What I want to discuss today is the topic of "climate refugees"--those displaced by climate change. Experts have warned that climate change could cause the largest refugee crisis in human history, and it's been estimated that 200 million people could be displaced by 2050. The movement will be unpredictable--many people will migrate temporarily and internally as storms and floods inundate their homes, but many people will have to relocate permanently and internationally--notably, Pacific Islanders whose countries are actually at risk of disappearing due to sea level rise. 42-50 small island states could disappear within the coming years! But this is not just a future problem--already, islanders are suffering from cyclones, droughts, and floods. Obviously, this is an urgent issue that calls for action from political leaders.
But what kind of action? This depends on the way we frame the issue. In my political science class, we recently discussed McNamara & Gibson's article, "We do not want to leave our land," in which the authors talk about Pacific ambassadors' resistance to the term "climate refugees". It turns out that many islanders actually don't like the term because it makes them appear helpless in the eyes of the world, when really, they are taking amazing steps to prevent climate change. They also think that the term takes responsibility away from developed countries to actually reduce emissions and prevent climate change, because the developed countries can just focus on accepting migrants instead. They are unwilling to accept displacement as their new reality and want developed countries to take action now.
So, what do you think?
- Does the term "climate refugees" do more harm than good when it comes to supporting those at risk of displacement due to climate change?
- Does focusing on climate change migration take away from efforts to prevent climate change?
Let's discuss--comment with your ideas and opinions!