Sustainable development an oxymoron?

Abstract

Launched in 2015, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a "shared blueprint" for the world into a sustainable future covering 17 ambitious goals (United Nations, 2022a). These include poverty eradication, zero hunger, good health, quality education, gender equality, access to clean water and energy, decent work and economic growth, sustainable industrialization, reduced inequality, sustainable cities, responsible consumption and production, climate action, life below water and on land, peaceful societies and strong institutions, and finally, cooperation and partnerships for the goals. Succeeding the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), the SDGs represent a normative, legally non-binding framework, which was agreed by the United Nations (UN) General Assembly for a period of 15 years (ending in 2030). In contrast to the MDGs, the SDGs center on sustainability, highlighting the linkages between the environment with social and economic aspects of development. The broad goals cover most human activities with a total of 169 individual targets. However, many of these targets are qualitative in nature and there is lively debate about goal-specific, universally accepted indicators (or the lack thereof) to measure and assess their progression. Importantly, the SDGs were designed to provide sustainability pathways in an integrated manner across the growing divides with regards to development priorities between the Global South and Global North.After seven years, how-if at all-have the SDGs worked toward guiding public policy-making and bringing about much needed societal transformations toward a sustainable future for all? Have these ambitious development goals really been as target-oriented and sustainable as their name suggests? In other words, what has been the political impact of the SDGs midterm? With their book "The Political Impact of the Sustainable Development Goals-Transforming Governance Through Global Goals?", Frank Biermann, Thomas

A Study of Oxymoron in English and its Values for Teaching English-Majored Students

“…2023); (Bageshwar, B. R. 2021). Paradox includes three factors: high level of creativity; contradictory appearance; context (Johnson, E. 2019); (Elsässer, J. P. 2023); (Stiglitz, J. E. 2019). The high level of creativity of the paradox shows the talent and style of each individual creator.…”