Wellbeing, Values and Lifestyles

The chapter proposes to put forth a traditional Indian view of lifestyle which is holistic and grounded in strong ethical values that can provide inherent foundations for a balanced and sustainable way of life. It does not claim to be a policy document but aims to highlight a few ideas from ancient Indian culture which are universal in nature and can be helpful in meeting the current challenge of environmental degradation and climate change.

As part of its G20 Presidency, India has developed an important overarching theme, which it summarises as “One Earth, One Family, One Future”. This chapter unpacks the concept that serves as the inspiration for this theme. It highlights the depth of meaning contained in the concept, as well as its far-reaching philosophical and political implications. Drawn from India’s ancient texts, the concept is radical in the scale of its inclusion and the scope that it offers for individual agency. It allows us to include, but also move beyond notions of “human development” and “community development”. Self-styled “realists” who regard the motto as emblematic of the sweet nothings of idealism would be well-served to think again: delve into the concept, and it suggests important ways to uphold hard interests, while also reminding us of the importance of values. But the devil lies in the details of implementation, and the move from rhetoric to practice is seldom easy. This chapter develops ways in which India’s pioneering idea can be implemented—domestically and globally, in the course of future G20 meetings, and indeed in other forums of global governance too.

The current global crisis has led to a consensus that returning to pre-COVID development policies is no longer viable. This chapter outlines a human development approach aligned with Lifestyle for Environment's (LiFE) values. It provides evidence of how economic and environmental activities have been pursued through people-centric approaches across countries. History shows how communities have embraced significant change, facilitating transformative occurrences. The current focus on just transition needs to recognize this facet and link values to sustainable development. Several Global South countries have been proactive in advocating for the recognition and inclusion of cultural values, collective responses, and nature protection values in development. Integrating human development and sustainable living would lead to transformative change, ensuring equity and sustainability in achieving SDGs. This new approach offers hope for a more sustainable and equitable future.

Our adversarial system of international relations poses substantial risks of violent catastrophe and impedes morally urgent initiatives and reform collaborations. The domestic politics of more evolved societies provide guidance toward a better world governed by just rules, which ensure that basic human needs are met, inequalities constrained, and weapons and wealth marginalized as tools for influencing political and judicial outcomes. Impartial administration, adjudication, and enforcement of just rules require a strong normative expectation on officials and citizens to fully subordinate their personal and national loyalties to their shared commitment to the just and fair functioning of the global order. As we have fought nepotism within states, we must fight nepotism on behalf of states to overcome humanity’s great common challenges. To moralize international relations, states can plausibly begin with reforming the world economy toward ending severe poverty, thereby building the trust and respect needed for more difficult reforms.

‘Lifestyle for the Environment’ (LiFE), introduced by India’s Prime Minister at COP26, emphasises behavioural shifts for sustainable consumption. This chapter explores the integration of LiFE into multilateral processes to strengthen global sustainability efforts. It analyses opportunities within the G20, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to embed lifestyle-centric approaches into global governance.

Positioning LiFE as a normative contribution from the Global South, the chapter identifies four enabling instruments—norm development, policy design, market mechanisms, and social tools—to institutionalise lifestyle approaches. It outlines how global frameworks can incorporate LiFE by using G20 leadership, refining SDG indicators through the IAEG-SDG, incorporating lifestyle dimensions into IPCC and SBSTA processes, and pursuing a UNGA resolution. In doing so, the chapter contributes to understanding how behaviour-based interventions can be embedded within multilateral systems to support climate and development goals.

What hope is there for this planet if the countries of the Global South start to consume resources as the Global North does today? Or if the vast numbers of poor in our world demand the same things the rich few already have? They are not only entitled to do so under any concept of fairness and justice but are also being encouraged to do so by the forces of the global market. What will be the demographic, economic and environmental impact in the longer term if poverty and marginalisation in the economy of our world further delay the stabilisation of its population? The goal of creating a better world for all clearly cannot be reached with today’s urban-industrial lifestyles or existing material-financial aspirations. Nor can they be reached with the disparities we have created within and between countries. Sustainable development implies not only efficient and ecologically sound management of resources but also the need to establish social equity and political empowerment. The affluent tend to over-consume “non-renewable” resources; the poor, out of the exigency of survival, tend to over-consume “renewable” resources such as soils, biomass and forests, often making them non-renewable in time frames relevant to human lives.

This chapter explores the interplay between food insecurity, energy security, and climate change, emphasising the need for integrated solutions to address these challenges. The chapter advocates for adopting plant-based diets, which align with India's Mission Lifestyle for Environment (LiFE) to promote sustainable food production and reduce environmental impacts. Additionally, it discusses the emergence of the degrowth concept as a potential pathway to sustainability, highlighting the need for resilient food systems through local production, reducing food waste, and regenerative agriculture. While degrowth presents economic and political challenges, the chapter suggests that a balanced approach could enhance food security and sustainability. The complexities of adopting plant-based diets, including health, environmental, and socioeconomic considerations, are also analysed, emphasising the importance of informed choices for personal and ecological wellbeing.

The chapter will explore the impact of de-carbonization and the use of alternative fuels in the maritime sector, with the aim of highlighting how ports and shipping are changing their strategies towards a zero-carbon perspective, implementing various initiatives aimed at modernising their infrastructures based on the advent of so-called Green Ships and new Green Ports models (ports as zero-emission ecosystems, where competitiveness and sustainability processes can be improved). The maritime sector’s environmental footprint is certainly rather small compared to the huge volumes of goods transported around the world (90% of international trade travels by sea), but nevertheless the decarbonization of shipping is on the priority list of both the United Nations, through the IMO (International Maritime Organization), and the European Union. The green transition in shipping undoubtedly presents many opportunities, but it is at the same time a complex path due to a number of geopolitical, technical and logistical implications, including the presence of the necessary storage and distribution infrastructure in ports and terminals. Making ‘green-oriented’ choices in a scenario characterized by several unknowns is a far-reaching challenge that needs to be tackled with synergy between the various players in the maritime and port cluster.

The G20 countries face multifaceted challenges in their pursuit of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Progress has plateaued due to global health crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical tensions, and uneven economic growth. It is imperative then to reevaluate the existing strategies aimed at achieving the SDGs. To achieve the SDGs in a timebound manner, this study recommends a shift towards holistic sustainability, integrating the inner dimension of sustainability comprising values, beliefs, attitudes, spiritual and intuitive consciousness, and conscientiousness along with the external dimension that includes environmental, social, and economic factors. The Dayalbagh community in India exemplifies this through the Sigma Six Qualities-Values-Attributes (Q-V-A) model, which embraces responsible production and consumption through six elements: agriculture and dairy, education and healthcare, air quality, water quality, innovation, and human values. The model facilitates the transition towards holistic sustainability that encompasses the principles of Lifestyle for Environment (LiFE). The G20's role is vital in fostering holistic sustainability through a community-centric approach that promotes responsible production and consumption, fosters innovation, advocates sustainable agriculture, prioritises education and healthcare, and enhances community engagement.

Achieving a holistic approach to development requires a transition towards a LiFE Economy—an economic system in which production, consumption, finance, employment, and other economic activities not only minimise harm but advance social and environmental objectives, delivering inclusive growth, inter-generational equity, and a thriving environment that nurtures biodiversity. Implemented effectively, the LiFE Economy should encourage and enable a shift in values, mindsets, and behaviours on the part of individuals, businesses, investors, and institutions that lead to progress on the SDGs, without contributing to backsliding. In this sense, ‘LiFE Economy’ can be called as ‘Life Economy’ in a hoilistic way as the constituents of LiFE economy go beyond ‘lifestyle changes’. However, for the LiFE Economy to thrive, the global community must develop new, robust enabling ecosystems to promote and accelerate its growth. At the national and sub-national levels, this encompasses laws, institutions, regulatory regimes, property rights, incentive structures, and norms that govern the generation and distribution of resources within and between regions. At the organisational level, it encompasses the legal and institutional frameworks that influence strategies, behaviours, and the ability to generate revenues. At the individual level, it shapes choices and opportunities. The challenge and opportunity before the G20 is how to turn the Varanasi Principles into action by accomplishing this paradigm shift.

The Coronavirus pandemic has tested the health systems and economies of most countries around the world with two major issues: containing the crisis and initiating economic recovery. There were talks globally about the falling GDP and the impending collapse of the economies of several nations. Nations are increasingly recognising that existing economic models could be more a problem than a solution. A new economic order that is equitable, fair and compassionate is needed to meet the Delhi declaration of G20 to ensure that issues related to People, Profits, Peace and Planet are addressed. This article attempts to provide this LiFE Economy model as a viable and workable alternative.

In the absence of any universally recognized framework for technology cooperation, inequalities between the developed and the developing world in Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) capacity and outputs have been insurmountable. In the contemporary context, the situation gets more complex due to the misaligned priorities of scientific research with SDGs which is also a prime concern of countries in the Global South. The existing difference in innovation capacities and performance across countries is taken as fait accompli and with minimum attention to the fact that in effect such disparities hamper the collective progress of humanity resulting in stubborn inequalities. This calls for technology cooperation and access to resources based on public good principles of knowledge creation. To enhance access, there has to be a greater appreciation for ‘solutions’ and their ‘impact’. This requires new frameworks to prepare humanity for a true knowledge society founded on equity and, at the same time, help knowledge enterprise to contribute to the deepening of the paradigm of equity itself.

The Ecological Impact Fund (EIF) is a proposed new international financing facility that would enable originators of green innovations to exchange—in the lower-income countries—their monopoly markups for impact rewards. Each year, the EIF would split a preannounced disbursement among participating innovations according to the ecological impact achieved with them in the EIF-Zone. Replacing the headwind of monopoly markups with a tailwind of performance payments, the EIF would give originators a financial interest in the wide and effective use of their registered innovations and stimulate development of additional greenovations that—tailored to needs, cultures, circumstances, and preferences in the EIF-Zone—would be especially impactful there. These two effects would produce a third: the EIF would help build capacities to develop, manufacture, distribute, install, operate, and maintain green technologies in the EIF-Zone.

The COVID-19 pandemic (2019–2022) has drawn considerable attention to many aspects of health care which have been often ignored in the past. One of them is the link between human health and the health of other beings. The One Health concept recognizes the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health, offering a holistic approach to address complex global health challenges. This chapter argues for the adoption of One Health, highlighting its significance in addressing zoonotic diseases, antimicrobial resistance, and climate change impacts on health. International initiatives and collaborations have endorsed One Health, aligning it with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Despite its importance, One Health implementation faces challenges, including inter-sectoral coordination, regulatory policies, funding, and political commitment. The G20 has a critical role in promoting One Health, and this chapter outlines a way forward for G20 leadership to advance this agenda. By embracing One Health, we can foster a more sustainable future, protecting the health of all.

Global epidemiological studies have revealed that climate change has led to a decrease in biodiversity and has been responsible for the pollution of air, water, and food, including the presence of microplastics. These factors have contributed to the rise of various non-communicable diseases (NCDs). As a result, the overall expenses related to healthcare, work productivity, mental health, and the economic situation of nations, particularly those with limited resources, have been adversely affected. The human exposome, epithelial barriers, microbiome and immune system are all affected leading to an impact on immune health. These have led to a higher prevalence of NCDs such as diabetes, arthritis, cardiovascular diseases, obesity, cancer, asthma and allergies. Vulnerable and underserved populations such as children, pregnant women, migrants those with underlying disease, the elderly and indigenous people are particularly burdened by the health effects of climate change. Wild and domestic animals and food chains are also severely affected by the same factors. One Health is an interdisciplinary approach calling for collaborative efforts of working locally, nationally, and globally, to attain optimal health for people, animals and our environment because of their interconnectedness. To reverse planetary degradation, achieve sustainability and reduce the risk of potential disease outbreaks a multidisciplinary, cross-sector, and transborder approach under G20’s leadership to change practices and policies at every level, from global to local is needed.

Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of the world and mankind, in general, at the present time. The most frequent occurrence and intensity of extreme weather events along with the increase of carbon dioxide particles and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere have resulted in an escalation of economic and political tensions between and within states, opening up new sources of instability in the contemporary international order. Faced with the need to obtain foreign exchange to honor their international financial liabilities and the failure of developed countries to meet climate finance commitments, a significant number of developing states have been urged to deepen unsustainable production structures, limiting the possibility of an effective transition on a global scale. All this results in a reinforcement of the climate and sovereign debt crises. In recent years, innovative instruments have been developed in search of scaling up the resources allocated to the fight against climate change. Within this incipient trend, green bonds stand out as specific instruments oriented to finance certified climate-sustainable projects. This chapter aims to analyse the opportunities and challenges presented by green bonds in bridging the financial and ethical worlds. Based on this main objective, this chapter attempts to contribute to the design and implementation of international and national regulatory frameworks for green bonds and “labelled bonds”, in general.

Infrastructure projects are an international strategy for growth. They are indispensable for the achievement of Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Financing gaps in infrastructure development continue to exist, mostly affecting the people in Global South. Issues with infrastructure project pipelines, governance, national budget, and sustainability costs are important factors that inhibit domestic and global capital flows into infrastructure projects. Cost of climate mitigation and disaster resilience further aggravate the capital provisions. Multilateral cooperation amongst governments and development banks can support an environment which fosters integrity and commitment to the development agenda. The G 20 LiFE agenda can be the framework of multilateral cooperation that converges global finance, governance, and people’s wellbeing.

In this chapter, the experiences of three types of countries were studied to define the key junctures and trajectories for sustainable rural transformation: countries that achieved spontaneous transformation; catch-up countries; and countries with an ongoing rural transformation process. Investigating the different experiences and paths of these countries, particularly about the key junctures of the transformation process can enable both policymakes and scholars understand the common laws of rural development from a global perspective. Some policy recommendations for achieving sustainable and just transformation in the Global South are provided at the end of the chapter based on the analysis.

Besides contributing to around 85% of the global GDP, G20 countries will play a critical role in setting the future path of urbanisation as they contributed to around 67% of the global urban population in 2023. Moreover, India and China are the two most populous G20 member countries housing the most populated megacities like New Delhi, Shanghai, Beijing, and Mumbai among others. Most of these megacities face challenges like congestion, housing shortage, unequal access to urban services, and unplanned growth. On the contrary, many European cities are experiencing population shrinkage without much reduction in their carbon footprint.

Notably, G20 countries contribute to 80% of the global carbon emissions, owing to economic production, weak planning and policy structure, and ineffective environmental regulations. Also, sprawl development is common across them, and is a major contributor to carbon emissions. Previous G20 summits have already acknowledged the role of cities in the ‘race to zero’ and highlighted the critical role of the ‘circular economy’ in reducing carbon footprint. The UN Habitat has also identified strengthening of urban rural linkages to build sustainable habitats. In light of the above, this chapter aims to identify the global demographic trajectory and development challenges with particular reference to the G20 countries. It highlights deficiencies in planning ‘zero carbon cities’ and discusses the merits of Mission LiFE proposed by India as a tool to plan for carbon neutral cities and habitats. The chapter suggests that by adopting mindful consumption behaviour, the future urbanisation can be more sustainable and help the countries to be on track with the global goals.

National governments and other relevant stakeholders have realised that GDP, a single indicator, does not measure the overall wellbeing of the people and that the wellbeing must be measured through a defined set of multiple indicators. SDG target 17.19 also advocates for developing measures of progress on sustainable development that compliments GDP. Several formulations and procedures have been advocated by various agencies at global level and at the regional levels though being deficient on many aspects of wellbeing and sustainability. The chapter analyses and compares various multidimensional measures of wellbeing and has recommended for development of a universally accepted framework. G20 being an influential group in shaping global policies should steer the process of development of a framework by setting up a high-level group to represent realities of developing and developed countries to ensure its broad acceptability and adoptability. By moving beyond GDP, this chapter suggests that a more accurate and holistic understanding of wellbeing can be achieved by better capturing the socio-economic resilience of societies.

The chapter's point of departure is that failures to address collective action problems, such as those of the G20, are invariably moral failures. To tackle these moral failures, it is necessary to measure prosperity in ways that reflect our moral values. The chapter proposes that the G20 adopts the SAGE dashboard for this purpose, where S measures solidarity, A stands for agency, G is material gain and E represents environmental sustainability. On this basis, it is possible to design a normative accounting framework for international, national and corporate accounts (INCAs) for public and private sectors. This is a first step towards “moral capitalism.”

‘Lifestyle for the Environment (LiFE)’, the concept introduced by India in November 2021 at COP26 in Glasgow, envisages replacement of ‘use-and-dispose’ approach with a circular economy. It is aimed at driving ‘mindful and deliberate utilisation of natural resources and adopt sustainable consumption lifestyles’, to protect and preserve the environment. LiFE requires increasing awareness among people to change their habits. This requires fundamental shift in our approach to life vis-à-vis nature. It is now evident that degradation in air, water, forests, wildlife would adversely affect environment and wellbeing. These environmental and ecological products may not be part of the market hitherto, but degradation in these has led global community to rethink on evolving an appropriate mechanism that can guide judicious and eco-friendly use of natural resources. Time has come to account for these aspects in the GDP and facilitate more informed decision-making at the national level for the benefit of society.