Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Climate Change Forces New Refugees

By Terry J. Allen, In These Times. Posted September 5, 2007.


From Bangladesh to New Orleans, environmental pressures have forced millions from their homes but no international treaty recognizes their refugee status.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Terry J. Allen

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

It has already started. The first ripples from rising seas are inundating low-lying areas, threatening coasts and islands. Climate refugees around the world are fleeing regions beset by violent storms, extreme temperatures, melting glaciers, spreading deserts, swelling oceans and other escalating effects of global warming.

Billions of people are at risk and the number is growing. Environmental stress forced more than 25 million to migrate in 1998, according to a Red Cross and Red Crescent study -- roughly the same number that fled armed conflict.

Even though specific events often cannot be pinned to global warming, the scientific evidence that climate change is radically remapping our planet forms a cumulative, consistent and alarming pattern. Everyone but the head-in-the-sand dolt and the hand-in-the-industry-pocket hack understands that as large areas of the planet become unsuitable for human life, the sad stream of climate refugees will become a torrent.

As a resident of the small South Pacific island of Tuvalu recently told NPR's "Living on Earth," a man needs only two skills: how to climb a coconut tree and how to catch a fish. On this remote atoll, halfway between Hawaii and Australia, where the land crests a few meters above the sea, the shoreline is visibly receding. Salt from rising tides is poisoning the palms; bleached and dying coral reefs no longer support the fish that support the people.

New Zealand, one of the few countries to acknowledge and plan for the coming flood of climate immigrants, has agreed to accept all 11,000 Tuvaluans, starting with a limited number each year. Many Tuvaluans live in Auckland, lonely and lost, without the support of community and culture, or the skills to survive an urban life based on money.

In much of South Asia, the irony of climate change is that it creates too little water in some places and too much in others. The summer runoff from mountain glaciers that now provides most of the drinking water to 40 percent of the world's population is rapidly disappearing. And so are myriad inhabitants, forced to leave land their families tilled for generations.

In Bangladesh, refugees who can no longer farm on drowning coastal land are falling inward to cities already crammed with jobless and desperate masses. Smaller than Illinois, Bangladesh has 140 million people, almost half the U.S. population. Imagine what it will be like in 50 years, when the Bay of Bengal is predicted to cover 11 percent of Bangladesh's land.

And then there is New Orleans. At a time when warming oceans fuel stronger storms, this below sea-level city in a hurricane-prone delta sits on sinking lands near a silt-clogged sea.

While the French Quarter parties once again, low-lying areas -- which housed mostly African Americans and the poor -- lie abandoned. Two years after Katrina, the richest country in the world leaves thousands of its climate refugees to live in poisoned trailers or camp in the kitchens of relatives far from their former homes.

Local and federal governments around the world seem paralyzed by callousness or a refusal to make hard choices. Should they spend billions to protect unsustainable, sometimes toxic land, with ever-stronger levees or pipe in water across hundreds of miles? Can they afford to permanently relocate endangered populations to affordable housing on less vulnerable, more valuable land?

And what about the self-indulgent fools society continues to subsidize -- with insurance premiums, taxes or extraordinary and repeated rescues -- who insist on building beach houses on eroding sand, mansions in fire-prone hills and sprawling ranches in the bone-dry desert?

Most officials have tallied the political and economic price of acting and have chosen to wring their hands and tread water.

In the days after the storm, some of Katrina's exiles took umbrage at the label "refugee." But they share much with displaced Bangladeshi and Tuvaluans half a globe away: poverty, powerlessness, and the misfortune of living under governments that are ill-equipped or disinclined to make hard choices.

Driven from home, history and culture by a warming planet, they also share unofficial status as climate refugees -- a category that no international treaties recognize or protect.

Individual countries and the United Nations need to develop policies to define and aid the casualties of dreadful energy policies and reckless consumption; they must expand treaties that protect political refugees to include those who flee the persecution of a deadly climate. And the industrialized countries that contributed most to the problem must contribute most to accepting and resettling climate refugees.

No one knows the winner in the race between the ravages of climate change and the meager but growing measures to mitigate it. But we already know who the losers are. From coral wreathed atolls in the South Pacific to the coast of Alaska, from sinking Bangladesh bearing the weight of impoverished millions, to the drowning city of New Orleans, the new climate refugees are flowing like tears.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: refugees, global warming, climate change

Terry J. Allen is a senior editor of In These Times. Her work has appeared in Harper's, The Nation, New Scientist and other publications.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Thank you, Terry J. Allen.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Sep 10, 2007 2:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Terry J. Allen. If we could exile George W. Bush
and the owners of coal companies to Tuvalu, something would get
done. Tuvaluans and all others now living the lives of stone-
agers or agrarian-agers need to do something too. They need to
go to school and become ready to live in the 21st century world.
Why? Our problems are large enough to require all the brains we
can get to work on solving the problems. That means
understanding in the scientific way. Everybody should have a
degree in a science, or as close as their abilities will allow. Why?
If George W. Bush and the owners of coal companies had degrees
in science, they would be able to understand the consequences of
what they are doing. If the people who voted for George W.
Bush had had degrees in science, they would not have voted for
George W. Bush. If everybody had degrees in science, they
would be able to understand that nuclear power is safe.

Americans have a culture of fire and smoke. Americans burn
leaves, coal, oil, wood etc. and seem to like smoke. Some even
say the smoke from burning leaves smells good. Tree leaf smoke
is just as effective as tobacco leaf smoke at causing cancer and
other respiratory diseases. Breathing difficulty from inhaling
leaf smoke causes a temporary drop in IQ. I do much better in
school after snow stops the burning of leaves. See:
www.BurningIssues.org. Fouling the air is an American pastime.
The American culture of fire and smoke has to change.

The environmental problems listed by Terry J. Allen are the
gentlest of warnings. As I have said several time on Alternet, we
have 200 years before WE go extinct, unless we change our ways.
The URLs with the information on our impending extinction are:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00037A5D-
A938-150E-A93883414B7F0000&sc=I100322
and
http://astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News
&file=article&sid=2429&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

We have time to avoid extinction, but not much. We have to
avoid natural tipping points [threshold temperatures], and we don't
know exactly where the tipping points are. If you saw Nova on
PBS last week, you saw a simulation of methane bubbling out of
the Arctic Ocean in response to a threshold temperature [tipping
point] being crossed. The methane causes an additional 17?
degree temperature rise. The one thing we know how to do right
now that will cause the least disruption of civilization is convert
all coal fired power plants to nuclear. That move alone will
reduce our CO2 production by 34%, the biggest wedge available.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about Economic Refugees
Posted by: zeitgeist1979 on Sep 13, 2007 10:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Intricately related to enviro-economic element in the refugee dynamic, there is also (and equally important) the issue of how Economic Refugees flee their original countries because of poor economic conditions, which may or may not be the result of environmental catastrophes. Yet there is no international agreement to deal with these Economic Refugees (commonly as "illegal aliens").

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]