UNFCCC negotiators immediately understand the terms “Loss and Damage,” “Mitigation,” “Adaptation,” and “Capacity Building.” But these are all words that mean nothing when you stand to lose everything. When you’ve lost everything after a super typhoon hits your home, you understand the definition of “climate refugee”; but apparently UNFCCC negotiators cannot.
To put the problem of climate migration into context, a potential 1 metre rise in sea level, which we could see by 2050, could displace up to 20 million people in Bangladesh. For those who are at risk of being displaced due to man-made disasters, there is no choice. We all have a right to a safe and secure home. A home, which protects us from irreversible climate change. A home, which keeps us dry, warm and healthy.
Yet we still lack international protection for those forced to find a new place to call home. Migrants forced to cross international borders do not qualify as refugees, because climate change does not fall under the definition of persecution. Those choosing to move to different areas in their own countries, in anticipation of oncoming disasters, droughts and floods, are classified as economic migrants not deserving of protection. Protection is fragmented and inconsistent. Climate change is not always recognized as a primary migration driver.
To ensure we are addressing this and preparing to protect global citizens, we need the willpower to accept a common definition for what constitutes a ‘climate refugee’.
To mitigate any further crises of human displacement, we need willpower from you, ECO readers. Let’s make sure it gets onto the agenda! There is no time to waste; humanity needs action now!
