Last year, heads of state gathered in New York to sign the UN's new sustainable development

goals (SDGs). The main objective of the SDGs is to eradicate poverty by 2030. Beyoncé, One
Direction, Malala and many other celebrities were contracted for the publicity campaign, which
was billed as the largest in the world. When the SDGs were launched, it was staged as a
monumental international celebration. Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs must offer
a fresh plan for how to save the world, but beneath all the hype, it's business as usual. The main
strategy for eradicating poverty is the same as it has always been: GDP growth.
[This paragraph introduces the context of the UN's new SDGs, signed by heads of state
in New York, with the primary objective of eradicating poverty by 2030. The event is
portrayed as a monumental international celebration, featuring a massive publicity
campaign involving celebrities like Beyoncé, One Direction, and Malala. However, the
author suggests that beneath the hype, the SDGs represent a continuation of the same
strategies and approaches rather than a fresh, revolutionary plan to save the world.]

Growth has been the main object of develop- ment for the past 70 years, despite the fact that it's
not working. Since 1980, the global economy has grown by 380%, but the number of people
living in poverty on less than $5 (£3.20) a day has increased by more than 1.1 billion. That's 17
times the population of Britain. So much for the trickle-down effect.
[ the author highlights the failure of the growth-based approach to development over the
past 70 years. Despite a 380% increase in the global economy since 1980, the number of
people living in poverty has increased by more than 1.1 billion. This contradicts the belief
in the trickle-down effect, where economic growth would eventually benefit the poor. The
paragraph emphasizes the need to reconsider the effectiveness of growth as a solution
to global issues.]

Orthodox economists insist that all we need is yet more growth. More progressive types tell us
that we need to shift some of the yields of growth from the richer segments of the popula- tion to
the poorer ones, evening things out a bit. Neither approach is adequate. Why? Because even at
current levels of average global con- sumption, we're overshooting our planet's bio- capacity by
more than 50% each year.
[this paragraph discusses the views of both orthodox and progressive economists
regarding the solution to global poverty. Orthodox economists believe that more growth
is the answer, while progressive economists argue for redistributing the benefits of
growth more equitably. However, the author asserts that neither approach addresses the
issue of overconsumption and its impact on the planet's resources, setting the stage for
discussing alternative solutions.]

In other words, growth isn't an option any more - we've already grown too much. Scientists are
now telling us that we're blowing past planetary boundaries at breakneck speed. And the hard
truth is that this global crisis is due almost en- tirely to overconsumption in rich countries.
[the author emphasizes the main problem: the planet's bio-capacity is already exceeded
by more than 50% due to current levels of global consumption. This highlights that
growth is no longer a viable option for addressing global issues, as scientists warn about
crossing planetary boundaries at an alarming rate. The author underlines the need for a
shift in focus to more sustainable consumption patterns.]

Right now, our planet only has enough re- sources for each of us to consume 1.8 "global
hectares" annually a standardised unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is
roughly what the average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the
US and Canada consume about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4.7 hectares
many times their fair share.
[this paragraph specifically addresses the cause of the global crisis, which is
overconsumption in wealthy countries. The concept of global hectares consumption is
introduced, comparing the consumption rates among different countries. The US,
Canada, and Europe are highlighted for consuming significantly more resources than
their fair share, emphasizing the need for a change in consumption patterns rather than
solely relying on growth-based development.]

In summary of this part of Hickel' s article:

This part of the article discusses the UN's new sustainable development goals (SDGs)
signed by heads of state with the primary objective of eradicating poverty by 2030.
Despite the large-scale publicity campaign featuring celebrities, the SDGs represent a
continuation of the growth-based development approach. This strategy has been
ineffective over the past 70 years, as global poverty has increased despite a 380% growth
in the global economy since 1980. The concept of the trickle-down effect has proven
false, with more than 1.1 billion people living in poverty today. Both orthodox and
progressive economists propose growth as the solution, but it is insufficient due to the
planet's current overshoot of its bio-capacity by over 50%. This overconsumption, mainly
driven by wealthy countries, has led to a global crisis and the need for more sustainable
consumption patterns.