The United States’ Unique Situations with Education, Loans, and Rio +20

By Bogdan Zymka

In the United States, there seems to be some hope of economic recovery looming as unemployment slowly falls and the election cycle brings about at least some sort of national discussion about critical issues. However, Rio is still far from making headlines in mainstream media in the United States and by the time it makes it there, it might be too late to discuss the elephant the U.S have been dragging around with them for too long: Student loan debt.

Since 1999, student debt in the United States has risen by 511 percent. Now out-grossing credit card debt, which totals $793 billion of which 12.2 percent is overdue, the Department of Education estimates that there is $1 trillion in outstanding student debt, 11.2 percent of which is 90+ days passed due. 610 billion of this is in low-interest government loans while the other 490 billion come from the private sector, full of fluctuating interest rates and sections of fine print that would rival Moby Dick. It doesn’t get any more promising. While the average student debt graduating from college was $24,000 in 2010, only 56 percent of graduates in that same year could hope to find jobs after they finished their education, resulting in a 14.6 percent unemployment rate for graduates between the age of 20 and 24 while the current national unemployment rate sits at 8.3 percent.

The U.S is going to have to seriously start looking at its education system, how it is financed and how it is valued, and this might mean taking cues from the international community.  The government manages a majority of student loans in the U.S, making the issue particularly important because student loans can’t be absolved through bankruptcy; they are there forever, slowly picking away at borrower’s wages. Students are getting more and more skeptical of pouring thousands of dollars into their education only to step out into a market that isn’t accommodating. The education system in the U.S needs to change, and fast. There are two critical areas that need to change:

One: The U.S Education system needs to change the way it looks at students. Largely conceived during the turn of the century, during which the United States became an industrial powerhouse filled with factories constantly needing workers who could adapt to the times, the system is obsolete. Kids are seen as empty slates with no inherent qualities that can be built upon and are taught in batches, all filled with the same generic field of knowledge and then thrown out into a world where they have to pay obscene amounts of money to receive a specialization. By the time they are out on the job market, they are diluted and disillusioned. This needs to change. The education system must build on the inherent qualities of a child so that growth is not stunted and we eventually end up with a highly specialized workforce that actually wants to do the job they are hired for.

Two: The U.S needs to change the way education is valued and paid for. Student loan debt keeps rising as more and more kids are convinced that a college degree is the ticket to job security. While average national unemployment slowly begins to decline, youth unemployment keeps rising. This is creating a climate that feeds into the over-stimulated generational malaise that college-bound youth thrive off of to voice their frustrations. If more and more jobless college grads pile into the political sphere, student debt volatility coupled with political frustrations are going to incite some Greek style revolutionary action – Greece’s youth unemployment rate was 51.5 percent before the economic meltdown.

The U.S is going to have to address this issue somehow and it’s surprising that they haven’t proposed any stronger language in the sections on Education in the Rio draft documents. Education is where the United States really has the potential to falter as their global position of power starts to decline to make room for the emerging economies of China and India.

So far, the Informal-Informal negotiations aren’t anywhere near starting to negotiate the bodies of texts dealing with the thematic groups of education and finance but it is worrying to only see any real progressive hope of educational reform coming from G77 while the United States makes its usual effort to dilute the document into a muddled pinky-promise, which is a problem. The United States is going to have to learn to keep its students happy, or else movements like Occupy will have more leverage than ever to upturn the status quo and topple the Boomer implemented educational disaster. Without college kids going to work, who’s going to pay for their pension checks when they retire?

The Future We Really Want

Over the course of our winter term, the Global Politics of Sustainable Development class at COA prepared for the Rio+20 Conference in June. As a final product of the course, the Rio class looked at the Zero-Order Draft, decided it was not the future we wanted, and set out to write a document that outlined what we actually wanted our future to look like. After weeks of research and negotiations within the class, we finally (mostly) agreed on the final draft that covered most, though not all, of the topics and problems we wanted addressed.

Read on, and let us know what you think of the future we want! Is it what you want? What should we all really be striving for in Rio de Janeiro this June? Read more…

A Thought:

By Robin Owings

How much water (among other resources) did it take to print the millions of flyers strewn through the WWF halls?

I wish we had photo-documented this area of flyer stands throughout the week. They started out empty, then began to overfow mid-week (when this photo was taken). Try imagining the way the hallway looked at the end of the forum.

The photo shows only 3 of roughly 30 stands in the hallway. Bear in mind that this is only one hallway. Each booth at the forum will have leftover paper pamphlets, booklets, print-outs, and informational sheets… Thousands of forum schedules, schedule changes and maps will be useless after the weekend.

Maybe they should have asked the folks from Water Footprint to do a materials analysis of  the conference itself… www.waterfootprint.org/

 

 

 

An Additional Youth Statement on Water

An Additional Youth Statement on Water
March 16, 2012

Youth are the future decision makers of the world. We must be forward thinkers because we will inherit a planet shaped by the actions of today. We are innovative by nature, and we call upon those involved in water issues to listen to and engage with our perspective. We are youth, but we do not speak for all youth, and we issue this document within the Alternative Water Forum to expand upon the youth voice presented at the 6th World Water Forum (WWF). This additional vision demonstrates that there exist myriad perspectives. Given that the WWF text will be incorporated into the Rio¬+20 process, we are compelled to share our voices with the world.

Water is essential to all life, and as such cannot be allocated through market mechanisms. There is a human right to water and sanitation, as declared by the United Nations General Assembly . Water should not be classified as an economic good or used as a political tool, rather it is a public resource, a common good.

Water is simultaneously relevant on global, local, and regional levels with environmental, social, and political implications. Our management strategies need to reflect this complexity in several ways:

1. We need to engage all manner of communities and knowledge bases in management decisions. As humans, we have a right to education. This education can manifest in a variety of ways, including formal education and learning through living. This variety of experiences must be acknowledged and valued in the management of water.
2. We need to acknowledge the social and political aspects of water by cultivating a respect for water as a human right.
3. We need to acknowledge both the place-based and environmental aspects of water through basin-level, as opposed to nation-level, management.
4. Water is the foundation for life: the management decisions we make must accentuate this natural infrastructure rather than detract from it.

In these ways, we can ensure that decisions respect the rights of all peoples as well as the needs of the environment.

We propose recapturing the sense of the word “Forum” as a place to discuss, debate and act together. We maintain that these fundamental connotations are not fully represented in the structure of the WWF.

The WWF is closed – through its price and its structure. The cost of admission is prohibitive even for many immersed in the world of water, and certainly for those most adversely affected by mismanagement or scarcity. Youth now participate thanks to pressure for our inclusion; it seems appropriate, then, that we call for the inclusion of all those currently under-represented at the forum, including non-professionals, non-academics and impacted peoples.

The WWF, composed of panels, suits, hierarchy and speeches, has become a place to present rather than discuss. The private nature of the forum privileges certain voices to speak first and loudest, and thus controls the content and direction of discourse. We’ve heard the repeated desire of participants in the forum for a place to share — the sense that the solutions are there and can be discovered through communication. The existence of the Alternative Water Forum is proof of this discontent, although this venue still does not provide a non-partisan space for all.

An appropriate environment to discuss water must be more inclusive. Rather than undermine UN language, it must strengthen our commitment to the Human Right to water and sanitation. The forum would be transparent and open to all people and civil movements around the globe.

We call upon governments, organizations, communities, and individuals – all humans of the world…

…To respect the human right to water and sanitation as distinct from other human rights
obligations.
…To recognize water as a common resource rather than an economic good, and not to use
it as a political tool.
…To engage in management based on water basins instead of political boundaries.
…To open the negotiation process to all stakeholders – corporate, public, and civic –
through compassionate and honest dialogue.

In order to find new solutions we must find new ways of discussing water.

[Earth] – Earthinbrackets.org
Janoah Bailin
Barbara Beblowski
Lisa Bjerke
Rachel Briggs
Robin Owings