I.M.O. the SDGs are a nice effort that are somewhat unrealistic in that they fail to take account of human nature and the will for power. Original sin may be the thermodynamic criteria that humans are embedded in seeking to consume energy and process it. Politicians seek power, as do consumers mostly allegiant to consumption economic voting at the polls. Free societies tend not to be too interested in altruistic voting over those of personal interest selections. In the U.S.A. for example moral issues and surpassingly race issues prevail as poltical topics over common sense about eliminating poverty.
People that construct global political paradigms concerning the ecosphere’s decline tend to work within existing market economies and are subject to it, and I do not believe that market economics and capitalism has ecological interests as a primary concern; that is it will be late at reacting to external environmental stimuli and human crisis via market forces and values. On the other hand, authorianism is the temptation to the wealthy and influential in some ad hoc sort of way. Making environmental economic settings by decree would be the ad hoc tendency and that undermines the strength of non-plutocratic free enterprise to innovate solutions to ecosphere challenges.
President Obama cut taxes on the rich. He made the Bush II tax cuts permanent when all he had to do was nothing and the tax breaks would have expired. Americans are against new taxes because they somewhat rightly don’t trust politicans to spend revenues on more than pork. Public debt is more than 30 trillion dollars in the U.S. with a floating currency and technical tax managment to benefit the ecosphere substantially seems not in the cards.
I am not too optomistic about the prospects for environmental economic policies being implmented globally. Just making intelligent green zoning laws and changing bad technology for good tech is nearly impossible. I am glad that some people are trying, yet even the improvments SDG goals can help make seem inadequate and a bit off target insofar as serving as sustainable economic ways of living for billions.
Trying to force moral paradigms of the decadent first world moral systems on 2nd and third world people- especially atheism, is divisive rather than constructive and does great harm to the focus on transforming the world economy to ecological sustainable, realistic methods.
I would think the United States is strong at developing new technology and slack at innovating zoning laws to conserve the ecosphere and biodiversity. People everyplace tramp on the environment- even ordinary people with a surfeit of off-road vehicles, small boats, fish finders etc. Illegal migrants will scour the land for things to sell including plants and rocks. That is survival economics; and economics of necessity. Necessity driving people to interact negatively with the environment isn’t likely to end anytime soon.