The article analyses, from a historical perspective, the geopolitics of energy in the framework of the capitalist system. The first section explains the birth of the geopolitics of energy (a geography of energy by state and the kind of energy relations between states), arguing that its birth is associated with fossil fuels and its goal is the safeguarding of supremacy through both territorial control of energy sources (or flows) and their commodification. After a brief review of the geopolitics of oil, the article ventures on what, in the present context of capitalism, the geopolitics of renewables might be. The main conclusion is that, because of the inherent features of renewables, at the end of the day the outcome will be the result of a political choice. The question is whether this choice will also be aimed at both grounding hegemony on international energy relations and funding the global unbalances of the system.

In the last twenty years, a methodology that allows us to measure, with a high degree of international consensus, multidimensional poverty has been consolidated. The definition of the measurement methodology has facilitated to specify and put into operation the concept. In parallel, “sectoral” poverty proposals have been used and finally consolidated, with their own conceptual importance and usefulness. The link between the dimensions of multidimensional poverty and sectoral poverties is diverse. This paper briefly presents and discusses different approaches (labour, energy, water, sanitation, and period poverties). It is argued that reducing sectoral poverties to the dimensions of multidimensional poverty limits their usefulness and impact. The methodological work done previously in terms of measurement of multidimensional poverty, in the singular, helps also to advance in the multidimensional characterization of said sectoral poverties.

For a sustainable post-Covid-19 recovery strategy, humanity faces two major challenges: 1. Just prosperity: The creation of a resilient and fair economy that delivers prosperity for all; 2. Public and planetary health: protect human health, together with the reduction of environmental impacts below thresholds of planetary boundaries including greenhouse gas emissions. The Covid-19 crisis could represent an opportunity for responses that integrate different goals, or a drawback if some are prioritized without considering their impacts on the others. New kinds of informed solutions are needed to ensure long-term sustainability in social, economic, and environmental terms. This article addresses the research question: How could developed countries manage a sustainable recovery that provides a good life for all within public and planetary health? First, it argues that economic growth is not compatible with environmental sustainability. Green Keynesianism is based on the hypothesis that economic growth can be decoupled from environmental impacts, but this has not happened and it is unlikely to happen. Second, it introduces degrowth as an alternative to green growth. Degrowth challenges the hegemony of economic growth and calls for a democratically led redistributive downscaling of production and consumption in industrialised countries as a means to achieve environmental sustainability, social justice, and well-being. Third, it traces the recent evolution of the term degrowth from an activist slogan to an academic concept. Last, it calls for an alliance of alternatives that could foster a deeply radical socio-ecological transformation.

In the past four decades, the centre of economic power has moved from industry to finance. Against this backdrop, the financialization of the water industry has made the hydrosocial cycle more complex, witnessing the emergence of new financial logics and financing instruments. This change has thoroughly transformed the relation between infrastructures and water companies, citizens, other water users and the environment. In this article, and based on previous work, I present a summary that debates around the financialization of the water cycle, through the example of the provision and development of financialized water infrastructures in London.

This article analyses the connection that scientific economics has made between economic development and social sustainability. Starting from the classical idea of value in capitalism, the article reviews the main contributions that classical, neoclassical, heterodox and modern economic syntheses have made on the possibility of a socially sustainable economic development. From this review, the need to build a new sustainable value economy is identified and its main dimensions are analysed, especially the role that firms, markets and government should play. In our research on the fit between new sustainable ways of generating value and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the results obtained are unfavourable. The SDGs must substantially modify their approach and methodology to move towards a more socially sustainable economic value.

In 2015, the UN General Assembly approved the 2030 Agenda. There was an agreement on 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the purpose of which was to reverse development patterns around the planet. Cities, as population agglomerations and production centres, are directly challenged actors. The growth patterns followed in recent years show a clear explosion of the urban fabric, and an unprecedented land occupancy. So much so that certain degraded urban sectors are being abandoned to the detriment of new construction sectors located in the urban periphery. The connotations of this phenomenon are multiple, but it is important to focus on the unsustainability of an urban growth model based on urban development, land occupancy and transport infrastructures that have not been planned in coordination with these urban projects. Based on the foregoing, this article reflects on the externalities of this phenomenon, and raises some reflections to help transition towards a more sustainable city model.

Circular economy is an alternative to the linear “extract-use-dispose” economic model, based on the ideas of recycling, repair and reuse. The circular economy promises to turn the trade-offs of unsustainable economic growth in a limited planet into synergies that make sustainability a growth strategy. The knowledge base of the circular economy, however, is highly divided and characterised by controversy over the very possibility of circularity itself. This paper asks why such a controversial idea has gained so much traction in public policies, at the EU level and at lower scales, such as the urban level. Although the focus on win-win solutions was understandable in the context in which the first circular economy policies were formulated in the EU, in the current context this policy framing may obfuscate more than it enlightens by rendering debates about complex sustainability issues technical and apolitical.