Email 
Print 
What do we do about climate change migrants?
Written by: Emma Batha
If you are forced to flee abroad because of war you will be recognised as a refugee under international law. But what happens if you're forced to move because your village disappears under rising sea levels caused by global warming? Does the world have a duty to help? Should there be an onus on countries with the largest carbon footprints to take in the people rendered homeless by climate change? Some experts predict as many as 250 million people could be uprooted from their homes by 2050 due to the effects of climate change, including desertification and flooding. Although they have been dubbed "environmental refugees" this is a misnomer. A refugee is someone who has fled violence or persecution and they have a right to protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention. Environmental migrants have no international recognition or right to protection. But a handful of academics, politicians and non-governmental organisations are beginning to ask if they should. Countries that bear the greatest responsibility for creating climate change also have a responsibility to deal with the casualties, says Jean Lambert, a Member of the European Parliament with a keen interest in migration and climate change. At first glance you might think the solution is to widen the definition of a refugee in the 1951 convention to include environmental migrants. But this is widely opposed. Critics say it would lead to the erosion of asylum seekers' rights and play into the hands of those politicians who want to build higher, more impenetrable borders. "We certainly do not touch the Refugee Convention. The minute you opened that you would unravel everything ... you would see a loss of protection that's currently there," Lambert says. The convention was drawn up in the aftermath of the Second World War to ensure sanctuary for individuals who had been forced to flee their country for fear of violence or persecution but might one day return if conditions changed. With environmental migration the world will be dealing with large groups of people who may never be able to return home because their land is under water or no longer inhabitable. The world needs to look at ways of creating resettlement programmes and opportunities, Lambert says, rather than focussing on conventional refugee protection. WHO PAYS? Lambert was speaking on the sidelines of a conference this week on climate change and forced migration. What became increasingly clear from listening to all the speakers, both environmentalists and refugee experts, is that little progress has been made towards resolving the issue and no one is taking responsibility for it. On the plus side, the International Organization of Migration announced the launch of an Environmental and Migration Alliance which will carry out research and conduct practical pilot projects looking at how to retrain and resettle people who have lost their land and livelihoods. The initiative is being launched with the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP), the U.N. University's Institute for Environment and Human Security and the Munich Re Foundation. One idea they will probably look into is circular migration schemes where environmental migrants could work and retrain in other countries before returning to their own. In Australia, a Green senator is championing a scheme for issuing climate refugee visas in cases where an environmental disaster was the result of climate change, for example salt water inundation of Pacific islands. But who should pay for resettlement? Here's a thought: If a country is responsible for producing 20 percent of the world's carbon emissions, should it then take 20 percent of the people displaced by global warming? Picking up the bill in such a direct way might force countries to think harder about ways to reduce their carbon footprint. Let us know what you think.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
6 responses to “What do we do about climate change migrants?”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
Unlike some other content on this website, the written content in this article may be republished or redistributed by any means free of charge. Any use of photographs and graphics on this website is expressly prohibited. You must check whether written content contained in other articles on this website may be republished or redistributed without the express permission of Reuters or the relevant third party provider.
06 May 2008 08:52:19 GMT
Unbeknownst to most of the world, the threat of becoming "climate change migrants" is one being faced by entire nations. Mitigation, not adaptation, is their call to avoid seeing their homelands, livelihoods and cultures destroyed.
The "countries that bear the greatest responsibility" would do well to support the efforts by these small island states to reverse dangerous anthropogenic climate change while we still have a chance, rather than consider who might foot the bill in the aftermath.06 May 2008 08:55:06 GMT
Hello,
I completely agree that countries that have a large carbon footprint should open a new visa category for allowing climate change migrants to enter and stay permanently. In particular, I am concerned about Bangladesh where half the number of the American population reside in a country the size of Wisconsin. Bangladesh only contributes 0.02 % of global green houses gas and yet the USA is responsible for almost a quarter. I strongly recommend an arrangement where the US and Australia accepts climate driven immigrants from Bangladesh in.06 May 2008 09:15:21 GMT
"if we have a reason to live then we no purpose to leave life". a helping hand is very important when it comes for a better change...
07 May 2008 11:01:01 GMT
I want to question the premise: that there ARE any such thing as "climate refugees." Of course in a small minority of cases of some small islands, that term may apply. But in the vast majority of cases, people live in exposed coastal areas, river deltas, etc. for a variety of complex reasons. To be sure the rich in luxury beach condos will relocate locally.
In other words, while I welcome compassionate and humanitarian consideration of international migrants (whatever their motivations), I see the situation as far more complex. The decision to move internationally is one that people do not take easily. If jobs and live changes with dignity exist in their home countries for themselves and their children, people seldom move internationally. In most cases changes in governance and in the structure of power in the national economy will be enough to provide formerly marginal people the change to re-locate locally away from dangerous flood plains and coasts and to find work. PRESSURE for such changes and support for civil society and labor organizations demanding such changes should be a priority of the EU Parliament, UNDP, Munich Re, and the UN University, not just uncritical acceptance of the "climate refugee" as a immutable fact.09 May 2008 17:24:01 GMT
I want to question the premise: that there ARE any such thing as "climate refugees." Of course in a small minority of cases of some small islands, that term may apply. But in the vast majority of cases, people live in exposed coastal areas, river deltas, etc. for a variety of complex reasons. To be sure the rich in luxury beach condos will relocate locally.
In other words, while I welcome compassionate and humanitarian consideration of international migrants (whatever their motivations), I see the situation as far more complex. The decision to move internationally is one that people do not take easily. If jobs and live changes with dignity exist in their home countries for themselves and their children, people seldom move internationally. In most cases changes in governance and in the structure of power in the national economy will be enough to provide formerly marginal people the change to re-locate locally away from dangerous flood plains and coasts and to find work. PRESSURE for such changes and support for civil society and labor organizations demanding such changes should be a priority of the EU Parliament, UNDP, Munich Re, and the UN University, not just uncritical acceptance of the "climate refugee" as a immutable fact. BEN WISNER bwisner@igc.org10 May 2008 10:50:14 GMT
Should I pay If a country has one billion people or if they sell opium.