June, 18 2012, 03:39pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tricia O’Rourke, Oxfam on +55 21 6849 2371,
Bernadette Fischler, Beyond 2015 +44 7785 515 335 and
Rajiv Joshi, GCAP +1 917 545 6101.
Roberta Caldo + 55 21 6849.2369 or + 55 61 9297.7372 (Portuguese and English)
Rio 1992 Connected the Environment and Development. Rio+20 Looks Like Splitting Them Up
WASHINGTON
The Rio+20 Summit will fail if it agrees to current proposals, which risk worsening the divide between environment and development efforts, warned anti-poverty and environmental campaigners today.
Agreement on Sustainable Development Goals is expected to be one of the major outcomes from the UN Conference on Sustainable Development, which starts on Wednesday, 20 June in Rio de Janeiro.
The UN has already begun to deliberate on the post 2015 global development framework, starting with a review of lessons learnt from the existing Millennium Development Goals and options for after they expire in 2015. The current proposal on the table in Rio would effectively create a second process for global goals in the post-2015 period. A separate process focused on the environment will not provide the solution urgently needed to end poverty and inequality while protecting the planet, said international agency Oxfam and the international campaigns, Beyond 2015 and the Global Campaign against Poverty (GCAP).
"Ending poverty and protecting the environment are inextricably linked and cannot be addressed in isolation. The current proposals are a recipe for diluted commitment, duplicated effort, and dispersed focus," said Antonio Hill of Oxfam. "The world's poorest people, who still suffer a lack of quality healthcare and education, are also denied their fair share of water, land and clean air. Poor people will be the first to lose out if Rio+20 fails to aim for one set of goals for one planet. We need a single guiding framework whose purpose is to end poverty and restore the living world that sustains us all. "
The organizations believe that commitment in Rio to a single process that brings together the Sustainable Development Goals and the post-2015 development framework could represent a landmark agreement to eradicate poverty and ensure prosperity for all by sharing the Earth's limited resources. But the move could fail if this integration does not happen from the start.
"In the Philippines, the Millennium Development Goals are finally helping tackle poverty, but they aren't a true measure of sustainable development. The government priority is poverty reduction, but it heavily depends on environmentally-damaging mining to pay for it," said Nanette Antequisa, Executive Director of the Philippines NGO ECOWEB.
The groups also warn that the success of any future goals hinge on the progress made towards ending poverty through the Millennium Development Goals.
"Governments in Rio are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic while 1.4 billion people still live in poverty, in a daily struggle for food, water and energy. For these people environment and development are not separate choices. We need a race to deliver the existing Millennium Development goals, and a single framework to succeed them," said Rajiv Joshi from GCAP.
"Governments are squabbling to agree who will lead yet another international initiative the exact purpose of which remains undefined. The new set of goals must deliver positive change for the world's poorest people who don't classify the food, water, energy, and clean air they depend on as either poverty or environment issues - they just want to survive and live decent lives," said Bernadette Fischler from the Beyond 2015 campaign.
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
LATEST NEWS
Trump's Billionaire Education Secretary Makes 'Backroom Deal' to Shaft Low-Income Borrowers
Amid a cost-of-living crisis, millions of low-income borrowers may now be forced to spend several hundred more dollars a month paying for student loans.
Dec 09, 2025
As student debt exacerbates the financial struggles of millions of Americans, the Trump administration has taken a major step toward killing the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness program.
On Tuesday, the Department of Education announced that it had reached a settlement with the state of Missouri to end the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, which allowed more than 7 million mostly low-income Americans to reduce their federal student loan payments.
Rather than setting monthly payments based on income, the SAVE program bases them on how much borrowers earn and the size of their families, which is referred to as an income-driven repayment option, or IDR. SAVE cut most enrollees' monthly loan payments in half and left 4.5 million of them, mostly those earning between 150–225% of the federal poverty level, paying $0 per month.
In March 2024, a coalition of 11 states led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach sued in federal court to stop the SAVE plan. The next month a similar lawsuit was filed by another coalition of seven states led by Missouri's former attorney general, Andrew Bailey.
In February, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states, blocking 8 million borrowers from accessing lower payments under the program. Now President Donald Trump's administration which aggressively opposes student loan forgiveness, has agreed to settle the lawsuit, effectively killing SAVE.
“For four years, the Biden administration sought to unlawfully shift student loan debt onto American taxpayers, many of whom either never took out a loan to finance their postsecondary education or never even went to college themselves, simply for a political win to prop up a failing administration,” said Undersecretary of Education Nicholas Kent. "The Trump administration is righting this wrong and bringing an end to this deceptive scheme. The law is clear: if you take out a loan, you must pay it back."
The settlement also includes a provision requiring that, for the next 10 years, the Department of Education notify the state of Missouri at least 30 days in advance before instituting broad-based student debt relief.
As the Debt Collective, a membership-based debtors' union, explained in a post on social media: "30 days is enough notice that Missouri will find standing to sue for relief before it even happens. So not only is Trump gutting the SAVE plan, they're essentially putting a moratorium on cancellation for the next 10 years with this agreement."
"What Republicans admit is that the executive administration does have authority to cancel federally held student debt," the group added. "They just want to make it so that it will be administratively and practically impossible to deliver it because of this technicality. It's stealing in advance."
SAVE was already slated to end in 2028 following July's passage of Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which replaced it with a pair of less generous income-based repayment plans that require many debtors to pay hundreds more per month. The deadline to switch to one of the new plans will now move up, though the administration has not yet clarified when borrowers will have to switch.
The Debt Collective predicted that the end of SAVE "means many more debtors will likely be forced to default on their loans," which the group added "is bad for millions of families and our economy."
According to an analysis of federal student loan data from the American Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, more than 12 million borrowers in the US are already in default or otherwise behind on their student loan payments.
Since their introduction, former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness policies have been chipped away at bit by bit through litigation. In 2023, the conservative US Supreme Court struck down the administration's plans to forgive up to $20,000 in student loan debt for millions of Americans, ruling that the plan exceeded the administration's executive authority. A year later, it halted SAVE as well while it considered the merits of the Missouri lawsuit.
The group Protect Borrowers, which supports student loan forgiveness, argues that SAVE is "not a novel use of executive power," noting that Congress gave the Education Department the authority to create IDRs in 1993 and that several other programs have been created since.
"This settlement is pure capitulation—it goes much further than the suit or the 8th Circuit order requires," said Persis Yu, the group's deputy executive director and managing counsel. "The real story here is the unrelenting, right-wing push to jack up costs on working people with student debt.”
A September survey by Data For Progress found that student loans make it more difficult for many borrowers to keep up with other bills amid a growing cost-of-living crisis: 42% of respondents said their debt payments had a negative impact on their ability to pay for food or housing. More than a third, 37%, said it had a negative impact on their ability to cover healthcare costs for themselves or their dependents, while the majority, 52%, said it had a negative impact on their ability to save for retirement.
“While millions of student loan borrowers struggle amidst the worsening affordability crisis as the rising costs of groceries, utilities, and healthcare continue to bury families in debt," Yu said, "billionaire Education Secretary Linda McMahon chose to strike a backroom deal with a right-wing state attorney general and strip borrowers of the most affordable repayment plan that would help millions to stay on track with their loans while keeping a roof over their head."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Leads Call for Senate to Force RFK Jr. to Answer for 'War on Science'
"Failure to conduct an oversight hearing on Secretary Kennedy's actions would be an abdication of our responsibility—both from a moral perspective and as a matter of sound public health policy."
Dec 09, 2025
On the heels of a federal panel appointed by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voting to reverse a recommendation that newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine, Sen. Bernie Sanders led a Tuesday call for the HHS leader to be hauled before a relevant congressional committee to answer for his actions that "undermine the health and well-being of the American people and people throughout the world."
In a letter signed by Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and Sanders (I-Vt.), its ranking member, the lawmakers wrote to Republican Chair Bill Cassidy (La.), a medical doctor, to argue that "Kennedy has waged an unprecedented war on science and vaccines that have saved millions of lives," and demand his testimony.
The letter highlights Kennedy directing the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "to publish false information on its website suggesting that childhood vaccines cause autism," ousting a CDC director "who refused to rubber-stamp his dangerous and unsubstantiated" recommendations, spreading misinformation about the measles vaccine during an outbreak, and defunding research "that will leave us woefully unprepared for future pandemics and public health emergencies."
Kennedy has also "packed a critical scientific body, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), with vaccine deniers, completely upending the rigorous scientific process for reviewing and recommending vaccines to the public despite a commitment he made to you that ACIP would be 'maintained without changes,'" the letter continues, citing last week's hepatitis B vote.
"Mr. Chairman: Holding an oversight hearing on Secretary Kennedy’s ill-conceived actions is more important now than ever," argued Sanders and Democratic Sens. Angela Alsobrooks (Md.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (Del.), Maggie Hassan (NH), John Hickenlooper (Colo.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Andy Kim (NJ), Ed Markey (Mass.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), and Patty Murray (Wash.).
"Under Secretary Kennedy;s leadership, over 1,700 people have been infected with measles. Whooping cough cases are surging nationwide, and concerns about a severe flu season continue to grow. Vaccination rates across the country are falling. Children are dying from illnesses that vaccines could have prevented," the senators stressed.
"Secretary Kennedy's response to these crises has been to spread misinformation, end campaigns encouraging flu vaccinations, fire officials who disagree with him, and place individuals with significant conflicts of interest in positions of power—completely undermining Americans' faith in our nation's public health institutions," they wrote.
The senators pointed out that "dozens of scientific and medical groups" have called for Kennedy's resignation or removal, as have more than 1,000 current and former HHS staffers. They also noted a September warning from nine former CDC directors that the secretary "is endangering every American's health," a similar joint statement the following month by ex-surgeons general, and another this month from a dozen previous Food and Drug Administration commissioners.
The letter also references Cassidy's comments about ACIP, the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and Kennedy's supposed commitment during the confirmation process to come before the HELP Committee on a quarterly basis, which hasn't happened.
"Failure to conduct an oversight hearing on Secretary Kennedy's actions would be an abdication of our responsibility—both from a moral perspective and as a matter of sound public health policy," the letter argues, calling for his testimony as soon as possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Clear Breach': Watchdog Hits FIFA With Ethics Complaint Over Made-Up Trump 'Peace Prize'
Multiple rights organizations have slammed FIFA for giving Trump a "peace prize" given what they describe as his "appalling" human rights record.
Dec 09, 2025
International soccer organization FIFA has now been hit with an ethics complaint over its widely criticized decision to award President Donald Trump its first-ever "FIFA Peace Prize" last week.
The Athletic reported on Monday that FairSquare, a watchdog organization that monitors human rights abuses in the sporting world, filed an eight-page complaint with FIFA’s Ethics Committee alleging that FIFA president Gianni Infantino has repeatedly violated the organization's own code of ethics, which states that "all persons bound by the code remain politically neutral... in dealings with government institutions."
The complaint then documents multiple cases in which Infantino allegedly broke the political neutrality pledge, including his public lobbying for Trump to receive a Nobel Peace Prize; a November interview at the America Business Forum in which Infantino called Trump "a really close friend," and hit back at criticisms that the president had embraced authoritarianism; and Infantino's decision to award Trump with a made-up "peace prize" after failing to help him secure a more prestigious version.
FairSquare zeroed in on Infantino's remarks during the 2026 World Cup draw last week in which he told Trump that "you definitely deserve the first FIFA Peace Prize for your action for what you have obtained in your way, but you obtained it in an incredible way, and you can always count, Mr. President, on my support."
The organization remarked that "any reasonable interpretation of Mr. Infantino’s comments would conclude that he a) encouraged people to support the political agenda of President Trump, and b) expressed his personal approval of President Trump’s political agenda." This was a particularly egregious violation, FairSquare added, because Infantino was "appearing at a public event in his role as FIFA president."
Even without Infantino's gushing remarks about Trump, FairSquare said that "the award of a prize of this nature to a sitting political leader is in and of itself a clear breach of FIFA’s duty of neutrality."
FairSquare isn't the only organization to criticize Trump receiving a "peace prize" from the official governing body behind the World Cup.
Human Rights Watch was quick to blast FIFA last week for giving Trump any sort of peace prize given what it described as the administration’s “appalling” human rights record.
Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the ACLU, also said that Trump was undeserving of the award, and he noted the administration “has aggressively pursued a systematic anti-human rights campaign to target, detain, and disappear immigrants in communities across the US—including the deployment of the National Guard in cities where the World Cup will take place.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


