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)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fortune Aigbe & Clinton Aigbavboa & Lebogang Ayobiojo & Patrick Ehi Imoisili, 2025. "Adaptive Learning for Inclusivity, Sustainable Development, and Societal Impact: A Case Study of Community Engagement at the University of Johannesburg," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-15, May.

    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. Marta Kuc-Czarnecka & Andrea Saltelli, 2025. "Ranking the rankers. An analysis of science-wide author databases of standardised citation indicators," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1497-1517, March.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. Vincent Van Roy & Daniel Nepelski, 2018. "Validation of the Innovation Radar assessment framework," JRC Research Reports JRC110926, Joint Research Centre.
    8. 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.
    9. Andonegi, Aitor & Garmendia, Eneko & Aldezabal, Arantza, 2021. "Social multi-criteria evaluation for managing biodiversity conservation conflicts," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Temper, Leah & Martinez-Alier, Joan, 2013. "The god of the mountain and Godavarman: Net Present Value, indigenous territorial rights and sacredness in a bauxite mining conflict in India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 79-87.
    13. Maria Cerreta & Pasquale De Toro, 2012. "Strategic Environmental Assessment of Port Plans in Italy: Experiences, Approaches, Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(11), pages 1-34, November.
    14. Ruiz, Francisco & El Gibari, Samira & Cabello, José M. & Gómez, Trinidad, 2020. "MRP-WSCI: Multiple reference point based weak and strong composite indicators," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    15. Paula Trivino-Tarradas & Manuel R. Gomez-Ariza & Gottlieb Basch & Emilio J. Gonzalez-Sanchez, 2019. "Sustainability Assessment of Annual and Permanent Crops: The Inspia Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, January.
    16. Antolini, Fabrizio & Terraglia, Ivan & Cesarini, Samuele, 2024. "Integrating multiple data sources to measure sustainable tourism in Italian regions," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    17. Aubert, Alice H. & Esculier, Fabien & Lienert, Judit, 2020. "Recommendations for online elicitation of swing weights from citizens in environmental decision-making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    18. Giuseppe Munda, 2015. "Beyond Gdp: An Overview Of Measurement Issues In Redefining ‘Wealth’," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 403-422, July.
    19. Lars Carlsen, 2017. "An Alternative View on Distribution Keys for the Possible Relocation of Refugees in the European Union," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 1147-1163, February.
    20. George da Mota Passos Neto & Luciana Hazin Alencar & Rodolfo Valdes-Vasquez, 2023. "Multiple-Criteria Methods for Assessing Social Sustainability in the Built Environment: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-24, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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.