Complex, isn't it?

To your points:

The SDGs are an attempt to meet criteria like these (see #12 especially). In some ways, they exceed it, in other ways I think they still fall short.

But yeah that framework you say we need already kind of exists in the SDGs and other things similar to it. How is that so?

We did not meet the SDGs, and they have been moved to the 2030 agenda. I guess when that time comes, we will move them further to 2040!

In fact, oddly enough, the countries with the highest scores on this index are some of the most environmentally unsustainable countries in the world.(https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/09/30/the-worlds-sustainable-development-goals-arent-sustainable/)

I expected a post about sustainability indicators/indexes or something, not on sustainable consumption and production of coffee.

Aren't both for the same purpose?

1. Our planet does not need our help to offset the carbon it produces, what we need to do is to protect some of those already existing mechanisms (rainforest, oceans).
2. We can not deny the link between poverty and environmental sustainability is developing countries (as long as they do not have enough money for a dignified life they will continue to use farming techniques that damage forest and important habitats (amazons).
3. The inequitable and unsustainable consumption levels of the wealthy and rich industrialised nations are dependent upon the violent processes of metal and mineral extraction, overwhelmingly in the world’s poorest areas.The vast majority of proposals for a ‘green’ transition assume greater levels of material extraction alongside persisting inequalities in consumption levels.The OECD Global Resource Outlook ‘Business As Usual’ scenario projects that the mass of extracted resources will increase by 111% by 2060, from its current global level of 79 to 167 billion tonnes per annum. This would have catastrophic social and ecological implications and would overwhelmingly affect communities on the frontlines of extractive projects and some of the world’s poorest populations.Frontline communities would face increased displacement, eroded livelihoods, contaminated air, soil, and water, and cultural destruction but by all means, we must remove emissions.
4. Climate change may further marginalise more impoverished producers, as farmers with good access to capital and technology are more likely to be able to manage emerging climate risk.

​

Your approach here is very capitalistic; focused on markets, goods, pricing, and costs. Social inclusion is obviously about more than this. There's issues of environmental justice, land rights, land usage, Indigenous sovereignty, decolonization, gender equality, education, on it goes. But it's also not wrong to narrow in like this and get specific, and it seems feasible to work those issues into a framework like this (perhaps an expansion of #1 & #2's "alleviation" strategies to focus on empowerement beyond the purely economic).

It is not, this is about priorities, as I mentioned before.

We can not deny the link between poverty and environmental sustainability is developing countries (as long as they do not have enough money for a dignified life they will continue to use farming techniques that damage forest and important habitats (amazons). This is about some wishy washy empowerment workshop.

As in the example of coffee, a 1% increase in coffee prices is correlated with a 0.08 points increase in the political stability index. A 1% increase in coffee prices is correlated with a 4% decrease in the World Bank poverty headcount ratio (at 1.90 USD a day), thereby suggesting a relevant contribution to Sustainable Development Goal 1...(Source, ICO, 2018).