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.