Jeffrey Sachs: World 2050 – The Road to Sustainability

Inscription: On the morning of March 27, 2024, the International Forum of Linhu Think Tank of Peking University (Phase 9) and the 30th Anniversary Celebration of Peking University Development Institute Think Tank Lecture were held in Chengze Garden, National School of Development, Peking University. Jeffrey Sachs, Professor of Economics, Director of the Center for Sustainable Development, and President of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, was invited to speak on "World 2050: The Road to Sustainable Development". This article is based on Sachs's English speech.

It is a great pleasure to be here at the National School of Development of Peking University to discuss with you the issues related to sustainable development. The topic I want to discuss today is, how can we truly achieve global sustainable development, what does it mean and what does it mean, and what do we need to do between now and the middle of this century?

Why 2050?

In September 2015, the United Nations adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for 15 years until 2030. In fact, when the targets were set in 2015, we knew that not all of them could actually be achieved by 2030, as some of them would require a significantly longer time frame than 2030.

Now, however, at this point in 2024, it is clear that most of these goals will not be achieved in most parts of the world by 2030. This is not only because some of these targets have actually taken longer than they were set, but also because we have not made the progress we need in the nine years since the targets were set in 2015. These nine years have been a very turbulent and volatile time, and it could even be said that the SDGs have been abandoned during this period. Major countries are busy dealing with major international conflicts, the most prominent of which are the war in Ukraine between the United States and Russia, as well as tensions between the United States and China. Moreover, the pandemic has caused great disruption to the entire world, and the disruption has not completely subsided.

Therefore, in 2024, in the face of the challenge of achieving sustainable development, we must look beyond the 2030 timeframe set in 2015 and think about the longer-term future. In my opinion, 2050 should be the right time to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

How can the SDGs be quantified?

To discuss the path to successful sustainability, it is important to first define what sustainability is and what constitutes success.

The original definition of "sustainable development" was introduced in 1987 – sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This definition emphasizes the intergenerational relationship of sustainable development, but it is not operational, because we don't know what the "need" is, and we don't really understand what we want to achieve.

Since the original definition was established, we have come a long way in conceptualizing what sustainability means and quantifying what it means in practice. Sustainable development can now be defined as achieving four core goals for the sake of human society as a whole, for present and future generations.

The four core objectives include:

Goal 1: Global economic development

The first is to achieve universal economic development on a global scale, so that people everywhere can live a decent life. There are many issues that need to be addressed behind this goal, starting with the eradication of extreme poverty on a global scale. China is a model for the eradication of extreme poverty, ending it with a resolute attitude and approach between 1980 and 2020. Before 1980, poverty was widespread in China, with some statistics even estimating that 70 to 80 percent of the population was in extreme poverty. By 2020, China had eliminated extreme poverty. Therefore, China is an absolute example when it comes to achieving generally good living conditions, which I am talking about.

Goal 2: Social inclusion and social justice

The second pillar of sustainable development is social inclusion and social justice. It is important to emphasize that when measuring economic well-being, we cannot just consider averages, in fact, all groups of people in all societies, whether they are intergender, women, minorities, or people from different geographical regions, all groups of people in all societies should share in the dignity of economic development, material abundance, and decent living.

The slogan of the United Nations is "Leave no one behind." "Therefore, progressive development should belong to society as a whole. This is a major challenge for all societies in the world.

Goal 3: Environmental sustainability

The third pillar of sustainable development is environmental sustainability. It was this that made the new concept of sustainable development widely known around the world some 50 years ago. Before 1972, almost no one paid attention to the impact of economic activity on the planet. Of course, issues such as deforestation or soil degradation have been in the spotlight much earlier, but they have not been linked to global crises. It was not until the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 that the relationship between global economic development and global environmental problems was recognized as a global crisis. There is a realization that the approach to economic development must change in order to reduce harm to environmental governance and environmental quality.

In 1972, I was a freshman in the economics department at Harvard University. That year, a team of researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology wrote a major book, "Limits To Growth," published by the Club of Rome. The book's argument is that the world's resources will eventually run out, pushing economic growth to its limits. The book was included in the list of economics students at Harvard at the time. However, my professor told me not to take the ideas in the book too seriously, because he believed that the market would solve these challenges, and if resources were to be depleted, their scarcity would drive up prices, which would lead to the emergence of alternatives and technological innovations.

It can be seen that the world before 1972 did not know much about environmental sustainability, and the Stockholm Conference was the first breakthrough.

Goal 4: Governance for peace and cooperation

We need a new approach to political governance that will enable us to manage economic, social and environmental objectives in a peaceful and comprehensive manner. I have always stressed that sustainable development requires the four pillars of economy, society, environment and politics to go hand in hand, and "politics" refers to the realization of common interests and the management of global public affairs through peace and cooperation.

Why do you need to design a new path?

Why am I here today to talk to you about sustainable development, because the world is not on the right path to achieving these four goals.

In fact, in 2015, when the United Nations was setting the Sustainable Development Goals, it considered naming the report "The Future We Want". So, "sustainable development" is really a succinct expression to describe what we want the future to look like – we hope that by 2030 and 2050, the world will be a prosperous world, a socially just world, an environmentally sustainable world, a world of peace and cooperation.

Sustainability is a very good vision, but the current reality is far from all four goals.

Why is the world not on the right track for sustainable development? In fact, the world is fully equipped with the resources and knowledge needed to achieve these four goals.

In my view, the real reason is that the institutional design of the current world, the way markets work, the way local and central governments operate, and the way the international community interacts cannot lead us towards sustainable development.

Moving forward as it stands, sustainable development is not an inevitable goal, and there is no "invisible hand" to guide the world to sustainable development, as Adam Smith put it.

My idea is that to achieve the SDGs, to make the world what we want it to be, we need to redesign a new set of systems and strategies that we don't have today. We need to design a path to the future we want, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

As economists, we should build economic models and frameworks for our analysis to find concrete and viable ways to achieve these goals. We also need to make institutional reforms, develop a series of reform strategies, and mobilize society to make changes to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Therefore, it is necessary to understand the path needed to achieve sustainable development, to understand what kind of institutional and political framework is needed, and third, how to make social changes to correct our current shortcomings and ultimately lead to a new institutional design.

All three of these are very difficult challenges, and many people say that the third point is that I am dreaming about it. They believe that the world has become what it is because of immutable forces, and that no one can change the way the world works.

However, I have a different point of view.

First of all, I think the challenge of sustainability is new to humanity. In 1900, no one thought about the global environmental crisis, in 1800 there was no challenge to eradicate extreme poverty, because the vast majority of people were poor, and there were no tools for social fairness and justice. Historically, of course, there have been rudiments of social justice, but humanity has never faced such a huge gap between rich and poor as it does today. The latest data shows that the 10 richest people in the world today have a combined net worth of $1.5 trillion, while 1 billion people in the world have essentially nothing. So, the challenges we face today are unprecedented in human history.

So my optimism stems in part from my conviction that the crisis we are in is not irrevisable, we are just in a new environment and need to find new ways. I believe that humanity can make progress and that we will not be trapped in a cycle of war, violence, poverty, depravity and crisis, but will have the ability to find new ways to meet our needs based on the realities of the situation.

In fact, the concept of "global cooperation" is also new. Of course, Confucius once said that "all the four seas are brothers", so the concept of human community should be at least 2,500 years old, and maybe even longer. But in the actual design of institutions, the attempt of intergovernmental cooperation is only a century old. This includes two experiments: the first was the League of Nations, created in 1920, which quickly failed, and now we are in the midst of a second experiment, the 79-year-old United Nations, which is not doing very well.

I want to emphasize that global cooperation has not always existed and that our attempts have not always failed, that this is a new thing, so we can think about new things and try to create new things that are in line with the current reality. That's what I want to move forward.

To sum up, the institutional arrangements that currently exist in the world, the very complex institutional combination of the market economy composed of enterprises, the government, and the market, cannot help us achieve sustainable development.

Specifically, in combination with the four core goals of sustainable development mentioned earlier:

Economic development and poverty eradication:

The current institutional arrangements are not capable of completely freeing the world from poverty, at least not so far. Poverty plagues many parts of the world, including Africa and parts of Latin America, South and Central Asia. There are also many parts of the world where economic development has stagnated or even deteriorated, and societies are rife with violence and a high sense of insecurity, despite income levels that do not fall under extreme poverty, and no amount of investment can help solve these problems. Some one billion people around the world live in extreme poverty, and another billion or even two billion people live in an environment of inprogress — living in extremely difficult conditions, widespread disease and early death, lack of access to reliable education for children, and insecurity for other aspects of life.

In my mind, China's achievements are an example to follow. China has demonstrated that it can take 40 years to go from one billion poor to no poor. I always advise my African friends to follow China's example, so that in 40 years' time, Africa can be lifted out of extreme poverty. I firmly believe that.

Social Inclusion, Social Justice:

Markets certainly do not solve the problem of inequality, and they do not have an "invisible hand" to promote the rational distribution of income and wealth. China's reforms, in my opinion, are the most successful in modern history, but they are not completely immune to inequality, and the gap between urban and rural areas and between regions is also significant. So, even the most successful reforms do not automatically solve the problem of social equality.

The degree of social inclusion is profoundly influenced by social institutions, so new institutional designs are needed to ensure that the gap between rich and poor is relatively manageable and narrowed. The world was rife with exploitation, discrimination and exclusion of minorities, and the current social order did not guarantee that minorities would benefit automatically.

In terms of environmental sustainability:

Anyone who has studied economics knows that there is nothing in a market economy system that protects the public interest. The environmental hazards we face fall into three main categories: climate change, biodiversity destruction, and toxic pollutants. All of these are typical examples of the "tragedy of the commons", or negative externalities that the market cannot solve. If the atmosphere is a free dumping ground for greenhouse gases, then market forces will lead to a greenhouse gas catastrophe, if biodiversity is not protected in some way, market forces will lead to deforestation and the destruction of public resources, and if pollutants are allowed to be released into the air, soil or water for free, then humans are ultimately poisoning themselves.

All this is clear, but surprisingly, this has increased exponentially over the past two hundred years. Two centuries of global industrial development have been hardly affected by active environmental policies. Fifty years ago, people were aware of the existence of an environmental crisis, but to this day, it is still out of control. Despite the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992, problems remain. Thirty years later, greenhouse gas emissions still haven't peaked, let alone zeroed. Despite the fact that 28 global conferences have been held under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the climate problem has not yet begun to be effectively controlled. We are far from success.

In terms of global governance:

Cooperation between countries is not the norm at the moment. I do not agree with the statement by American political scientists that the norm in relations between states is a state of war, and I do not think that it should be anarchy. The fact now is that there is no cooperation between States. This pattern shows the failure of our system. There is no framework for international peace in the world, especially among the great powers.

I have a very strong personal view on this, and I believe that the United States is primarily responsible for many of the current international problems. The United States is the most powerful and arrogant country, and many international crises in the world are caused by the United States. However, these phenomena show that there is no effective framework for international cooperation in the world.

That's why I wanted to find a path to sustainability. Humanity is not on the right path to sustainable development. We live in a world of affluence, yet billions of people are trapped in poverty. We live in a world of increasing inequality, including my own country, the United States. We live in a world where all three environmental crises are out of control. Moreover, we are not even capable of improving the basic relations between China and the United States, between Russia and the United States, which plunges the world into a very dangerous state of war.

Are the SDGs actually feasible?

Now, in the face of these problems, how should we solve them?

The first thing to think about is, are the SDGs actually feasible? I mean, do we have the material resources and the technical know-how to achieve sustainable development, and if so, how do those resources need to be allocated or redistributed?

This is by no means an empty question, but a proposition that requires us to analyze and argue. Because there are schools of thought, such as the "de-growth school", that the planet will have enough space and resources for other countries only if rich countries properly stop economic growth. The book The Limits to Growth, published in 1972, argued that humanity would run out of the key resources needed for development, and that economic development would collapse after reaching peak levels of production, because suddenly there would not be enough resources to maintain the standard of living that had already been achieved. There is also an argument that we will not be able to produce enough food for the global population. With a world population of 9.5 billion by 2050, according to standard projections, there is no way to meet the food needs of the global population without cutting down more forests, clearing more land and destroying biodiversity.

Back to the question: is sustainable development feasible given the world's technology, knowledge, resource base, population dynamics and geophysical systems?

I already have the answer. And I would also like to state that as scholars, we should try to resolve this controversial proposition through analysis, and we need to define all relevant content more carefully and quantitatively, and analyze it rigorously in a scientific way.

My answer is yes. With the resource base, land area and technical know-how to achieve sustainable development, we can end the environmental crisis in the middle of the world and usher in a world that is richer, more populous, and more just and inclusive. It's doable.

Why did I come to this conclusion? Without going into all the details, the main reason is that I believe that there is no one constraint that cannot be solved, and no resource that cannot be replaced.

For example, some people say that we have a greenhouse gas emissions crisis, so we have to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere, and the way to do that is to use less energy. However, this is not the best way to solve the problem. Because, as we all learned in our secondary school physics classes, energy is the key to making everything useful work. So, the world needs more energy, not less, and more energy transfer.

Fortunately, what is limited is the amount of fossil fuels, not the amount of kilojoules or megawatts that we have, and rather, we are limited by the amount of fossil fuels that we can use without accompanying carbon capture and storage technologies. Therefore, one path we need is to make an energy transition and build a sustainable energy system. This is also one of our pathways to sustainability by 2050.

I have spent 15 years supporting various research projects exploring possible paths for the energy transition. The current research results show that we now have a fairly clear idea of how to build a zero-carbon and secure energy system by 2050. Based on the technological knowledge we have now, and the technologies we have at our disposal by mid-century, there are the following paths to a zero-carbon energy system: first, decarbonization of the power system, using wind, solar, nuclear, etc., second, electrification of transportation and housing, including the electrification of vehicle power, electrification of end-use sectors such as home heating, and third, the use of non-carbon-based fuels, such as hydrogen made by hydrolysis, for sectors that cannot be electrified, such as marine, transportation, metallurgy, etc.

The next question is, is such an energy transition feasible? For example, do we have enough sunlight to support solar energy? The answer is yes. We receive about 5,000 times more solar radiation than the solar energy we use. So, if materials can be used more efficiently, such as installing solar panels on buildings, the potential for more efficient use of the desert will be limitless. For example, if the Sahara Desert were covered with solar panels and then transmitted over long distances, it would be enough for the whole world to use. Of course, this is not the best approach, just to illustrate that there is a way in which we can provide energy to the whole world without producing CO2 emissions.

The path to achieve the goal - six transformations

As academics, we need to systematically analyze specific pathways in all areas of transformation. I believe there are six fundamental areas of transformation that require this kind of analysis:

Transformation 1: Universal Education

Education for all may be the most important investment in poverty eradication, anywhere in the world. Cultivating human capital that is fit for the economy of the 21st century is the key to escaping poverty.

Universal education is also at the heart of China's success. In the past 40 years, China has dramatically improved its average level of education, the quality of education, and the number of university graduates at an unprecedented rate. Therefore, I would suggest that the first transformation that other countries should undertake is education. How do you get all your children to go to school, and how do you make sure they get a quality education?

This is not a small problem, as in sub-Saharan Africa, only 25 per cent of children have completed upper secondary education and about 50 per cent have not completed primary education. Such a country is doomed to continue to be impoverished, and there is no way to escape.

In poor countries, the reason children do not go to school is often because governments cannot afford a basic education system that benefits all children. This leads to a poverty trap: very limited resources for education because of social poverty, and poverty is transmitted from generation to generation because of limited access to education. Breaking the trap of poverty in education is therefore a particular policy challenge.

Transformation 2: Transformation of the healthcare system

The second transformation is in the field of health care. It is necessary to establish a universal health care system that can prevent diseases, reduce the risk of childbirth, ensure the healthy growth of children in early childhood, control epidemics, and so on.

Transformation 3: Energy system transformation

If we don't want to run out of energy and limit growth by 2050, the world needs to transition to a zero-carbon energy system. We need more energy, but it must be zero-carbon energy. Every country faces such an energy transition, including zero-carbon electricity, electrification of transportation, hydrogen fuel for industry, and more. But to make the transition, it must be analysed on a country-by-country basis and tailored to local conditions. Some places have plenty of sunshine, some places have abundant wind resources, some places have geothermal resources, some places have hydropower and so on. Moreover, different regions need to be connected to form a shared energy network to reduce the disadvantages of intermittency of zero-carbon energy.

Transformation 4: Transformation of agriculture and land use

The transformation of agriculture and land use is a very complex challenge. Because it turns out that if you add up all the environmental impacts of the food sector, then about a third of greenhouse gas emissions come from food and agricultural production. Emissions are staggering larger than in the energy sector and the transport sector. The reason is that in the food industry, nitrogen oxides, methane, and carbon dioxide are emitted in large quantities through land use, deforestation, fertilizer use, machinery use, etc. It's a big challenge.

On top of that, half of the world's population is undernourished. Dietary adjustments are complex and important. Moreover, our food systems are unable to adapt to ongoing climate change, so adaptation measures must be taken to maintain food security. Also consider that by 2050, the world's population will increase by another 1.5 billion, all of whom will need food.

As a result, the challenges of agricultural transformation are enormous. The transformation of the agricultural sector is more difficult than the energy transition, not only because of the need for a major transformation of agricultural technology, but also because hundreds of millions of poor people in the agricultural sector are still using traditional agricultural methods. Therefore, in addition to technological transformation, the task of social change is daunting.

Transformation 5: Transformation of transportation and urban infrastructure

The transformation of intra-city and inter-city mobility is very important, requiring transportation systems based on electricity rather than internal combustion engines. China has built an amazing nationwide transportation network in a very short period of time, most of which can be electrified or has already been electrified.

Transformation 6: Digital transformation

Building digital platforms can better support all sectors of the economy. China is leading the way in this regard. We need digital platforms that can support all areas such as education, health, transactions, payments, public services, and more. This is new to most people in the world, and now it should be the absolute core foundation of economic activity, of social governance.

How do you transform?

While the private sector and innovation play a significant role in achieving these six transformations, and not everything can be planned, I believe that in all of these areas, the basic direction of the transition and the underlying policy framework should be the responsibility of the state.

In my opinion, China has a huge advantage in this regard, and the NDRC has an efficient planning mechanism. But I don't think China's five-year plan is enough to do what needs to be done.

China has announced that it will achieve net-zero emissions by 2060. I have two comments on this: first, as far as I know, there are no public plans yet, and second, I think the transition should be faster and should be done by 2050, not 2060. Because China has already shown such potential. To achieve this, the NDRC and related agencies, with the support of Peking University and others, need to develop a path that can be precisely implemented over the next 25 years, not just a strategic direction, and then gradually implement it through each five-year plan until 2050. We need a quantified, time-bound path to connect the various transformations.

This is a new thing for national governments because that's not how most governments in the world operate. This is a very complex process that is beyond the comprehension of most governments in the world today. This makes it more difficult to achieve the goal.

China has the capacity to produce all the technologies needed for the transition, but few countries have the capacity. For those countries, it is even more difficult to develop a transformation plan without a full understanding of the technology trajectory. That's why partnerships are so important. Countries need to be connected so that we can truly have smart, quantifiable transformation pathways around the world.

Another challenge is that success in most places requires not only national but also regional strategies. For example, in ASEAN, Laos may not be able to decarbonize on its own, and Singapore may not be able to do it on its own, and they need to work with countries in the region. Regional cooperation is not the norm that governments are accustomed to, as they do not usually cooperate with each other on core infrastructure. But for the transformation we mentioned above, regional cooperation is indispensable.

The core concept of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has largely facilitated connectivity between countries. This requires a new type of governance and deeper collaboration. I encourage neighborly cooperation between countries, wherever it is, if there is no cooperation, there will be trouble.

China should work closely with South Korea and Japan. It is very absurd that the United States is trying to get Japan and South Korea to see China as an enemy, because cooperation between neighboring countries is needed.

Africa and China have similar populations, China is one country, while the colonial powers divided Africa into 55 countries. Africa cannot undertake 55 separate transitions to sustainable development, but needs a truly united African Union. This is my message every year at the African Union Summit, that all countries in Africa must come together as one and develop an integrated strategy in order to be truly effective. Then Africa will be able to follow China's example and achieve rapid development in the next 40 years.

epilogue

Let me conclude with two brief points.

From what I said above, you know that it is possible to achieve sustainable development. But achieving this goal will require significant financial support, which means that today's poor countries will need to borrow heavily from rich countries to achieve these transitions by 2050. Sending children to schools, hospitals, railways and fibre-optic networks is beyond a low-income country's current fiscal revenues or domestic savings. As a result, they require significant external financing.

So where should the financing come from? China's total savings, which account for 28 percent of the world's total savings, can be used to help these poor countries finance their development. They can buy Chinese products with Chinese loans. China can export hydropower plants, long-distance power transmission, electric vehicles, fast intercity railways, Huawei 5G kits, and more that poor countries need but cannot afford at the moment. So I propose a significant expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative to enable China to export advanced technologies on a large scale, so that the recipient countries can accelerate their economic development and achieve enough growth to repay their loans within 25 years.

In addition to the expansion of the Belt and Road Initiative, a major change is needed, and that is to extend the maturity of Belt and Road loans. At present, the average term of BRI loans is only 10 years, but the development of projects generally takes 40 years, and some long-term loans can be provided for developing countries, with a repayment period of 30 or 40 years. These countries will develop and generate revenues the way China does, and will eventually repay these long-term loans. This is one of my suggestions to China.

Finally, we need to advance intergovernmental cooperation. The biggest problem in the world at the moment is the United States, because the United States is not concerned with sustainable development, but only on whether it can maintain its position as the number one in the world. This seems to me to be a very naïve idea. The world now does not need "number one", it does not need leaders, but cooperation. U.S. foreign policy is obsessed with suppressing China's rise. But there is no need to worry at all, there is no doubt that China does not pose a threat to the United States in any way. I have been trying to explain this to American politicians.

We need to really help all the governments in the world, especially the U.S. government, to understand that the real challenge is not to fight wars, not to expand military alliances, not to overthrow other governments, but to sit down and work together and start addressing the challenges of sustainable development.

Translated and organized: Bai Yao