12 responses to “HAVE YOUR SAY: Do rich countries have a duty to help climate refugees?”

1. Peter Kessler says:
   19 Jun 2008 13:15:55 GMT

   On the basis of past experience, it seems likely that climate change and natural disasters will lead to new and larger situations of internal displacement, rather than cross-border movements of people. As states have primary responsibility for their citizens, national and local authorities have an especially important role to play in responding to such emergencies.

   In situations where climate change and natural disaster lead to cross-border population movements, various mechanisms will be required to ensure that the human rights and humanitarian needs of affected populations are addressed. If refugee status is deemed inapplicable (as may be the case in most instances), temporary stay or humanitarian residence arrangements may be an appropriate response. Specific measures to prevent and reduce statelessness may also be required.

2. Roger Zetter, Director & Leopold Muller Reader Refugee Studies Centre Department of International Development (QEH) University of Oxford says:
   19 Jun 2008 13:44:45 GMT

   One challenge is that much of the protection apparatus of international refugee law rests on the principle that those who are forcibly displaced are subject to violations of basic human rights. Can we say this is the case with those displaced by degrading eco-systems and extreme weather events?

   Another challenge is that much of the protection machinery assumes people will go ‘home’ after the conflict or flood. But those who are environmentally displaced will not go home, notably those who will become stateless when their island states are submerged. So what kind of protection are we talking about for permanent migrants?
   It’s also worth pointing out that debates on protecting the displaced privilege the interests of those forced to migrate over the equally important rights of those who remain, by choice or because they cannot migrate – too old, too young, no skills. But we also need to protect those who ‘stay behind’ and want support for strategies of adaptation rather than migration.
   Finally, we tend to think of environmentally induced migration as a reactive response of last resort. But migration is sometimes a positive, proactive strategy that people adopt to improve their lives and reduce their vulnerability. So we need to conceive of protection from this perspective too.

3. Isabel Baumann says:
   19 Jun 2008 18:08:16 GMT

   Yes, I think so. Although the responsability of any climate catastrophe is not (clearly) assignable I think the industrial countries should care for climate refugees. I think it's not the best solution that most climate refugees should be displaced to the United States because they produce most of CO2 emissions. But the countries could pay an amount that is proportial to their CO2 emissons into a fund. From this fund humanitarian aid for victims of climate catastrophes could be supported.

4. Chad Coleman, Islands First says:
   19 Jun 2008 18:08:38 GMT

   In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf. - Article 24 of the United Nations Charter

   It is no secret that wealthy nations dominate the world stage and set the international policy agenda. Although the United Nations is largely governed by the principle of one country, one vote, the most powerful nations typically draft, negotiate, and influence the environmental treaties that will determine the earth’s future. These nations, which are responsible for most of our global environmental problems in the first place, are also, by virtue of their deep pockets, the most able to adapt to the long-term effects of environmental decline.
   On the other hand, small island states are the most vulnerable, the least able to adapt, and the least responsible for these problems, yet systemic obstacles that have thus far prevented them from becoming a sustained political force for policy change. The small island states stand at the front lines of the current environmental crisis. The people who live in these countries have been, and will continue to be, the first to suffer the negative consequences of climate change and industrial fishing practices, even though they have done the least to contribute to the problems.
   If responsibility is not assigned and rapid remedial action is not taken, the livelihoods and potentially the very existence of these small island states will remain in doubt. And if there was ever a test of the efficacy of our grandest global institution, this is it.

5. Maggie Schoch says:
   20 Jun 2008 09:18:39 GMT

   We know that the effects of climate change will make it more difficult for farmers in developing countries in the coming years, negatively affecting food supplies. Rather than speaking about the carbon-producing countries taking in refugees, why not focus on helping them with the agricultural problems they face? Those people probably do not want to leave their homelands; they want to stay and be able to feed themselves and make a good life for their children. Farmers in the developed countries are dealing with climate change too. Lessons they learn should be transferred to developing countries quickly.

6. Roman A. Melnyk says:
   20 Jun 2008 12:35:47 GMT

   There is no doubt that the emergence of climate-change refugees will be an inevitable consequence of global warming in this century. The international community needs to urgently address these issues and develop strategies before the full impact of this impending crisis shocks the world: the U.N., Security Council, with the full support of G-8 nations. International corporate and private business interests much also be integrated into this response formula.

   There appears to be a growing need for an international body to focus on bringing workable response models and agreements before the needs of climate-change refugees overtakes our ability to think-through and agree upon coordinated action. Climate-change migration in this century will occur with or without us. Without workable and anticipatory response models in place, millions will be arriving on North American and European shores, without our consent, putting into motion unpredicable social and economic pressures on western economies. As the current UNHCR is already overburdened, the need for the creation of a new agency dealing with these new class of refugees - the UNHCCR - UN High Commissioner for Climate Change Refugees, or some form of such an agency, may have arrived.

7. Elce Redmond says:
   20 Jun 2008 13:42:30 GMT

   If communities around the world are being threatened with climate-change displacement. This is an issue that must be addressed by the world community. But legally those countries should be able to sue multi-national corporations who are pretty much responsible for our environmental destruction.

8. Mercey says:
   21 Jun 2008 11:00:30 GMT

   If the USA can use the natural resources of other countries for their own self interested uses rather than sharing the earth's resources with others who do not have just basic living standards such as water, electric, gas, power, cars, and the like, then certainly they should willingly take in any and all.

   It's absurd that US citizens, of which I am one, think it is okay to plunder the earth for ourselves while others live in deplorable living standards.
   I am not proud to be an American, I am grateful that I was born here.
   It would be a proud day in American if America cleaned up the messes they have made across the globe and restituted the world's citizens for it's irresponsiblity of polluting in others backyards, and using their resources, for its gain.

9. Ian McDowell says:
   21 Jun 2008 11:01:41 GMT

   Of course rich countries are responsible and have a duty for helping these refugees. It is their greed that excessive greenhouse emissions that caused rapid climate change in the first place. However it is all rather a mute point. As time moves forward and more and more land disappears or becomes unusable, more and more people are going to be without a place to live and grow food.

   Rich countries are just like poor countries in this respect. The effects of rising sea levels and the increased risk of severe flooding and draughts, high winds and tide surges is likely to result in an exodus of migration over a relatively short period of time.
   This is going to be a huge problem for world governments. Does anyown have any new brainstorming solutions?

10. Faria S. says:
    23 Jun 2008 11:48:31 GMT

    Climate change will impact all of us - eventually. Unfortunately the first and possibly most effected are the least responsible for carbon emmissions and general climatic degradation.

    Nations must move out of the 'countries and borders' mind set. Climat change knows no boundaries and it is time that the world take care of its own.
    Rich countries may be have the greatest carbon footprint but this is not why they must take responsibility. They must aid developing states simply because, it has to be done.

11. uhegwu uchechukwu christopher says:
    24 Jun 2008 17:00:33 GMT

    MY humble submission is that the less impoverised countries of the developing countries donot yet have the werewithal to combat climate change . With hunger and starvation starring on our face daily , we are but helpless. Combating climate change is rather capital expensive . All the developing countries can do is to embark on aggressive campaign on afforesstation, and that is the GOSPEL yours sincerely is preaching to my community

12. Tom says:
    10 Mar 2009 14:47:38 GMT

    i think we should help because we shouldnt just leave them. they need a safe place to live not in fear of their safety.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Enter the code shown on on the left *