The
Internal Displacement Monitoring Center states that “almost 28 million
people... were displaced by environmental disasters every year between 2008 and
2013”. This displacement will continue to be a prominent issue in our society.
The
consequences of land being decimated by disaster after disaster is not only
horrendous in terms of lives and land lost, but also in terms of culture. UN
High Commissioner for Refugees, António Guterres, has stated that “Not only
states, but cultures and identities will be drowned”.
The
New York Times has covered the trials and tribulations for those that need to
be resettled. One important question is, “what do we do with vulnerable peoples
who can, but do not wish to be, resettled?”.
In
terms of funding, in 2016 we saw “the first allocation of federal tax dollars”
intended to resettle a community impacted by climate change. This
allocation is a positive step in the right direction, however, what happens
when governments cannot afford this relocation? One may suggest asking for
funds from other nations. One issue with this suggestion is to do with the name
for these vulnerable peoples.
The
United Nations defines a refugee as someone who has been “forced to flee his or
her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a
well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality,
political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Climate refugees
do not fit this description and adding the term “climate” before the term
“refugee” is helpful only for ease of understanding for those unfamiliar with
the plight that these individuals face. One of the reasons why this terminology
is so important is because funds allocated exclusively for refugees cannot,
then, be allocated to climate refugees.
One
of the most tragic aspects of this situation is the fact that those who are the
most negatively affected are not those who are to blame for the issue. Another
tragic aspect is that those that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate
change are often the ones who are not able to afford to adapt in response.
Numerous
questions arise as a result of this issue: How should we alter the UN
definition of refugee to suit these vulnerable peoples? What can we do on an
individual level to try to support climate refugees? What actions are the most
effective actions that are currently being taken on an international scale?
Super interesting how climate refugees are not included in these prior definitions of refugees. A first step in the right direction would be broadening the definition of a refugee and expanding different groups opportunities to collaborate (such as NGO's, the UN, climate change organizations, governmental organizations, and science coalitions)
ReplyDeleteI find your statement of how those who are affected most play little to no part in contributing to the effects of climate change, fascinating. I think that based on the context of your post, climate can be defined as a common pool resource, and that really brings into question how the world should and chooses to respond- should each nation respond out of its own self-interest or should we recognize our moral obligations and collectively work together to find a solution? The negative effects of climate are extremely important to acknowledge, but because climate change is looked at as something that will get worse in the future compared to now, this problem is oftentimes looked over, as there are many issues and conflicts occurring that seem to have a larger sense of urgency. But so many issues are interrelated. For example, climate exacerbates the effects that drought and land degradation have in the Sub-Saharan Africa region, particularly in the Sahel. Because so many issues relating to disasters occurring around the world can relate to one another, how can we work towards recognizing the connectivity amongst them?
ReplyDelete