Thursday's panels, "Social Media, Surveillance and Information Wars" and "What if You Held a Data Revolution and Nobody Came?", highlighted the need for a set of Sustainable Development Goals appropriate for our networked world. The SDGs, as they stand now, mention ICTs only tangentially. The panelists in the "Data Revolution" panel, who came from a variety of Internet-centric nonprofits and businesses, said that a strong set of goals should ensure that vital data collected by governments is not only digitized but also open to citizens to bolster accountability.

This was affirmed by the veteran journalists of the "Information Wars" panel, who spoke on how they have seen ICTs fuel popular movements against oppressive governments around the world. However, they also warned that without protection, open access to data could be a double-edged sword - making the intimate details of citizens' lives open to government scrutiny. An effective set of SDGs should address both the harmful and helpful aspects of the radical transparency the Internet brings.

Another criticism levied against the SDGs is that they do not adequately recognize the mode of communication now used by the vast majority of the world: mobile phones. According to the panelists, since the drafting of the MDGs, mobile penetration has increased from 1.6% of the world's population to an astounding 89.3%. In many developing countries, mobile tech has effectively leapfrogged traditional Internet infrastructure - consider, for instance, the widespread adoption of SMS-based mobile banking technology in many parts of Africa. By only mentioning broadband access, do the SDGs miss the importance of creative technologies like this? Sofia Latif of the World Wide Web Foundation (founded by Web creator Tim Berners-Lee) said that her organization now works on other modes of communication in least-developed countries.

ICTs have been the engine of uprisings the world over - their presence can have a transformative effect. As Yehia Ghanem, an Egyptian journalist who trained citizen journalists and later saw them become part of the Tahrir Square revolution, said at the panel, "If you don't believe in miracles, you're not a realist." All the more reason for the SDGs to incorporate this new tool into their fundamental mission of equality.

Elliot Harris, UNEP's New York director, stressed an incrementalist approach to conservation and emissions reduction. He said that gains in energy efficiency are the most effective - and politically realistic - way of bringing about sustainability. He argued that targeting efficiency rather than hard emissions reductions in the SDGs would give member states latitude to adopt policies tailored to their particular needs. Also, he said, efficiency improvements are attractive to private industry’s profits and bottom line, making them a more attainable option.

This view was not shared by all of the NGO representatives present at the panel, however. Several who spoke up saw the incrementalist approach as inimical to true sustainability. Encouraging industries to adopt better practices and price in sustainability risks, they argued, misses the point. The very principle around which they organize is that natural resources are too precious to price. They said that a purely "economic" view of sustainability conflicted with their more holistic "social" view, and that nothing short of direct, non-negotiable emissions cuts would be sufficient to bring about lasting change.

Not all saw these two views of sustainability as antithetical. Usman Sarki, Deputy Ambassador of Nigeria to the UN, pointed out that many developing countries lack the fiscal resources to carry out hard emissions cuts. Yet the issue of sustainability remains too deeply embedded in socioeconomic structure to be solved by efficiency targets, he maintained. According to him, an effective approach should start with institutional change. He advocated changes in corporate governance and land-use rights, giving workers a say in companies' doings and the land on which they work. Financial realities are not discounted in this view, but neither is the notion that corporations should rethink the way they operate.

However, for the most part, there remains a lot of daylight between the "economic" and "social" approaches to sustainability. As an economics student, I think this is unfortunate. Many people on both sides of the divide treat economics as value-free inquiry, either to elevate it as an "objective" approach above other disciplines or to denigrate it. This misconception is at the heart of the division, in my opinion - both sides would do well to recognize economics as one (valuable!) tool among many in designing a sustainable society.

In spite of these lingering divisions, one can take heart at the results of the roundtable - all participants agreed that stronger enforcement of sustainability rules was a priority. Even if differences in practice persist, the will for change is steadily building.