The Media’s Role in the Debate: Hot Topic or Hot Air?

Yesterday the Inter Press Service featured a question and answer session with Maurizio Gubbiotti of Legambiente, an Italian NGO which recently released a study claiming that environmental refugees exceed the number of war refugees. Gubbiotti believes that the greatest impact will be within already fragile states, like Africa, and coastal areas in Asia, especially Bangladesh and the Pacific islands. In particular, “Maldives islands, where 85 percent…is threatened by rising seas, and about 300,000 people will have to move soon.” The president of the Maldives is, incidentally, already in negotiations with other countries to relocate the island's entire population before it is too late.

A few days ago the New York Times offered a more nuanced piece (“Refugees Join List of Climate-Change Issues”) that looked at climate change induced migration pressures on small islands and land-locked countries already in the throes of conflict. This post was particularly encouraging for two reasons: 1) the link between climate change, migration and conflict was discussed as legitimate and recognized by the UN as a security threat -- “For the first time in history, you could actually lose countries off the face of the globe,” said Stuart Beck, the permanent representative for Palau at the United Nations. “It is a security threat to them and their populations, which will have to be relocated, which is the security threat to the places where they go, among other consequences.”

And more importantly: 2) a reputable and popular news source brought the issue to the forefront.

Although enjoying resurgent popularity, climate refugees have been the media’s darling for some time. From Salon.com’s article on Tuvalu’s search for higher ground before its population is inundated by rising seas; to assertions that high tides have already claimed the first “climate refugees” in multiple small island states like Kiribati and the Carteret Islands (which seems the most accepted example; see here as well). Add to that a running series called “Bangladesh: Where the Climate Exodus Begins” on GreenWire, and it seems the news is brimming with doom-and-gloom scenarios of climate-induced migration. Most of these stories revolve around anecdotal evidence, which often illegitimizes the very real future problem of climate refugees. And, while increasing coverage is heartening, and is a means to catalyzing international and legal recognition; we must wait for more than just anecdotes in order to create sustainable solutions. I think Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah, former head migration researcher at the Institute for Public Policy Research, hits the quick of the matter with the thought that "there is...no shortage of political or media interest in the nexus between climate change and migration. Yet there seems to be a dearth of analysis on how exactly climate change will lead to displacement and on what should be done to minimise adverse impacts. This has resulted in limited commitment to no action." We must, therefore, wait and hope for the discussion to move out of the annals of the media and into larger, more influential halls like those of the UN.

Shout Out: Dennis Dimick, executive director at National Geographic, has been particularly in the fold, with his blog Signs From Earth regularly covering climate refugee issues and linking to other newsworthy sources.

Side Note: To keep track of recent media coverage, we encourage you to check out our “Breaking News” box.

The Crux of the “Climate Refugee” Debate

From dire prediction to lukewarm reception, the term “climate refugee” has yet to find a definable home within legal and academic parameters. However, the concept of forced migration due to environmental pressures has a storied background, arising some two decades ago when Essam El-Hinnawi published a paper for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), which defined “environmental refugees” as those “who have been forced to leave their traditional habitat because of a marked environmental disruption that jeopardized and/or seriously affected their quality of life.”

Curiosity over the term solidified after the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released figures of global warming-induced sea-level rise scenarios ranging from 22 centimeters to 34 centimeters between 1990 and 2080. With unexpected collapses from the West Antarctic or Greenland ice shelf, levels could climb even higher. These numbers are especially relevant as we consider that an additional rise of just 38 centimeters would increase the number of people displaced by flooding five-fold. However, all of these estimates remain just that, estimates.

The biggest proponents of the pressing reality of “climate refugees” are often environmentalists. They are the outspoken voices behind the issue that create such estimates. Lester Brown theorizes that by 2050 40 million people will be displaced in Bangladesh alone. While Norman Myers believes that 25 million environmental refugees already exist due to prolonged drought and food insecurity and, that by 2010, that number will double to 50 million.

Migration academics are hesitant to lend the refugee label to those migrating due to environmental factors. They argue that such migration is nuanced and multi-faceted, and the environment is simply a “push” factor, while economic opportunities make for a heavier “pull”. One such academic is Richard Black of the University of Sussex. He claims the term environmental refugee is myth, and not reality. Furthermore, applying the term refugee in this case, they say, is misleading and undermines true political refugees. Stephen Castles, in particular, is of this ilk; having gone so far as to compare Myers and Black’s work, and siding with Black.

So who should we side with?

The truth is there is no real answer. The concept of environmental (or climate) refugee is in its beginning stages – and the preliminary research needed to establish it is either in the process of being gathered or sorely lacking. It will be the task of this blog, and you diligent readers, to help form and propel the debate.