IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i6p2547-d1612007.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Baku Paradox: An Analysis of Selected Sustainable Development Goals

Author

Listed:
  • Lars Carlsen

    (Awareness Center, Linkøpingvej 35, Trekroner, DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark)

Abstract

The 29th Conference of the Parties (COP 29) occurred in Baku, Azerbaijan, in November 2024. The conference’s central topic was Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action). It has been said that COP 29 developed into a “climate finance COP” to get wealthier countries to finance actions in poorer countries to remedy damage from the effects of the increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. The final agreement was not as ambitious as hoped for. In this study, the discrepancies between the fourteen regions of the countries of the world have been analyzed with a focus on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), and 13 (Climate Action). The discrepancies between high-income countries (HICs) and OECD (The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries, as well as between low-income countries (LICs) and Africa, are presented. Where LICs and Africa, over the last 24-year period, virtually complied with the climate action goals (SDG 13), the HICs and OECD countries were far behind. A similar discrepancy is noted in sustainable production and consumption (SDG 12). The data show no indication that the increasing innovation in the HICs and OECD countries is reflected in increased sustainable production and consumption or increased compliance with climate action goals. One of the outcomes of the Baku COP 29 meeting was that wealthier countries should finance the remediation of the increasing effects of global temperature increase on the poorer countries, thus enabling them to continue without changing their habits.

Suggested Citation

  • Lars Carlsen, 2025. "The Baku Paradox: An Analysis of Selected Sustainable Development Goals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-10, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:6:p:2547-:d:1612007
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/6/2547/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/6/2547/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lars Carlsen, 2024. "Sustainability: An Ethical Challenge: The Overexploitation of the Planet as an Exemplary Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    2. Giuseppe Munda, 2008. "Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-540-73703-2, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jose Antonio Fernández Gallardo & Jose María Caridad y Ocerín & María Genoveva Millán Vázquez de la Torre, 2019. "Evaluation of the Reception Capacity of a Certain Area Regarding Tourist Housing, Addressing Sustainable-Tourism Criteria," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-19, November.
    2. Lars Carlsen, 2024. "Sustainability: An Ethical Challenge: The Overexploitation of the Planet as an Exemplary Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Del Corso, Jean-Pierre & Kephaliacos, Charilaos & Plumecocq, Gaël, 2015. "Legitimizing farmers' new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: Application of an agro-environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 86-96.
    4. Francis Marleau Donais & Irène Abi-Zeid & E. Owen D. Waygood & Roxane Lavoie, 2021. "A Framework for Post-Project Evaluation of Multicriteria Decision Aiding Processes from the Stakeholders’ Perspective: Design and Application," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1161-1191, October.
    5. Claudio Garuti & Enrique Mu, 2024. "A Rate of Change and Center of Gravity Approach to Calculating Composite Indicator Thresholds: Moving from an Empirical to a Theoretical Perspective," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-40, June.
    6. Catarina Roseta‐Palma & Yiğit Sağlam, 2019. "Downside risk in reservoir management," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 63(2), pages 328-353, April.
    7. Zepharovich, Elena & Ceddia, M. Graziano & Rist, Stephan, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation of land-use scenarios in the Chaco Salteño: Complementing the three-pillar sustainability approach with environmental justice," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    8. Gorsevski, Pece V. & Cathcart, Steven C. & Mirzaei, Golrokh & Jamali, Mohsin M. & Ye, Xinyue & Gomezdelcampo, Enrique, 2013. "A group-based spatial decision support system for wind farm site selection in Northwest Ohio," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 374-385.
    9. Tommaso Luzzati & Bruno Cheli & S. Arcuri, 2014. "Measuring the sustainability performances of the Italian regions," Discussion Papers 2014/187, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    10. Vincent Van Roy & Daniel Nepelski, 2018. "Validation of the Innovation Radar assessment framework," JRC Research Reports JRC110926, Joint Research Centre.
    11. Saisana, Michaela & d'Hombres, Béatrice & Saltelli, Andrea, 2011. "Rickety numbers: Volatility of university rankings and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 165-177, February.
    12. Tommaso Luzzati & Bruno Cheli & Gianluca Gucciardi, 2017. "Communicating the uncertainty of synthetic indicators: a reassessment of the HDI ranking," Discussion Papers 2017/228, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    13. Joanna Jaroszewicz & Anna Majewska, 2021. "Group Spatial Preferences of Residential Locations—Simplified Method Based on Crowdsourced Spatial Data and MCDA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-24, April.
    14. Fikret Adaman & Yahya M. Madra, 2012. "Understanding Neoliberalism as Economization: The Case of the Ecology," Working Papers 2012/04, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    15. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    16. Alexis Tsoukiàs & Gilberto Montibeller & Giulia Lucertini & Valérie Belton, 2013. "Policy Analytics: An Agenda for Research and Practice," Working Papers hal-00874307, HAL.
    17. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    18. Marek Walesiak & Grażyna Dehnel, 2023. "A Measurement of Social Cohesion in Poland’s NUTS2 Regions in the Period 2010–2019 by Applying Dynamic Relative Taxonomy to Interval-Valued Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-21, February.
    19. Carayannis, Elias G. & Grigoroudis, Evangelos & Wurth, Bernd, 2022. "OR for entrepreneurial ecosystems: A problem-oriented review and agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(3), pages 791-808.
    20. Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Gamboa, Gonzalo & Adamowski, Jan & Kosoy, Nicolás, 2015. "Capabilities as justice: Analysing the acceptability of payments for ecosystem services (PES) through ‘social multi-criteria evaluation’," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 99-113.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:6:p:2547-:d:1612007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.