Climate change is a hot topic these days! Just this week, UW's Everyday Radicals organized the university's first-ever mp3 flash mob to raise awareness about climate change, and 350.org announced their next big day of action. And it found its way into all of my class discussions, whether the topic was incorporating environmental considerations into business practices, planning for tomorrow's cities, or providing clean drinking water for the world. I once heard someone describe the climate as the rug underneath development, because all development activities are built on the underlying assumption of the climate's stability. Pulling out the rug will change everything. 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!
It is a critical issue to assess. Many are concerned about the fate of China's water supply. Major aquifers in the interior are being depleted resulting in both food and water shortages. India is concerned that their water systems will be drained by China's growing thirst and migration to the north. What happens when they are all lacking water? Where will they go? Will the process be peaceful or will desperate measures lead to global security risks for these nuclear nations?
ReplyDeleteAll true, and it's been said that "upheaval is the enemy of security." In terms of the conflicts that displacement could create, what would happen if migrants wanted to carve out new states for themselves, like Israel?
ReplyDeleteThere are certainly many security risks. But again, the framing of the issue is important. Framing it as a human security issue puts the focus on human needs and solutions. Framing it as a national security issue could militarize the issue or turn it into a zero-sum (win/lose) game. What we need is cooperation - from the grassroots to the government, and certainly among states!
While I think the term is unfortunately detached from a context or understanding of climate change causes, the term “climate refugees” does emphasize the fact that people are fleeing their lands because of some sort of climate disaster and need help. In Chad, where my parents live, this is a reality as evaporation and desertification due to climate change have helped the once mighty Lake Chad become a mere 3000 square km’s (it was 25000 square km in 1960 http://www.unhcr.org/4b27b7039.html). Many people struggle for water on a daily basis and are forced to move as their lands dry up.
ReplyDeleteI think the term ‘refugee’ suggests that there are people who are suffering in the world, dislocated. In this sense it begs us to help them from a humanitarian perspective. Maybe it is in helping from a humanitarian perspective that we begin to ask how they became refugee’s in the first place? Maybe the motivation provided by stories of refugee’s who are beginning to infiltrate already occupied lands will cause us to re-evaluate our energy practices. Then again, maybe it will cause us to defend our land and treat refugees as second class citizens, ‘the unlucky ones who were born without privilege who have no right to take ours’. The development of empathy is crucial here. Empathy with a twist of introspection and a willingness to imagine something different. Maybe books like “Climate Refugees” will do the trick? http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=12060
on a side note... Often, when looking at climate issues from a refugee perspective I find myself stuck with a biting problem. Much of our current first world aid that helps save the lives of refugees in the moment requires us to invest in the energy system that caused them to be in jeopardy in the first place. Often, this problem feels, somewhat simplistically, like a choice between continuing to consume unhealthy levels of oil and increase the rate of climate change to save current refugees and in so doing create more refugees down the line, or, ignoring the plight of refugees (which would likely result in many deaths) in order to spend our energies at home solving the causes of their plight so that we don’t go about creating more refugees in the future. Is this a false dichotomy I wonder? Can we change our consumption practices without a short term drop in aid? Can we look outward and inward at the same time? Should we?
Thanks for your thoughtful comment, Josh! I'm glad you brought up the point that the term "climate refugees" emphasizes that people are displaced due to climate change. Interestingly enough, some scholars caution against using the term for exactly that reason! They explain that migration is always multi-causal, and that the term implies that there is only one cause for the movement. But I agree with you that it is important to emphasize the climate change factor. It's just important to recognize that climate change is a "threat multiplier"--it pushes already stressed people/states over the brink, and is intertwined with economic and social issues.
DeleteI'm not sure that I completely understand your dilemma. What do you mean when you say that saving the lives of refugees requires us to invest in the current energy system?
I think we can also look at this in the context of Harper's new refugee bill, Bill C-31. This bill would allow the government to, among other things, designate countries as "safe." As the term "climate refugee" becomes more and more commonplace, could this discourage the government from labelling such countries as safe?
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing in the changes in Canadian immigration policy, Joel! I didn't know much about the Designated (Safe) Countries of Origin List, so I read up on it here: http://ccrweb.ca/en/protect-refugees-c31-statement.
DeleteI tried to find the actual safe countries list, because I was curious to see if it contradicted the list of countries at high-risk of climate change impacts, but it doesn't exist yet. However, I did find the criteria that would be used to designate countries:
"Designated countries of origin will include countries that do not normally produce refugees, that have a robust human rights record and offer strong state protection. States with strong democratic, judicial and accountability systems are likely to provide the necessary protection to their citizens" (http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/reform-safe.asp).
I would hope that if a country BECOMES a producer of refugees due to climate change, it would get taken off the list.
Impacts on people have always been what has engaged me most about climate change.
ReplyDeleteThe term "climate refugees": It's a hugely buzzing word because it kind of slaps you across the face with the "human impact" piece. The word "refugee" itself is pretty loaded - and that helps us to realize seriousness of what will be happening to these people.
I can see how the term "climate refugee" can then have a negative connatation then. As Joshua expressed, it has a lot to do with our often discriminatory attitude towards and treatment of "refugees." But for all refugees of war, climate, and any other struggle, we should treat them with respect for their stories and try to join them in defying whatever it is they are fleeing from.
At the same time we defy climate change, however, I do think climate change migration has to be facilitated to some extent. Not as a global solution, but as necessary in areas where, unfortunately, climate change is going to make the land much much less livable.
Humans have a long history of making a home in places that do not necessarily make sense ecologically (but for many other reasons). I'm thinking of an example slightly more local than the Pacific Islands...Canada's prairie provinces. We talked in my water governance class about how these provinces provide a bulk of our wheat and other crops, but contain some of the driest areas of the country. Who decided to do agriculture there? It has more to do with efforts to "Settle the West!" and the building of the Canadian Pacific Railroad intending to "Claim the Land before the Americans do!". Political decisionsn in the past that have forced us today to do a lot of water diversion engineering.
I'm aware that many of these places that will be really impacted by climate change were certainly not always inhospitable places, and I'm also aware that the deteriorating of their land is certainly not due their their efforts alone. The point here is that humans are great at settling down and bending the rest of the ecosystem around us to meet our needs. But maybe we need to learn to be a little more adaptable to changes happening around us.
That doesn't just mean the Pacific Islanders should pick up and move - that means we all need to making lifestyle changes now.
I agree, Rachael! We must act now to prevent further climate change AND work to facilitate climate change migration, because the reality is that it's already happening, and even if we capped emissions now, there would still be further warming.
DeleteAnd it's a really interesting point you bring up about our sometimes poor choice of location. Unfortunately, it's often the poor who get the last pick of land (New Orleans anyone?). So helping them adapt to climate change will be very important in the coming years. Unfortunately, a lot of aid for climate change adaptation comes out of existing aid--it's just re-named and the government gets to look like it's doing something. The Islanders need additional money for adaptation, and more than that, they need us to reduce our emissions dramatically.
One of the most important things in my opinion is to listen to those who are suffering from the changes that are causing their potential displacement and current difficulties. We are often under the false impression that "refugees" want to leave, to come to a "better" western country...but the reality is people do not want to leave their homes. So I think the best thing is to work with them to keep their homes liveable, and listen to them to figure out how to do that and what language to use in the process.
ReplyDeleteGreat point, Sara! Why do we assume that everyone wants to move here? I think that that arrogant belief is at the root of a lot of suspicion toward refugees, whether documented or undocumented. The current emphasis on the "backlog" of applications and the need to "weed out" the false ones gives people the impression that most refugees are trying to take advantage of the system to move to Canada. Not true! I agree, we owe it to them to help them stay in their home countries.
Delete