By Jon Hammond
A recent article in FIELD (Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development) has raised concern regarding international law and the future migratory-displacement of populations as a result of climate change.
http://www.field.org.uk/media/media-release-climate-exiles
Though there is some debate about the causes of climate change, it has become clear that the international community needs to be prepared for the possibility that some small islands and low-lying areas will be underwater sometime during the next century, potentially displacing more than 600 million people. The resulting migratory panic will be disastrous without international assistance. Currently, there is no international framework in place to mitigate this.
Migration necessitates the use of financial resources and community networks in destination countries, which are typically inaccessible to poorer populations. Without international assistance, smuggling networks are often times the only option available to people, forcing them into vulnerable positions that can be manipulated by a lawless authority. The international community needs to institute a system that provides protection and assistance to climate change refugees.
TPS (Temporary Protection Status) is given to populations affected by natural disasters. However, climate change will bring about more subtle and gradual changes that are expected to lead to more permanent displacement than natural disasters. The international definition of ‘refugee’ is premised on the notion of persecution, but does not take into account climate change. Under current international law, climate change refugees receive little to no protection because environmental degradation is not considered a form of persecution- though, perhaps it should be.
The climate will undergo a number of changes in the next hundred years that have the power to be incredibly devastating. Some of these changes include increased desertification, soil erosion, deforestation, rising sea levels, and water salinization. Migration will be one of the most common methods of adaptation that will rapidly exacerbate the situation, unless it is addressed and planned for right now.
See also:
Free PDF- Migration (magazine), Autumn 2009 http://publications.iom.int/bookstore/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=40&products_id=530
29 comments:
I believe that Early action is the key to solving this problem. First and Foremost, internationally this is a major reason why we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. we also must change the international definition of refugee to include climate change victims.
This is an interesting topic. Who is going to step up and accept these people into their country when the time comes?
An interesting way to determine where the refugees who evacuate their countries because of increased sea level should go is to make the highest polluting countries accept the most people. The only fair way would to be to use the percentage of polluting of a country to determine how many people should be let in. This would make the US have to let in millions of people.
We just talked about this in my natrual resource economics class, a lot of Bangledash's population is near the sea and will have to migrate inland which is going to put a constraint on their farmland as agriculture space is converted to residentail. An intertesting place to look as a future overpopulated city is Lagos Nigeria
The highest polluting countries taking the most refugees makes sense to me for sure, but at the same time the U.S. and other countries may not be the most reachable destination for many. Maybe something more along the lines of financial relief could work? It will be hard without a global governing power to make countries take responsibility in the first place.
I must play devil's advocate and counter Kerstin J.'s comment. Although we can agree humanities industrial behavior is both wasteful and harmful, we cannot exclusively blame climate change on industrialism and emmisions. Therefore we cannot unilaterally declare highest emmiter should be highest...adopter because the link is not clear between emmissions and climate change.
See new: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html
That being said: these people deserve help expidiating setting up thier lives in new homes. Also I wonder how the numbers play out regarding industrialized nations and thier contribution to charity? Perhaps this correlates with emmisions and industrialization?
The problem with the highest polluting countries taking on the most people is that some of these countries are developing. Increasing the population to these highly polluting developing country might intensify the global warming issue. Maybe what we could do is send all of these people to Greenland since the ice will be melted and inland Greenland will have a substantial amount of open space. Just a thought...
This is a very real and serious problem. Unfortunately, the number could be much higher considering that about two billion people live at or bellow sea level; so if water levels rose world-wide, the displacement could be catastrophic. Where we could act is areas unnaturally protected by levees and other barriers. If we limit the number of people living in natural flood planes, that would decrease the impact of flooding.
This is very interesting and something new to think about. I feel that we should first aim to reduce the causes, though that is becoming more and more difficult with some developing countries, making this situation more imminent.
This is very interesting and something new to think about. I feel that we should first aim to reduce the causes, though that is becoming more and more difficult with some developing countries, making this situation more imminent.
David McKinley
This seems like a really tricky issue and though I do believe we need to deal with it and sooner rather than later just how to, I'm not sure. There are so many people in this world and there is destruction from climate change almost everywhere we look. In such regards before we begin to help anyone, I think clear standards should be set. Such as the limits to which these people are pushed to and challenges they will face as determining factors for what benefits they will receive. Is it possible to relocate those pushed out of their homes from water to places newly dried up? Can we somehow make it possible for them to survive in such "dead" places? Will this mean crossing boarders and in that case how will both the people and the countries react to coming and going populations? Though we are facing an enormous environmental crises with climate change, I believe we are a smart country and despite overpopulation can find a solution for the most part. However, to avoid falling even further into this problem we must plan and act now.
God forbid we actually think about a problem BEFORE it becomes one!! I agree that this absolutely needs to happen. However, I think it's slippery ground. It's interesting that Jon suggested perhaps environmental degradation should be considered a form of persecution... If that is the case, should we also offer aid to refugees whose home was destroyed by other forms of degradation (eg. people in Mongolia whose grasslands have become deserts)? I'm afraid that the magnitude of people affected by human-caused environmental degradation is so great that providing aid to all of them would be impossible. Why should victims of sea level rise get special treatment?
In the case of a small or low lying island, people may be forced to migrate faster than expected-- If the ocean rises, and a hurricane or tsunami hits, the people may need immediate help. I wonder which organization would be the first to respond. My guess would be UNEP would claim responsibility, but would the people be deported to multiple areas (and dissolve their culture), or relocated as one group to an on-continent location (potentially creating a culture war in the area)
Also, UNEP is trying to gain more power in env. lawmaking through the Copenhagen talks, and have some pretty radical goals written out for Copenhagen. On a mostly unrelated note, I found a blog of climate change skeptics, which is pretty interesting:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/
This Sounds like a worst case scenario, where it all becomes chaos. Scientists do not believe these communities in the low elevation areas are going to be swamped over night. Instead it will be a gradual change, that I believe people will adapt to. Even today there are architects building new houses on waterfronts that are protected from flooding by building them on stilts, or like a kind of floating barge.
This will be a huge problem that will not be easily fixed since there really is not international organization that could organize and enforce a policy. The idea that the most polluting countries should house the most refugees makes sense but I fear it will remain an idea. Who would enforce this implications of this idea? I can't imagine what these people must be feeling knowing that their homes will be submerged in sea water in the foreseeable future!
I think this global climate change calls for the beginning of inter-planetary colonization. Who wouldn't want to leave their costal home for mars? Seriously though this is a frightening idea not only would will we be plauged with unprecedented levels of distruction but massive ammounts human on human conflict would be unavoidable with the stresses of mass migrations.
There obviously needs to be some sort of international treaty concerning climate caused human migration. Also, this makes me think about future real estate and a way to measure what land will be underwater by when. Hopefully, those with waterfront property can get some sort of land compensation.
Hopefully we will do enough in the present to prevent this from being an issue in the future. That being said, there should be some type of contingency plan from the international community to deal with a large number of displaced people. It would be a horrible situation, because governments of countries that were displaced would be defunct and the countries around the world would have to take on a large population. It is not hard to imagine a situation where these new members of society would not be wanted and would have a hard time integrating themselves into new societies with new governments and new customs.
I really like this article. I think it is better to be prepared than to end up completely frantic when the time comes to relocate people. The efferot to map out a plan that will help all these people will be a daunting task due to the actual amount of people it will effect. Rising sea levels could possibly take out many mjor internation cities and this calls for the preporation process to begin now.
An article in the New York Times this morning discussed poorer nations walking out on the Copenhagen climate talks because industrialized nations weren't contributing enough to reducing emissions. Some of these poor countries have high populations that might have to migrate due to sea level rises. Everyone will feel the impact of mass migration, so industrialized nations as well as developing nations must collectively make the effort to reduce carbon emissions.
the fact that climate change has not been recognized as a legitimate reason for migration is concerning, although it is one potential that this could just fall under a different definition. For example, natural disaster is recognized as a reason for legitimate refugee status. This is an incredibly complex issue as well, and it relies on many different countries, political systems, and different effects on different climates throughout the world. Although I agree that is a worthwhile problem, it is an enormous task to undertake.
I dod think it's a good idea to look into the future, but I also have realized that the science world does like to use scare tactics to get responses out of us. Yes it work, but this may not happen in the next ten years.
andrew sieving
I do think it's a good idea to look into the future, but I also have realized that the science world does like to use scare tactics to get responses out of us. Yes it work, but this may not happen in the next ten years.
andrew sieving
I do think it's a good idea to look into the future, but I also have realized that the science world does like to use scare tactics to get responses out of us. Yes it work, but this may not happen in the next ten years.
andrew sieving
I think people will continue to be reluctant until it is a dire emergency... for them. a government could force people move, but we will always be reluctant due to the fact that the problem will have very slow onset of seeable results
It's sad because the people being effected i.e. the ones on the small islands, are probably the ones effecting global warming the least. However, due to the actions of many others, these people will have their lives uprooted and drastically altered.
This is a very interesting topic and one i have never considered. I believe that part of the problem with increased migration planning is the uncertainty of these types of situations. While, as you said, it is quite clear that climate change will produce many effects, perhaps disastrous ones as that, within the next century, there is really no way of telling the timing and extent of these disasters. With seemingly more pressing current issues, it would almost seem irrational to some for policy makers to focus on the unknown disasters of the future.
I agree that this is a pressing issue and one that deserves prompt attention if countries are to successfully prepare themselves for this type of situation. However, i also believe that this is a matter which will not receive full, or even partial attention until it becomes a pressing issue that can no longer be ignored.
I agree with Brady here. Interplanetary colonization is the only way. We've dug ourselves so deep into a hole that i truly doubt we will ever be the same. This effects are permanent and will never be covered up.
ROBERT SEADER
Climate changes are serious and this should be a global interest. What to do is the only question. So many people have proposed this issue however not many solutions have come up. While I agree on this topic I am still perplexed by the possible solutions available and if they will even be able to reverse the damage that has already been done.
Post a Comment