Thoughts so far...

Following three months of blogging, I wanted to take the opportunity to discuss how my understanding of the climate change-migration relationship has progressed. First and foremost, I think it is clear to see that environmental change is going to exert some scale of influence on displacement. Even climate sceptics have had to admit that this will be a highly likely scenario. However, this appears to be about as simple as it gets; looking into this discussion at any greater depth reveals a complex web of interrelated variables, paradoxical components and strong opposing views. I’ll admit that I rather naively approached the blog with a perceived grasp of the topic, which I quickly understood to not be the case. Below I have summarised some of the key take-home points I have picked up during this process.  

Complexity: My original aim had been to analyse, and rank, a number of cause and effect relationships; displacement with respect to sea level rise, drought and conflict. However even the supposedly obvious idea that an increase in sea level would lead to a direct displacement of people is misguided. There are so many other variables involved and so many different types of possible migration; voluntary/forced/trapped, temporary/circular/permanent, that it is almost impossible to contextualise a simple driver/response mechanism. Conflict was an even more tenuous relationship. Although I do think it is an important conversation to be had, I think care needs to be taken when it is being discussed. There is a risk of undermining the importance of significant socio-political factors, when searching for a ‘natural’ cause. 

Policy: The above discussion is probably one of the main reasons for the failings in this area, but it is vital that these are overcome if progress is going to be made. Legal recognition for environmental migrants is becoming increasingly more necessary, and it is equally imperative for it to be considered in the context of human rights. But a bottom-up approach should also be taken. Improved mitigation and adaptation strategies will enhance people’s resilience to environmental change, allowing them to make a personal choice on whether migration is appropriate for them.  

Injustice: The issue of climate injustice was made even more apparent to me when researching this topic. Not only are typically poorer countries generally at a greater risk from the extreme events likely to cause migration, but there is a direct inverse relationship between personal capital and vulnerability. As discussed, hurricane Katrina is one of many recent examples that clearly emphasises this point.

Comments(!): I have discussed how exasperating I have found reading the online article comment sections previously. It is not necessarily the nature of individual comments that concerns me, but more the overwhelming support that these ‘misconceptions’ are receiving. A common rhetoric is the ‘everything is being blamed on climate change’ viewpoint; a sentiment even more commonly attributed to the climate-displacement based articles. I actually think sensationalism in the media over the years with respect to climate change may have been partially responsible for this. It is also why I think that terms such as ‘climate refugees’ are inflammatory, as it feels like an intentionally negative term. Migration should not be consistently viewed in this negative light, otherwise its real potential as an adaptation strategy will be limited. I still think it is essential for this topic to continue being discussed in the wider media, but better care should be taken in determining as and when a climate driver should be suggested.

The migration patterns seen in Europe over the last couple of years may be a forewarning of what is to come. However, we have a real chance to be able to improve this. The climate fund agreed at COP21 could go a long way in improving the situation, but a policy focus is needed now, before the situation becomes too overwhelming to manage.  

(Image)