest management. Afforestation allows for the creation of forest cover where there was none before, which ties into '30 x 30', an initiative aiming to protect 30% of the surface of the Earth’s land and marine surface by 2030.There are even novel solutions to curb the negative driver of agriculture, with advances such as hybrid crop varieties. Citizens of poor countries may feel they have little choice for survival but to clear land to attempt a livelihood, but solutions for small-scale farms include hydroponics, greenhouses, and vertical farming. The solution to permanent deforestation needs to be sustainable forest management. But this is a complex, large-scale discipline, so we need solutions for you to end deforestation by 2030.In likelihood, few readers will hail from the countries driving the bulk of permanent deforestation. The obvious prescription is to leave trees and forests to live. The following instead is proactive. It takes steps ahead of what’s already occurred, and may yet occur, which is to afforest and reforest i.e., plant trees. But wherever you live, if you look at the environment around you, whether urban or rural, in likelihood you’re surrounded by what used to be a forest. This forest has since been felled for our use, and fo

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #16 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.com Homicides (per 100,000 population)The 2030 aim is for the homicide rate to be below 0.3 per 100,000 population, excluding deaths in the context of armed conflict.Summary: Don’t commit homicide.Unsentenced detainees (% of prison population)This measure considers those in the prison population in remand, awaiting trial on criminal charges about whether the legal system will acquit or convict them. Being in remand, from a legal standpoint, is different from imprisonment. Rather than a punishment from a conviction, it instead is a means to ensure the presence of the person charged at their eventual trial.Yet in some countries, authorities can take liberties with how long they hold a detainee in detention, contrary to Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.” Unsentenced detainees include those detained or arrested with little evidence. This can also ignore due process, whereby the state must observe the legal rights of a citizen while charging and prosecuting a citizen. Often this entails the issuing of a warrant by a judge or magistrate, giving officers of the law the authority to carry out orders which otherwise may subvert the rights of the person. To be under arrest, with criminal charges placed by a law enforcement agency of a government, is different from a conviction. An arrest or detention may be necessary by the police upon passing a threshold of evidence for prosecutors to pursue its potential, otherwise the legal system exonerates the accused. Depending upon the context and jurisdiction, indefinite detention is contrary to international law, human rights agreements, and even the laws of war.The 2030 aim for this indicator is for those unsentenced among a prison population to be 7% or less. If your line of work is part of the prison and judicial system in a country scoring red, you could consider seeking a new occupation, if you believe you're participating in a system perpetuating a contradiction of human rights and international law.A reason for such a large part of prison populations held in remand could very well be due to backlogs in the courts, in which instance quitting one's job would be counterproductive. Is leaving detainees unsentenced intentional, or is there a genuine bottleneck in the flow of prosecutions due to lack of resources? If you sense the latter is closer to the truth, then you could consider retraining. You might parlay your experience from the prison side of the justice system to the judicial side, allowing prosecutions and sentencing to flow at a greater pace.Each country scoring red in the 2022 Index is a developing country, where the state may be short of the resources to subsidise job retraining, making these suggestions more challenging. If you believe you’re perpetuating the high rate of detainees unsentenced in your country, I encourage you to excuse yourself from your present field of work.Summary: For readers in countries off-track:For employees of prisons or the court system, seek re-training to help clear the sentencing of detainees, or cease your current employment if you believe the prison or justice system is perpetuating indefinite detention.For citizens, contact your government to voice your support for the reduction of unsentenced detainees to 7% or less of the prison population by 2030.Population who feel safe walking alone at night in the city or area where they live (%)This indicator is based upon a poll asking survey respondents, "Do you feel safe walking alone at night in the city or area where you live?" The 2030 aim is for those responding “Yes” to be 90%, with a red score resulting from less than 50% of a population answering “Yes”.For readers from countries with major challenges for this indicator, we’re considering what you can do to assist others to feel safe walking alone at night. The first consideration is to refrain from engaging in violent or criminal behaviour, including vandalism or anti-social behaviour. The reality is the effect it has on the feeling of others’ sense of personal security in their community is adverse. The first task for readers from countries off-track for this measure is to cultivate prosocial behaviours.Women will feel more unsafe at night than men, therefore males ought to be mindful when in proximity to women walking alone at night. It's a tricky balancing act, whereby creating distance and being proactive about the situation can sometimes seem a bit erratic, though it’s a good policy, nevertheless. Refrain from any chat, even under the guise of seeming more familiar. Maintain your behaviours and appearances highest in mind when walking at night, if you sense these may have an unwanted effect on others, which you have a civic duty to consider.This is very much a social issue, which can take time to change, yet individuals can change now. You can acknowledge that to live alongside others in a peaceful community, it’s necessary to cultivate a sense of safety for others. All it takes is one person, affected by drugs or alcohol, or suffering mental illness, for which again, society has a responsibility for their care. We need to resource law enforcement, as well as ensure it's competent and free of corruption, which the limited resources of poorer countries could hamper. The main thing you can do is ensure you’re one less person posing a potential threat to others, instead radiating prosocial behaviour, fostering an aura of safety to others.Summary: Ensure you adopt prosocial behaviours when walking at night.Property rights (worst 1-7 best)The data for this indicator is from a survey composed of questions to the respondents on property rights, including intellectual property. A score of 1 is the worst possible answer, and 7 the best.Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates:Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.The government has the task of upholding property rights, via the courts, as well as law enforcement. As such, there’s little use attempting to assign individual responsibility for a task belonging to governments.What if you live in a country with major challenges ahead to reach the 2030 aim of scoring 6.3 in this indicator’s property rights survey? Take the time to find out what the property rights are in your country, which may be less than straightforward depending on your access to the internet, or knowing where to find such information. If you can find out which government department deals with land registrations, this would be a good start. But it’s possible that accessing the necessary information will be difficult for you, either in dealing with the government to proffer the desired information, or requiring a trip to visit a government ministry in the city.In your own attempt to uphold your property rights, if the government response turns menacing, please exercise caution.Summary: For readers in countries off-track, contact your government to express your desire for the strengthening of property rights.Birth registrations with civil authority (% of children under 5)This measure aims for 100% of children under five-years-old to have their births registered with the national civil authority. Most governments have systems in place for civil registration for certificates of birth, marriage, and death, ensuring recognition of official citizenship and residency. With this, comes the rights and access to social services.The correlation with LDCs and lack of birth registration may reflect the capacity of some country’s governments to record births. Remote access to such civil authorities for residents in rural areas may further hinder registration of births.The correlation between low-income countries and lack of birth registration reflects capacity. What a government is unable to provide to citizens living in remote, rural conditions is outside our focus, though aid given from high-income countries will help to integrate citizens of low-income countries.If you’re a reader from a country scoring red, with an unregistered child under 5, and have reasonable means to access the civil authorities, register the birth of your child, to ensure the benefits of the child’s full citizenship.Summary: For readers in countries off-track, register your child with a civil authority at birth.Corruption Perceptions Index (worst 0-100 best)This is a measure of the perception of dishonesty or criminality in the public sector. Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand share top billing in the 2021 Corruption Perceptions Index for their perception as the least corrupt. Each scored 88, equal to the 2030 aim of the indicator. By contrast, of the countries surveyed, South Sudan comes last, with a score of 11.What actions can readers take to remedy this? Readers from OECD countries scoring green should resist taking advantage of public sector corruption in developing countries. Rich countries enjoying the absence of honesty and justice in other countries would be a spill

Dashboard map for 2022 SDG Index Goal #17 ratings. Data source: sdgindex.com Government spending in health & education (% of GDP)This measure looks at the portion of government spending (i.e., your tax dollars) on health and education, measured as a percentage of the whole GDP, aiming by 2030 for 15% of national GDP spent on health and education. Cuba takes the gold, with 23% of GDP spent by the government on health and education. The percentage of global government spending on health and education alone is almost 9.6% as of 2018, with zero growth since 2015.Education and health are but another measure of poverty outside of income. This is reflected in the Human Development Index (HDI), which is similar to the SDG Index. The HDI creates a composite index of human development, measuring GDP per capita, life expectancy at birth, and years of education.This indicator is in the hands of the government to act. Your task, as a singular citizen, is to call or write a letter to your government representative, requesting they increase the portion of spending on health and education to 15% by 2030.Governments have national accounts, like the accounts of a business. They have debts like a business, and collect revenue in the form of tax or duties on imported goods. To manage all these flows of money through their accounts, governments develop fiscal policies guiding how they intend to raise revenues. Fiscal policy guides whether to levy taxes or cut them. On the other hand, the fiscal policy directs how to spend or invest the revenue. Different countries' governments have different fiscal policies regarding how much of their revenue they decide to spend, also differing on what to spend it on.What a government wants to spend their money on may differ to what they do spend their money on - what they can afford may instead decide this. Many LDC governments, of course, are aware of the priority of poverty alleviation, and the necessary spending required. But if the citizens are too poor to tax, then the government will have little money to spend on what they know is needed to improve the standard of living of their people.The Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG) comprises 10 categories. Below, I’ve used my home state’s 2021-22 budget, categorised according to this classification for illustrative purposes, with figures in Australian dollars: Source: https://www.dtf.vic.gov.au/state-budget/2021-22-state-budget As we see, the classifications of health and education are the biggest categories of expenditure. But the above example also offers us an insight into what other competing classifications vie for expenditure.How can readers contribute toward this indicator? They’re unable to affect the national government’s budgetary spending, other than by their votes at the ballot box. With regards to the LDCs, the contribution of aid championed throughout these pages ought to cover this shortfall. Readers could aim to apportion, by 2030, 15% of their gross income toward their own health and education spending. Given your circumstances, I’m uncertain what expenses this 15% of income may come at the expense of. If your country scored red for this indicator, your government’s been unable or unwilling to provide enough of a safety net in the vital fields of health and education to uphold the most important pillars of your wellbeing. You should prioritise these two areas to give yourself the best fighting chance of alleviating poverty, or keeping it at bay. After ensuring we have enough income for subsistence, and can feed ourselves and our families, girding our health and education prospects on the order of 15% of gross income is essential for whatever our income levels.Summary:For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 0.7% of your gross income as aid.For readers in countries off-track:contact your government, requesting they increase public spending on health and education to 15% of GDPspend 15% of your gross income on health and educationFor high-income and all OECD DAC countries: International concessional public finance, including official development assistance (% of GNI)Readers must assume I have a lot of gall to put this indicator to page, such has been its ubiquity heretofore. Still, it'd be remiss to list all indicators except one, even if readers may have grown tired of the point it's been attempting to make throughout the tapestry of other indicators.For clarification, the measure is a percentage of gross national income, rather than total aid. For example, the US is the biggest aid giver in total dollars, but as a proportion of gross national income, this amounts to one of the worst percentages, at 0.18% of GNI as of 2021.Prior to the setbacks of COVID-19, the OECD estimated the annual financing shortfall to achieve the SDGs amounted to $2.5 trillion. Within a 2020 gross world product (GWP) of $85 trillion, this is only 3%. You already know 0.7% of GNI of the OECD DAC members will end extreme poverty. Even now, after the devastation of COVID-19 increased the annual funding shortfall to $4.2 billion, the global economy has this money lying around. The equivalent of a quarter of the GWP in savings is at the world's disposal, $22 trillion worth - enough to achieve the SDGs fivefold.Of note, the optimum for this indicator is 1% of GNI, rather than 0.7%, justified as an average of the 5 best performers. I’ve encouraged 0.7% throughout, because this has been affirmed on repeated occasions in international agreements. However, to achieve this indicator, please round up to a full 1% of your gross income.Summary: For high-income country readers, give 1% of your gross income as aid.Other countries: Government revenue excluding grants (% of GDP)This indicator focuses on the means of developing countries to raise revenue, which could then be spent on poverty alleviation, financing progress toward the respective Goals.This revenue originates from levying taxes, fines, fees, rents from resources, and property and sales taxes, aiming by 2030 for a government revenue equal to 40% of GDP. The world total (including high-income countries) for government revenue as a percentage of GDP equals 23.4%, close to the same as from the start of the SDG period.What happens if a government is unable or unwilling to raise enough revenue to then spend on its populace? What also happens if the high-income countries are withholding aid, as they are? This leaves citizens to fend for themselves, in a state of vulnerability few of us from countries with higher levels of government revenue would envy.Citizens living at or near subsistence are unable to give whatever income they have to the government. If they could, this would be in the hope their government will translate this revenue into services like health or education. What will come with a rising of the populace out of poverty? A greater capacity to tax the population, affording the capacity to put such revenue toward yet more poverty alleviation efforts. When one pays taxes, they expect its disbursement to benefit the greater good, but also to benefit oneself, in the provision of services such as public health and education. Countries with increased government revenue will build out a middle-class able to shoulder greater levels of taxation above the poverty line.The prior indicator relating to high-income country aid interrelates. The benefits of such aid flows will in time provide a sustainable tax base to the donor-recipient country. The donor-recipient country’s hand will be on the first rung of the development ladder, and will then be able to raise revenue from their domestic tax base.Summary: For OECD country readers, affirm your annual commitment to give 1% of your gross income as aid.Corporate Tax Haven Score (best 0-100 worst)The Corporate Tax Haven Score is a ranking of countries by the Tax Justice Network. Some of the biggest culprits are territories of countries, outside the main jurisdiction of the home country. The top tax haven rankings go to the UK territories of the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, and Jersey. The Brits are complicit in perpetuating this system, a reflection of their libertarian, mercantile history.A company’s operations may be outside the country of its headquarters, but it creates value from production in the country it operates from, benefiting from the infrastructure and talent of the country of operation. Thus, it should pay taxes to the country it operates in. Yet companies finagle the system to claim as their tax base a country with low company tax rates, or tax-free altogether, which is legal in tax havens. In many instances, t

We have a vision of what we want the world to resemble as articulated in the Global Goals. The SDGs draw their strength from our imaginations and the prospect of creating the future we want. We actualise this by articulating goals, targets, and indicators. These efforts become gratifying through the link in our imaginations to the existence we intend to forecast. We aim to make the imaginary into reality.The Global Goals are the moral compass of the entire UN body of 192 member states, representing the totality of the planet’s human population, which reached such an agreement. The best explanation for why all countries agreed on Agenda 2030 and the Paris Agreement is a profound, universal sense of where we want to go.You have the tools before you to measure your progress toward the Goals in your own life, all that’s left is your opportunity to act.  With less than eight years remaining to 2030, it’s now time to prioritise our lives to actualise the Goals. Let’s leave something worthwhile for life now in its infancy and for all life yet to come.The best we can hope for within our conscience is once we reach 2030, whatever the global outcome, we know we can look ourselves in the mirror and admit to ourselves we did our best as one person among 8.5 billion other human souls.