On Sustainability and Consumer Behaviour - A two-part research paper

Part 1 - Sustainable Development Goals – Are our actions at odds with our goals?

Jan 20, 2025

You may access part 2 of the paper here [Part 2]

The first stated goal of Sustainable Development is to ‘End poverty in all its forms everywhere’, the seventh goal is to ‘Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all’ and the thirteenth goal is to ‘Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts’.

Each of these three goals head clearly distinguishable categories within the SDGs’ seventeen-strong list of goals for our planet, peoples and societies. As I see them, the categories are: 1) Health, 2) Energy and 3) The Environment. They all remain Earth-bound objectives, enormous in terms of the magnitude of the work to be done yet grounded in the principle and the understanding that it is the responsibility of all earthly powers to manage and improve the current state of affairs, reduce suffering, increase the quality of life, and continue to develop humanity.

Parallel to this, we know now that the eight richest people in the world hold the same amount of wealth as the poorest 50% of the Earth’s population. We know that the business development priorities of the richest men in the world and other exorbitantly rich humans (Elon Musk and Richard Branson ranked #54 and #388 in the world’s richest list respectively) [1] have to do with extra-terrestrial objectives.

Mr Bezos has said: “I don’t want my great-grandchildren's greatgrandchildren to live in a civilization of stasis. We all enjoy a dynamic civilization of growth and change. Let’s think about what powers that. We are not really energy-constrained.” [2]

Slash and burn, the recurrent method

The contrast is stark. SDG #7 points out the following facts:

“· One in five people still lacks access to modern electricity

· 3 billion people rely on wood, coal, charcoal or animal waste for cooking and heating

· Energy is the dominant contributor to climate change, accounting for around 60 per cent of total global greenhouse gas emissions

· Reducing the carbon intensity of energy is a key objective in long-term climate goals” [3]

Which is the correct version of events? Are we energy-constrained or are we not? Do we “all enjoy a dynamic civilization of growth and change”? Who does “we” represent?

Obviously, both versions are current and true realities of lives lived on Earth, concrete examples of the priorities, the needs, and of the people involved. The difference lies in the diametrically opposed numbers of people enjoying each one of these versions.

We could compare Bezos, Musk and Branson to pioneer bridge builders between the present and the future of humankind such as Brunel, Calatrava, Ammann or Eiffel are in spanning gorges, rivers and ravines. Else, we could liken them to a lighthouse engineer like Robert Stevenson baring the way humanity may take to its safe berthing in space. But we would do well to dig a little deeper.

Mr Bezos does go into more detail about energy; he says: “So, in a natural state, where we’re animals, we’re only using 100 watts. In our actual developed-world state, we’re using 11,000 watts. And it’s growing. For a century or more, it’s been compounding at a few percent a year, our energy usage as a civilization.” [4]

And the solution given? Well, it’s simple, let’s have more of it, more energy that is. Let’s continue the dream, the extension of our borders, the pioneer trek into the next frontier. The final frontier? Let’s welcome back to the future the technology-rich, fire-fallow approach that brought us fossil fuels and GM foods!

What are the limits? “The solar system” Bezos continues “can easily support a trillion humans. And if we had a trillion humans, we would have a thousand Einsteins and a thousand Mozarts and unlimited resources and solar power unlimited for all practical purposes. That’s the world that I want my great-grandchildren's greatgrandchildren to live in.”

But how would this all take place? Bezos says: “… I believe that in that timeframe we will move all heavy industry off of Earth and Earth will be zoned residential and light industry. It will basically be a very beautiful planet.”

Space Age Poverty – a chronic history of neglect

Mr Musk has much to say about our future too and what he says is not devoid of humour: “I think it would be great to be born on Earth and die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact.”

There’s a flourishing social media debate or let’s be more accurate and say ‘uproar’, about how these two modern business heroes compare with each other, about how one may have borrowed all the other’s thoughts and even dreams and how the latter may be berating the former in the space race against time and resources we all love to watch. This is not dissimilar from the antics we may witness before a world boxing title fight.

But perhaps the quote that is most revealing and draws the two top space investors to each other most closely is Musk’s: “I'm not trying to be anyone's savior. I'm just trying to think about the future and not be sad” [5] that rhymes so strikingly well with Bezos’ “I’m pursuing this work, because I believe if we don’t, we will eventually end up with a civilization of stasis, which I find very demoralizing.” [6]

Are distant potential sadness and demoralization the deeper triggers for the extra-terrestrial quest? If so, we understand them to be based on future accretions on what SDG#1 already outlines about today’s reality:

“· 767 million people live below the international poverty line of $1.90 a day

· In 2016, almost 10 per cent of the world’s workers live with their families on less than $1.90 per person per day

· The overwhelming majority of people living below the poverty line belong to two regions: Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa

· High poverty rates are often found in small, fragile and conflict-affected countries

· One in four children under age five in the world has inadequate height for his or her age

· Every day in 2014, 42,000 people had to abandon their homes to seek protection due to conflict” [7]

Bestowing causality for poverty, malnutrition and oppression on the lack of sufficient energy on Earth, on the fact that, if harnessed, energy could be transferred to Earth from other planets, basically on the fact that, only now (in the last 50 years), we have been able to attain the right level of intelligence and technological advancement to make that possible, is, at best, imprudent, and more than likely, reprehensible, especially if the tale end in sight – what we are promised – is a beautiful Earth, that is, something we already have.

I would posit here that it is difficult to find a period of the Earth’s existence when humans have shown that what we’ve created/invented/built has made planet Earth itself any better or more beautiful than what it has always been.

On balance, the ensuing cautionary tale would most probably argue convincingly that recreating a ‘better version’ of Earth (intra or extra-terrestrially) does not represent the finest of endeavours in which to employ the world’s resources and wealth or, at the very least, not the first priority for the planet.

If the sun can provide enough energy for the ‘development’ of other planets, it surely can provide it for the Earth. Wouldn’t the consequent thing to do be understanding the utmost corollaries of our energy production/consumption cycles? If it is limited to 100 watts in humans (as Bezos states), what is the point in forcing it to spend more than it can produce? I would say this is an Economics 1O1 problem, also an issue closely related to true efficiency, optimum performance levels, and the ever-present ‘know thyself’ paradigm.

I mean that with the current size of the Earth’s population, surely there must be a shorter term, concerted solution or group of solutions that can remove the sting from SDG#1 facts.

Flying to the Moon or Mars, creating a living environment there, then starting to trash it just because it’s literally ‘not on the Earth’ and expecting to obtain trans-planetary benefits appears at the very least disproportionate in terms of what our current needs obviously demonstrate.

Perhaps we are ready to wait and let the lives of that 50% of the Earth's population lilt into the ground even though we have the capacity and the means, the brains and the brawn patently present and ready here and now to do otherwise.

The economics – some questions and answers

Q: What then, fuels the space rage/race?

A: Literally, fossil fuels (Petroleum-Kerosene-based RP-1 + Liquid oxygen with hypergolic propellants for reaction control). [8]

Q: What are the business priorities?

A: Bezos’s: “I am liquidating about $1 billion a year of Amazon stock to fund Blue Origin. And I plan to continue to do that for a long time.” [9]

A: Musk’s: “My proceeds from the PayPal acquisition were $180 million. I put $100 million in SpaceX, $70m in Tesla, and $10m in Solar City. I had to borrow money for rent.” [10]

A: Any redeeming factor in sight for the extreme use of wealth and resources? Well, both magnates are invested on the re-usability of their rockets. Of course, without that the business model makes no sense, the rockets (the investment) won’t pay for themselves, there won’t be a business or a dream.

Q: Let’s ask again: What fuels the space race?

A: For Musk: borrowing, electric car sales and Social Media advertising

For Bezos: financial transactions and e-tail transactions, that is, e-commerce revenues,

The majority of which originate in the hard-earned income, one has to conclude, from, roughly-speaking, the top 50% of the Earth’s population, those of us who can afford borrowing, e-commerce and expensive cars.

Now, continuing this thought process, what do you or I actually buy online through e-commerce platforms for example?

Food? Yes, some.

Utilities: gas, electricity, water? Not really, banks and the utilities companies themselves carry the majority of such purchases though they may do it electronically.

Rent/Mortgages/Loans? Again, banks are still kings in these areas.

Healthcare? To some, fairly small, degree. The medical profession and hospitals take care of this area. Although swift progress is being made so that healthcare products are also made available online.

Transport? Not for day to day commuting but increasingly for leisure travel.

Electronics? Increasingly.

Apparel? Yes, definitely.

Health/Beauty? Indeed, supplements and cosmetics.

Gifts? Definitely.

Entertainment? Yes.

It appears then that what pays for the space race, based on the investment profiles provided by our trendiest business leaders and current retail trends, is our disposable income.

If we consider the condition of so many of the human beings in the world (SDGs #1 and #7 facts), such disposable income is being used to buy us an extra pair of shoes, a dress, a book, a game, a nutritional supplement or a gift and makes up for the non-essential purchases in our lives, what we could otherwise save, donate or invest into family, friends and others.

But there is more. In reality, the operating profit (EBIT) of the largest online retail business in the world is negative. The business loses and has always lost money and needs to be subsidised by the profitable B2B side-line cloud services enterprise which only represents 10% of the company in terms of total revenues. The trade-off between customer satisfaction literally at all costs (free same-day/next-day deliveries, unquestioned returns/refunds terms of magnanimous liberality, etc.) and common financial and environmental business sense seems non-existent. [11]

Simultaneously, the financial performance of the world’s most innovative vehicle manufacturer since its inception has remained in the red until 2020.

So, it would seem that our (consumers’) surplus, our disposable income, pays principally to support businesses that have rarely made a profit, in order to reward bold entrepreneurship, satisfy consumers’ need for immediate (I would venture ‘capricious’) gratification, and to make the entrepreneurs’ dreams come true.

Do we have a dilemma here? Are we building our dreams on shaky ground while neglecting to address the magnitude of the long-standing survival needs of our fellow humans just a few carbon footprint hours away?

The most cursory financial analysis tells us that this can only be a short ride, even when considering the positive and amazing numbers of employment contracts created in the process. Another cycle of dearth and abundance, boom and bust, remains the most likely outcome.

What does that do for sustainability? Isn’t the process just described its archetypal opposite?

But, more importantly, whose responsibility is it to ensure that we do not capitulate once more to our own impulses? Impulses that have brought us time and again to war and dereliction of our basic human duties, to the perpetuation of poverty, conflict, and suffering.