How do we imagine the world in 2030 to be?

Trees are a different thing than a forest. Forest is an ecosystem

By the beginning of the twenty century we had in Portugal nine different types of original mediterranean forest, distributed by all over the country. Today, only two small areas still exist as national reserves.

Wood and paper industries destroyed all those original forests and substituted it by trees. Pine for wood and eucalyptus for paper.
The horrific fires that we had last year, killing 110 persons in two days, were a direct consequence of deforestation and plantation of mono species vast areas.

Original forests are much more fire resistant than mono species. The real problem is how to get economic value from forest. That's the way to go not keep destroying a country for the profit of a few large corporations.

Speaking of Portugal, the country with by far the most wildfires in Europe:
"A government study between 2003 and 2013 found most of the fires are started deliberately set or are due to negligence or accidents."

Trees don't really need to be planted or managed all that much. They mostly just spring up.

If it's meant as an argument that forestry does not need any management, it does not hold up. Children also largely grow by themselves, but it does not mean they grow up to be responsible citizens without didactically informed raising. And it also does not mean that we don't need any more children than we already have, that we should let exterminators loose on them.

Ecosystem is a balance in the biosphere, of the soil, plants, insects, birds and animals, air and water. Forest is not just about the trees, but about whether they provide a habitat, and whether it's a stable habitat. As the world goes on, evidently less and less people understand this. By 2030, when I am likely dead, there will be nobody to understand this.

But I do mean as part of an ecosystem. Only "managed" trees aren't. Trees naturally come last.

As the world goes on, evidently less and less people understand this. By 2030, when I am likely dead, there will be nobody to understand this.

On the contrary, this is contemporary forestry and has been for at least two decades. This isn't 1960.

has been for at least two decades. This isn't 1960

I know wood construction doesn't seem as prevalent in Europe, but as a side note - Post 1980's deforestation was mostly under control or well on its way due to better management. Ecosystem diversity was more of a 90's onward issue. Standard {soft} wood building material nowadays is called SPF. Meaning; spruce, [white] pine and fir trees. All are of similar density however promote a better ecosystem when managed together.   

But I do mean as part of an ecosystem. Only "managed" trees aren't. Trees naturally come last.

I spoke about managing forestry, not trees. Trees get by without people just fine, but when foresters are in business, the business has to be managed.

This isn't 1960.

Europe is not the same in every spot. Over there you probably had pirate capitalism in 1960's. Over here it started in 1990, while 1960 was comparatively ecological paradise. And don't get me started on how Western companies behave as soon as they get their hands on something outside the borders of their home country.

Over there you probably had pirate capitalism in 1960's. Over here it started in 1990, while 1960 was comparatively ecological paradise.

I don't know if we've ever had that in the way America did and does, but with the economic surge of the '50s and '60s growth was considered more important than ecology.

I understand the Rhine, now a relatively clean river, was mostly devoid of natural life and generally to be avoided by people. Some 15-ish years ago it was on the news that salmon^[1] had moved back in -- the ecological cleanse of the '90s had worked. Of course our own Rhine salmon had probably gone extinct. These were (natural) Scottish colonizers.

And don't get me started on how Western companies behave as soon as they get their hands on something outside the borders of their home country.

Indeed.

¹ More or less the top of the river ecosystem.↵

Speaking of Portugal, the country with by far the most wildfires in Europe:

The country with by far the most higher temperatures.

"A government study between 2003 and 2013 found most of the fires are started deliberately set or are due to negligence or accidents."

No single government ruled between 2003 and 2013. It doesn't exist such study.

Did say a wee while ago it was shame about Portugal's fire situation. Goodness nearly offered Belfrager a room here! 

We're a little past a third of the way now.

So far the Sustainable Development Goals are behind schedule.

Interesting goals. Maybe the world can achieve all of them by 3030.
That's a one thousand years project. Brutal 

More seriously, I think those goals mixes different things that would be much more effective if weren't mixed, so advancing could be faster. Dynamic generates more dynamic and that what it's needed to change the entire world.

This was the outcome of the first round, the Millennium Development Goals, set for 2015 in the year 2000:

So the currently envisioned future for 2030 is indeed only achievable in next millennium, if at all.

I also remember the hype in the 80's about cars of 2000, how awesomely they would change. In reality, current cars are like cars of the 80's with more electronics.

There used to be times when people were able to predict near future more accurately.

On the other hand, all the stated ecological goals are easily achieved at any point by wiping the humanity off the face of the earth. Remember that the nuclear threat has not gone anywhere. It has increased exponentially since the nuclear scare of the cold war, except that it's fallen out of the news.

Goals are goals, not predictions.

Goals are goals, not predictions.

Well, yeah, pardon my French. What's the other word for loudly hyped utterly failed goals?

Goals are supposed to be hard. If they are too easy they are pointless. If they are impossible they are also pointless. For the first set of goals (MDG in 2015), I think it is interesting not only if they were achieved, but how well they were (not) achieved, as they were numberical targets. 100% or above is success, 99% or below is failure.

Target	Success rate in 2015; 100% is reached goal
Target 1A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day	168%
Target 1B: Achieve Decent Employment for Women, Men, and Young People	-5%
Target 1C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger	90%
Target 2A: By 2015, all children can complete a full course of Primary education/primary schooling, girls and boys	24%
Target 3A: Eliminate gender disparity in primary and secondary education preferably by 2005, and at all levels by 2015	success
Target 4A: Reduce by two-thirds, between 1990 and 2015, the under-five mortality rate	78%
Target 5A: Reduce by three-quarters, between 1990 and 2015, the maternal mortality ratio	60%
Target 5B: Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health (pregnant women)	26%
Target 5B: Achieve, by 2015, universal access to reproductive health (married women)	20%
Target 6A: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS	40%
Target 6B: Achieve, by 2010, universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS for all those who need it	43%
Target 6C: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases (malaria)	168%
Target 6C: Have halted by 2015 and begun to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases (tubercolosis)	121%
Target 7A: Integrate the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programs; reverse loss of environmental resources	partial failure
Target 7B: Reduce biodiversity loss, achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss	partial failure
Target 7C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water	125%
Target 7C: Halve, by 2015, the proportion of the population without sustainable access to basic sanitation	61%

Goals are goals, not predictions.

Well, yeah, pardon my French. What's the other word for loudly hyped utterly failed goals?

So the only utterly failed goals from the first set are 1B (employment actually went down from 2000 to 2015), and 7A/7B (failed to fully protect nature).

For the rest a significant improvement, but the set goal wasn't reached.

So the only utterly failed goals from the first set are 1B (employment actually went down from 2000 to 2015), and 7A/7B (failed to fully protect nature).

It is more like completely and utterly failed at the multiple unstated environmental goals. Unstated because they are complex and, being complex, they would actually need a table of their own with multiple metrics which are "nearly all deteriorating" as it says. Your table is just a surface scratch of mostly irrelevant goals, leaving the more important goals hidden from view.

leaving the more important goals hidden from view.

Which are?

leaving the more important goals hidden from view.

Which are?

The ecological goals, those that actually make up sustainable development. Currently the table displays mostly socio-economic goals, more to do with quality of life for humans, less to do with sustainability.

The ecological goals, those that actually make up sustainable development. Those in front view in the table are mostly socio-economic goals, more to do with quality of life for humans, less to do with sustainability.

Exactly. I would be more effective if those two areas were separated: focus in achieving one first, the other after it.

Anyway, I prefer the ethics of permaculture: Earth care, People care and Share the surplus, achieved by aplying the twelve permaculture's principles.