Do climate refugees really exist?
All in all, it makes for a compelling read, and I recommend you check it out. But what I found most interesting was the presumption that the western world lives in fear of mass migrations from developing nations due to inhospitable climate conditions. The term “climate refugee’ has been repeatedly contested in UN negotiations for the upcoming Copenhagen summit, largely because “refugee” invokes legalese pertaining to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, in which Article 1 states:
“A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it..”
As such, if “climate refugees” were to in fact exists, they would be entitled to certain rights and protection. Tacoli seems to suggest that fear by western nations of the financial burden of supporting these refugees is bogging down the business of poverty alleviation and development. Instead she proposes rich nations assist with financial support to help developing nations adapt to climate change, thereby reducing the need for migration.
Cash transfers are ok, but money won’t make the crops grow if the rain doesn’t come. It’s true, a term like “climate refugee” could have legal consequences, but if such refugees truly do exist, shouldn’t they be entitled to legal protection? Financial assistance helps, but if the IPCCC predictions prove true, no amount of cash transfer will prevent a devastating impact.
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Thanks for that link. I agree with you, though — it seems to me that once arable land has turned into desert, the only place that people can go is “away”. What seems most likely (and as she has basically illustrated in the article) is that migrants will move only as far as they need to go to make a decent living – inasmuch as they can afford it. At the very least that will probably mean a varying amounts of of cross-border travel between adjacent countries, which will certainly create strain. One need only look at the racial tension in South Africa over the immigrants from neighbouring countries.
It is a little silly that people are freaking out over semantics, though. The term “climate refugee” obviously doesn’t have the same meaning as a refugee from an oppressive regime – it’s merely an expression of best-fit. All this question really shows is we need to develop a legal framework for dealing with people who have been forced away from their homes by changing weather patterns. After all, climate is not a willfully oppressive force – though its effects can be far more intense than any authoritarian government could ever dream.
Bleah, I dunno. Whatever winds up happening, the West had better pay for most of it, given that climate change is our fault. Fat chance of that, though.
Also: I just found this article from the Guardian which is relevant:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/29/sea-levels-ghost-states