“What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?” ― Henry David Thoreau, Familiar Letters
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) released its Sixth Assessment Report (“the Report”) in August 2021. The detailed assessment on the “physical science of climate change” sheds light on the severity of climate change and comprehensively speaks to the escalating effects of greenhouse gases on Earth that are so much worse than we previously believed. It is, at this juncture, undeniable that the determining factor accelerating climate change is humans. The impact of ‘human-driven’ climate change is patent in recent devastating climate-related disasters and weather extremes across the globe. The pertinent question remains as to whether nations can combat the outcomes of climate change on humanity, or whether such changes are irreversible. The Report is envisaged to carry extra weight in anticipation of the COP26 global climate summit to be held in Glasgow, UK, in November 2021.
Background
The Report is the culmination of several years of research, comments, and drafting by over 200 scientists that was approved by 195 states. It is the debut report of a forthcoming trilogy, with the objective of evaluating climate change, its effects, how it can be slowed down, and what can be done to tackle its deepening and rapid damage. The Report assesses our past, present, and future climate status, its impacts and future risks, the available options to mitigate the effects, as well as adaptation suggestions. It aims to enlighten policymakers as to the scientific findings of climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals and envisions a collective goal of implementing laws and statutes which take cognizance of these scientific findings.
The Paris Agreement, which was signed by several nations worldwide in 2015, was employed to ensure that global surface temperature remains far below 2°C and particularly maintained below 1.5°C. The Report specifies that, alarmingly, in each scenario assessed by scientists, the present century will see the failure of both thresholds if immediate action is not implemented to halt the outcome. Carbon dioxide emissions are to be significantly reduced across the globe for any hopeful change to materialise.
The Report’s findings may be condensed to a few main takeaways. Firstly, the Report confirms that drastic weather changes and events (especially as of late) are directly linked to human behaviour. Humans are altering the climate system. Secondly, the link between greenhouse gases and global temperature is further confirmed. Carbon dioxide emissions are recorded to be at their highest in the last two million years. Climate catastrophe is additionally driven by methane emissions from agriculture and livestock rearing, as well as the burning of fossil fuels. This may be avoided if there are “immediate, deep and sustained emissions reductions”. Thirdly, the Earth is heating up at a distressing rate. Global surface temperature is recorded to be at the greatest it has been in the last 125 000 years. It has been 1.09°C higher between the period 2011 – 2020 than it was in the period 1850 – 1900. The impact of the Earth’s warming is far-reaching, devastating, and infiltrates into all livelihoods, ecosystems, and species on the planet.
As indicated by the Report, “with every additional increment of global warming, changes in extremes continue to become larger”. This essentially denotes that even an increase in global surface temperature by 0.5°C perpetuates the frequency of wildfires, intense rainfalls, droughts, and heatwaves, to name a few. The changes in climate and extreme weather patterns are unparalleled and pose an immediate threat to communities and their social security and wellbeing around the globe. Finally, the Report signifies that sea level rise has tripled since the 1900s – 1970s, with human behaviour being the “very likely” determining factor in the melting of the glaciers and reduction in Arctic sea-ice since the 1900s. In fact, research shows that the Arctic “is heating up at a rate that is more than twice as fast as the global average”.
Human Handiwork = Code Red
The Report is unfaltering with respect to the impact that humans have had on the planet, and more specifically, on the dire state of the global surface temperature today. It states that “it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, oceans, and land.” Fossil fuels are warming the Earth at an unprecedented pace. Climatologist Xuebin Zhang pointed out that “[t]he evidence is everywhere: if we don’t act, the situation is going to get really bad.” In 2019, carbon dioxide emissions were the highest they have been in the last 2 million years, while methane and nitrous oxide emissions – the other two major gas emissions – were recorded to be their highest in the last 800 000 years.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated that it is “a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable.” He further noted that the global surface temperature threshold of 1.5 °C, as internationally agreed upon, was “perilously close. We are at imminent risk of hitting 1.5 °C in the near term. The only way to prevent exceeding this threshold is by urgently stepping up our efforts and pursuing the most ambitious path. We must act decisively now, to keep 1.5 alive.” The Report warns that unless immediate action is taken communally across the globe, the climate shifts will be irreversible. Global surface temperature is expected to crossover the 1.5°C threshold within the next 20 years.
What’s To Come
Man’s hand, as observed by scientists, in extreme changes in the atmosphere, land, the ocean, and the glaciers is striking. Should any meaningful and alleviating steps not be taken, five future impacts may be noted based on predictions made by scientists after assessment of all possible scenarios. Firstly, the Arctic will essentially be without ice at least once in the month of September before the year 2050. Secondly, even at 1.5°C, extreme weather patterns and natural disasters will become even more frequent and widespread, which will be “unprecedented in the historical record”. Thirdly, sea level events are projected to occur at least annually at more than half of tidal gauge locations by 2100, whereas in the past, extreme sea level events only occurred once in a century. Due to unremitting ocean heating and the ice melting, sea levels are “committed to rise for centuries to millennia”. Sea levels “will remain elevated for thousands of years”.Fourthly, the global surface temperature will exceed the 1.5°C threshold by the year 2040. Finally, wildfires will become more frequent in many regions around the world.
What Can Be Done
By 2050, global emissions ought to reach net zero, if we are to honour the commitment made in the 2015 Paris Agreement and maintain the global surface temperature to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. According to Valérie Masson-Delmotte, climatologist and one of the scientists who worked on the Report, “the climate we experience in the future depends on our decisions now.”
The quality of our atmosphere must change drastically. Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases are to decrease substantially worldwide for the global surface temperature to stabilize over the next 20 to 30 years. According to the UN chief, “inclusive and green economies, prosperity, cleaner air and better health are possible for all, if we respond to this crisis with solidarity and courage.” A daunting thought, however, is that despite mitigating steps being available to avoid a complete climate catastrophe, the benefits of these steps will only be realised in decades to come. While some impacts may fortunately be limited in the grand scheme of climate change, many other devastating outcomes will remain an immediate threat to communities and will escalate over the forthcoming years.
The Report is an essential component in sparking international negotiations and informing states on the status and actions that they are required to execute. The Report is especially relevant in light of the upcoming COP26 climate conference to be held in November 2021. All nations should collectively aim to reach net-zero greenhouse emissions and commit to the decreasing of global heating “with credible, concrete, and enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)” stipulating detailed steps to be taken. The situation is critical. It is imminent. We have been warned by preceding generations, and this may be our final warning as the future of life on Earth rests on what we elect to do with the scientific findings embedded in the Report. The bloody snare of climate change will entrap both present and future generations – it is up to us as to how to mitigate the effects.
Crystal-Lee Harilall is an admitted attorney of the High Court of South Africa and LLM candidate in Human Rights Law. She is passionate about using Law to explore social justice, sustainability, and the distressing effect humans have had on the planet.
It is well known that during times of conflict, women and girls face increased violence and discrimination. The same can unfortunately be observed when people are forcibly displaced or forced to migrate due to extreme climate change and natural disasters. It has been reported that if global warming is not limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius, forced displacement will be one of the most detrimental realities faced by already-vulnerable communities. Climate change is causing more frequent and intense weather events resulting in mass migration and displacement.
By the end of 2020, extreme weather conditions left around55 million people internally displaced. The situation is projected to worsen by 2050, when approximately 150 million people will be displaced. Despite the bewilderment, destruction, and panic that people face as a result of climate change disasters, women and girls arguably shoulder a bigger burden that forces them to migrate for survival.
Why are women more vulnerable to the impact of climate change?
The vulnerability of women to the effect of climate change stems from various social, cultural, and economical factors. Women and girls constitute a major portion of the population living in poverty that are highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihood. This is especially so in rural areas where women are solely responsible for fetching water, collecting wood for cooking, heating, and various other household activities.
Moreover, the combination of deep-rooted and prevalent socio-cultural norms, restricted livelihood options, and limited or wholly precluded access to technologies and information bars the adaptive capacities of displaced women and girls. Women and girls are often denied the right to education and are forbidden from participating in public spheres or occupying decision-making roles. Consequently, women are less likely to receive important information that enables appropriate emergency responses, further limiting their right to adapt once they have been displaced.
On the other hand, socio-cultural norms and gendered responsibilities in various communities actually avert women from migrating to other places during times of calamity. This has the potential to increase the vulnerability of women if they are forced to stay in a place where resources are scarce. This leads to women being forced to travel long distances in search of basic necessities such as food and water, exposing them to the risk of sexual harassment, violence, and assault during the journey.
The gendered impact of climate migration on women
The negative effects of climate change on communities around the world have made the increased risk of gender-based violence a matter of significant concern. A study conducted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (‘IUCN’) found climate change to be a catalyst for gender-based violence.
A spike in the extreme effects of climate change has resulted in scarcity of resources. As a result, communities have been forced to migrate from one place to another in search of a better quality of life, which deepens pre-existing gender inequalities. Gender-based violence against women is often used as measure for reinforcing control over remaining resources. For instance, it has been reported that in eastern and southern Africa, particularly in Kenya, fishermen have refused to sell fish to women who do not agree to engage in sexual intercourse with them. This practice is known as the Jaboya System.
Child brides, human trafficking, and health issues
Specifically, the paucity of food and water caused by climate change has also created a host of other social issues. First, a new generation of child brides has been raised, in Malawi and Mozambique, because families are no longer in a position to feed or educate several children. In an attempt to avoid this problem, parents often marry (or perhaps sell) their daughters, to any man, at a young age. Child marriage clearly impacts the physical, mental, and sexual well-being of a child and is an abhorrent violation of children’s rights.
Second, climate change and natural disasters have exacerbated the issue of human trafficking. Women and girls are often trafficked for sexual exploitation, forced labor, and beggary amongst other reasons. Most of those who fall prey to trafficking are migrants and asylum seekers. The UN Environment Programme has observed a 20-30% increase in the incidents of trafficking following natural disasters.
Third, women and girls displaced by climate change and natural disasters are more likely to face severe health issues. Due to limited access to basic health-care services and sanitary products, women and girls face an increased risk of contracting life threatening diseases and infections. This has been observed in several countries. For instance, in 2019, Cyclone Idai resulted in the displacement of thousands of people in Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi. Even today, these displaced women and girls remain without access to proper healthcare facilities. For these reasons, climate change should be considered a women’s rights issue.
Conclusion
In 2018, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (‘CEDAW’) established the General Recommendation No. 37 on Gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change (‘GR37’). This was the first time that a United Nations body addressed the connection between climate change and human rights, and focused on the gendered impact of climate change. GR37 elucidates that State Parties can and should be held accountable for the negative impact of climate change on women and girls.
Prevalent gender inequality has resulted in miserable conditions for women and girls as the result of climate change and subsequent migration. Violence against women is an impediment to conservation and sustainable development. For instance, it has been reported that sexual violence and exploitation are being used to prevent women from participating in ecosystem restoration activities. The improvement of women and girls’ adaptive capacities to climate change is of paramount importance as its effects can and do deepen existing gender inequalities. As women continue to have less opportunity to mitigate and cope with the effects of the climate crisis, there remains a dire need to take stringent action to ensure their safety and well-being.
For these reasons, adaptation initiatives designed to identify and address the gender-specific impacts of climate change, along with representation of the needs and demands of women in restoration planning are required to safeguard the interests and rights of women and girls.
Shambhavi Kant is a third year law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. She is extremely interested in the field of Human Rights and likes to write about similar topics.
“Environmental problems threaten people’s health, livelihoods and lives, and can cause wars.”[1]
“This place once used to be my home!” I remember well Akineti’s (pronounced ‘Akines’) facial expression when she told me this whilst pointing beyond the coastal line. I recognized a combination of desperation, disbelief, and anger. Of course, I cannot exclude the possibility that my own feelings prejudiced my perception. Akineti and some 2,000 other I-Kiribati (people of the South Pacific island nation Kiribati, pronounced ‘Kiribas’) live on the small atoll of Tabiteuea North, and therefore, at the forefront of climate change threats. Akineti continued:
“When I lost my home to the sea, my two sons and I fled to Tarawa [capital of Kiribati] to find a job and better protection from the threats of climate change, such as the lack of fresh water supply. However, I then returned only one year later as the situation in Tarawa was even worse than in Tabiteuea. We barely found a place to stay as Tarawa is very densely crowded, I could not grow my own food because of salination, and in the dry season there was almost no clean, fresh water supply.”[2]
In order to place this very personal story within a wider context, the following paragraph shall introduce the reader to the island nation of Kiribati and the impact and challenges climate change has on its people. The aim of this essay is to explore how people like Akineti and the citizens in Kiribati can live a peaceful life despite the threats already mentioned and further elaborated upon below.
Overview of the Situation
The Republic of Kiribati lies about halfway between Australia and Hawaii in the South Pacific and consists of 33 atolls. Together, these atolls make up a mere 800 square kilometres of land. If the sea areas are included in the calculation, Kiribati is one of the largest countries in the world – about the size of India.[3] Until 1979, Kiribati was a British colony. Probably not entirely by chance, the young island state was given its independence in the same year that the last phosphorus deposits were mined, thus exhausting the country’s largest source of income to date.[4] Not least because of this historical incident, Kiribati has been dubbed one of the world’s so-called LDCs (‘least developed countries’). In addition, the Kiribati atolls have a special feature that makes them particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change: the highest elevation of each island rises only three to four meters above sea-level.[5] According to calculations commissioned by the World Bank, about two thirds of the atolls will have sunk into the sea by the end of this century. The same study has found that in less than forty years, life on the islands will no longer be possible due to the salination of the groundwater.[6]
Today, climate change already causes some severe problems for I-Kiribati. According to the United Nations (UN), ‘[c]ommon effects of climate change felt and experienced are coastal inundation, loss of houses along [the] coast leading to relocation of villages to safer inner areas of islands, [and] aggravated soil infertility with sea water intrusion’.[7] This direct ecological impact of climate change ultimately leads to the deterioration of local socioeconomic conditions as it exacerbates the existing development pressures of rapid urbanisation, pollution, and poor sanitation which in turn compromise the availability of freshwater resources and the land that sustain the communities that depend on them.[8]
Though the intensity of these effects will only increase in the future, there is no violent or even open conflict, neither within the Kiribati population nor between Kiribati and any other state. In the Inventory of Conflict and Environment database, the Level of Conflict as well as the Fatality Level of Dispute (encompassing military and civilian fatalities) were predicted as ‘low’[9] and this prediction was confirmed in the last decade. This begs the question of whether conflict resolution really is the right approach to address the above-stated problems. Unfortunately, this superficial understanding of the concept of conflict resolution is applied far too often. As Prof. Emeritus Amr Abdalla[10] and the former UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser Edward C. Luck[11] and others have emphasised, conflict prevention is at least as important as conflict management, conflict resolution, and conflict transformation. Rather, these three concepts only increase in importance when conflict could not be prevented in time. In order to prevent conflict, it is necessary to recognize conflict potentials at an early stage and to respond proactively.
In the present instance, some latent conflict potentials are obvious. The more citizens flee from the particularly threatened outer islands (such as Tabiteuea) to the main island, the more the overpopulation of Tarawa increases. This results in a variety of potential conflicts, ranging from disputes over land and the struggle for jobs, to increasingly poor sanitation – this list is not exhaustive. Cases in which, despite sufficient information, no timely action was taken can be used here as deterrent examples. Perhaps the cruellest result of a missed opportunity for conflict prevention was the Rwandan genocide in 1994.[12] More than half a year before the genocide began, in August 1993, a report by the UN human rights investigator for Rwanda warned of an escalation of violence between the population groups. But despite these and other early warnings, the UN did not intervene until many hundreds of thousands of lives had already been lost. Even if the dimensions in Kiribati are of a much smaller scale, it is nevertheless evident that immediate action must be taken to prevent the initial tense situation from turning into outright violent conflict. That said, before launching into a discussion of concrete measures, the peace that shall be achieved for the people of Kiribati must first be transformed into tangible objectives.
How could peace be achieved more generally?
Specific needs
To achieve stable and long-lasting peace, the basic human needs of all parties must first be met. These are non-negotiable.[13] Since in this case of conflict prevention we initially consider only one (albeit heterogeneous) party, the most urgent needs can be identified quite clearly. The Kiribati population fundamentally requires respect for their rights to life, security, and dignity, as set forth in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[14] It is important to break down these abstract demands more precisely into specific interests
As such, the present main interests of I-Kiribati’ are food security, sufficient access to clean drinking water, and enough space within which to live. Due to the rural exodus caused by climate change, more than 50% of the Kiribati population currently live on the 15 square kilometre main island of South Tarawa. This means that the island has one of the world’s highest population densities of more than 3500 people per square kilometre. This restricts living and farming space, and it also limits job opportunities or access to education given the lack of resources to accommodate the population. The citizens of Kiribati are forced to resort to expensive imported food, with little chance of earning an income. In addition, the sanitation facilities and infrastructure are not designed for such masses of people. This in turn leads to an increase in the contamination of the groundwater and more frequent outbreaks of disease. There are of course many other problems which could be further elaborated upon, but which are beyond the scope of this study. It does not take much imagination to realize that if the above-mentioned threats and pressures continue to increase, an escalation of the enormous conflict potential into violent conflicts could occur over scarce resources. But what must be done now to prevent such an eruption of conflict?
The approach to conflict resolution in general and conflict prevention specifically must be to tackle the causes of conflict at its roots and not merely its symptoms.[15] In this case, these roots are very quickly dug out. All the problems described are attributable to rising sea levels and therefore to climate change.
Approaches to combating climate change
Approaches to combating climate change stem from many different disciplines. Firstly, the field of peace education should be highlighted as possibly one of the most important. In order to achieve change, it is essential to educate people to think critically. This is particularly true in relation to climate change not only for affected populations but especially for external people whose thoughtless participation in the current social order contributes to the progression of climate change. Otherwise, in the style of banking education, only the status quo is maintained. Peace education, with its realistic and critical approach, is therefore predestined to address structural problems, since it ‘strives for the emergence of consciousness and critical intervention in reality’[16].
Secondly, sustainable agriculture can also play a major part in combating climate change by replacing the use of pesticides with more diversity in the crop fields. The loss of more and more diversity in different crop varieties in general and of genetic diversity within a particular crop type due to ubiquitous monoculture poses a threat in the face of climate change. The world population depends on a diminishing variety of crops. And if this one genetic variant of wheat, for example, were to grow worse due to climate change, large parts of the population, especially in developing and least developed countries, would suffer from hunger. Greater diversity in crop fields is therefore an important adaptation to climate change. Moreover, the production of food represents a significant part in the emission of greenhouse gases. It is primarily the production of livestock products that contributes to climate change. Thus, driving the shift from industrial agriculture to agroecology and promoting a more effective, plant-based food supply.[17]
Finally, climate agreements such as the 2015 Paris Agreement or the 2009 Copenhagen Accord also play an important role. These represent globally negotiated climate targets such as limiting global warming to a maximum of 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius. However, the legal status of such agreements is problematic.[18] The Copenhagen Accord is not legally binding, and the Paris Agreement also has its weaknesses. For instance, big players such as the United States (US) and Brazil can withdraw from the agreement, which would represent an immense drawback in the fight against climate change as these states are among the biggest polluters in the world.
What could peace look like in this situation?
Would it be advantageous, then, to support these existing attempts to address climate change in the hopes of maintaining conflict prevention in Kiribati? As plausible as this consideration may seem, it can and must be rejected. For Kiribati, the insight of the international community comes simply too late. The climate reacts slowly to human efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. According to various sources,[19] the climate is only reacting to today’s greenhouse gas emissions with a delay of about 50 years. In other words, even a global end to greenhouse gas emissions starting tomorrow cannot change the fate of Kiribati. I would like to emphasise once again that the fight against climate change is not pointless, but rather that it comes too late for Kiribati. Nevertheless, we may still contemplate which of these peace-bringing approaches would be most promising for conflict prevention in Kiribati.
Taking a slightly futuristic approach would lead us to discuss the lifting of the atolls and strengthening the walls of the freshwater lens. Indeed, there are already some artificial islands in the world whose construction has been adapted. One of the most famous is probably the palm-shaped Palm Jumeriah in Dubai. While this island was created completely from scratch, in Kiribati there would only have to be an elevation of the existing island. This could involve shovelling sediment from the lagoon to gradually raise the island further out of the water. What sounds simple at first, however, means tremendous structural problems for an inhabited island as well as the need for an enormous amount of financial resources. Nevertheless, China is an even more a potent advocate for this solution.[20]
An alternative approach lies in planned migration, or ‘migration with dignity’[21]. This plan was long promoted by former Kiribati President Anote Tong before current President Taneti Maamau’s technocratic approach of lifting the islands became the focus of national interest.
What are the challenges to peace?
Mangroves
Kiribati is already taking adaptation measures to keep the consequences of climate change within tolerable limits. For example, the population is building so-called sea walls to provide some protection during high tide. In addition to other personal protection measures taken by the citizens, the state itself is also promoting projects to prevent land erosion, for example. To this end, large areas of mangroves are being planted in coastal areas, and the resulting strong root network at least slows down the erosion of the coast.[22] However, as an investigative committee of the Kiribati government has also confirmed, these isolated measures will only be able to provide relief for a very limited period.[23]
Floating islands
Commissions of experts are proposing stronger measures for habitat conservation. Researchers from University College London’s Mechanical Engineering Department, for example, are proposing ‘to construct major sea defences, dredge the seabed to reclaim earth or ship earth to Tarawa Atoll, [or to] construct a platform over the island or raise all buildings on stilts’[24]. They even present a floating island as a promising measure. It would consist of 102 triangular aircushion-supported modules, six of which would form a separate district that would be as autonomous as possible whilst still connected to all other communities. The researchers also suggest that ‘[l]ocal photovoltaic and hot water solar panels [are supposed to] provide energy, and rooftop collection and large storage reservoirs [to] provide fresh water’[25]. They promise the citizens of Kiribati ‘that traditional values and lifestyles can be respected and preserved’[26] and at the same time that their quality of life can be drastically improved. These promises of a better life through technical achievements can be cited as a prime example of a techno-centred understanding of sustainability. This is characterized by the conviction that damage caused by climate change can be absorbed by technology, and thus fights the symptoms instead of the origin of the problems. This understanding of sustainability is said to be particularly close to economy as it would not require major cuts in carbon emissions but allows for further economic growth without changes in the means of production.[27] Indeed, this rather economy-centered approach is also reflected in the report of the researchers of the London College, which promises Kiribati the possibility of economic growth based on sustainable design as a result of the adaptation.[28]
Unsurprisingly, however, the vision of the floating island does not begin with economic growth, but with an immense investment. The estimated cost of implementing such a huge project is £874 million per community. If 17 communities and five strategic areas complete the artificial island, the total cost will amount to £19.2 billion [~$25 billion].[29] For an LDC state with a GDP of $188.3 million this is an absurdly high sum. For other states with a significantly higher economic output, this would not be completely unthinkable. So, when a country with a large margin of manoeuvre such as China offers its help, Kiribati will certainly be listening.
Kiribati is now planning to raise its existing islands by one to two meters with China’s help.[30] As President Maamau has stated, ‘[t]here are already plans to build up part of [the capital atoll] Tarawa through dredging fill materials from the lagoon’[31]. He adds that the main island is to be raised, and that the ‘20-year vision has also included strategies to secure dredgers that will assist with these efforts as well as dredging channels in the outer islands’[32]. Thus, the measures could potentially lead to a relaxation of the situation, as fewer people would move from the outer islands to the main island, minimizing the negative effects of overpopulation as described above.
China’s role
The increasingly strong role of China in Kiribati, which is relatively close to Hawaii, is viewed with suspicion by Western forces. In fear of a Chinese military base in Kiribati, the US and its allies in the Pacific, Australia, and New Zealand are trying to frame relations between Kiribati and China in an unfavourable light on the international stage. In August 2019, for example, when the Chinese ambassador was ceremonially received on an outer island, he was given a path of young men lying on the ground in accordance with the local culture. This is one of the highest honours in Kiribati, and if the ambassador had rejected it and not walked over the men’s backs, it would have been considered insulting. Some Australian media, however, used the resulting photograph to portray China as ‘an imperialist state intent on colonizing the world’[33]. This deliberate misinterpretation of the image is a typical way of discrediting the opponent in conflict situations.[34] Though China is clearly aiming to strengthen its influence in the region, considering the fact that if Kiribati does not take effective measures within the next 30 to 40 years, the country will no longer be habitable, it is understandable that China’s offer to help would be accepted.
Migration with dignity
An elevation of the island could just be presented as a first option for the prevention of conflicts, which in Kiribati are increasingly arising from the consequences of climate change. In very simple terms, the shrinking of the island due to rising sea levels was identified as an underlying cause of potential conflict. Since mitigation measures of climate change are too late for Kiribati due to the delayed response of the climate, an approach to conflict prevention in the elevation of the island was thus discussed. However, some weaknesses of this idea, such as its feasibility, were also revealed and questioned. Another approach can be outlined in equally very simplified terms as follows: The original cause of conflict (climate change) for Kiribati cannot be reversed in time. And as with the island elevation approach just discussed, this scenario as well identifies Kiribati’s geographic features as another cause of potential conflict. To address these location issues, an even more radical measure could also be thought through as an alternative to elevating the island: Kiribati’s population is suffering from the effects of climate change combined with the island’s geography. Since climate change cannot be stopped in time, why don’t people move to another location? In this regard, former Kiribati President Anote Tong coined the term ‘migration with dignity’ during his period in office.[35] The idea behind it is to be prepared in the event of the foreseeable end of the island nation. A few years ago, Kiribati has therefore even bought land on an island of Fiji. However, there is little to no infrastructure there, so it would not be feasible to simply move its inhabitants there. Moreover, the country is at least partially inhabited by an indigenous tribe of Fiji, which is why another conflict party could potentially be added in this scenario. But is the purchase of land the only route to regulated and dignified migration?
So far, the answer to this question is probably yes. In 2015, Ioane Teitiota, a citizen of Kiribati, claimed asylum in New Zealand as the world’s first climate refugee. But the New Zealand court rejected the claim and Teitiota’s appeal to the OHCHR was not granted either.[36] The fact that climate refugees have not yet been legally recognized seems at first glance to be rooted in bureaucracy. The 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not cover such migrants, since it was originally drafted to protect those fleeing persecution, war, or violence.[37] However, on closer inspection, it seems that the UN is reluctant to put refugees from war and climate refugees on the same level, as it fears compromise in the support of war refugees. For ‘if the UNHCR broadens its definition of “refugee” to support an entirely new category, it is unclear if the political appetite exists to provide the necessary funding’[38] or whether the support of all refugees would be stopped. Contrary to these concerns, there are loud voices calling for exactly such a legal recognition of climate refugees as well. They claim that ‘in order to qualify as a refugee, you need to be fleeing persecution, or to fear persecution. Forgoing the term ‘climate refugee’ is also, in a way, forgoing the idea that climate change is a form of persecution against the most vulnerable and that climate-induced migration is a very political matter, rather than an environmental one.’[39]
However, until such a legal status is established, Kiribati is trying to take alternative paths and has concluded binational agreements with Australia, for example. The deal provides for young people in Kiribati to be specially trained for jobs in demand in Australia and then allowed to work in Australia, thus facilitating access to an official residence permit[40]. In this way, as many people as possible are to succeed in migrating with dignity. However, serious disadvantages of this approach are the so-called brain drain, as many young, well-trained workers leave the country, and the loss of Kiribati culture. While it can be concluded at this point that a violent conflict over resources in Kiribati would be successfully prevented in this scenario, the question of whether the many difficulties of migration do not also provoke some potential for conflict remains.
Conclusion
In conclusion, an evaluation of the two presented scenarios shall be made. The first part of the paper explained why conventional measures for environmental protection come too late for the Kiribati population. Subsequently, two adaptation measures were presented, which are exactly adjusted to the special situation of the island nation. First, the possibility of an artificial elevation of the island was discussed. The technocratic approach has many advantages: The Kiribati population can remain in their accustomed (though certainly changed) environment and, above all, remain together as a community. This would also ensure the preservation of the rich Kiribati culture and language. In Kiribati I felt the strong desire of the people to be allowed to stay in their country and especially not to give up the independence they gained only 40 years ago. Moreover, if the outer islands were to be raised along with the main island of Tarawa, the overpopulation in Tarawa could decrease, thus alleviating a great potential for conflict. However, it should not go unmentioned that Kiribati would be moving between the fronts of a growing international conflict between China and the Western powers. Furthermore, the issue of climate change and rising sea levels would remain a constant topic of discussion, as the adaptation measures would have to be repeated at regular intervals.
The latter point is a major advantage of the migration with dignity approach. Once the migration to a less vulnerable place has been successfully completed, the issue of climate change loses its everyday threat to I-Kiribati. However, another weak point in this scenario cannot go unmentioned: Who says that integration into the new environment will succeed? The many potential conflicts that can arise from a failed integration can be seen in almost every region of the world, even if an analysis of this problem is not possible in the context of this paper. Additionally, the Kiribati culture and language is in danger of being lost in the event of scattered migration to different places in Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, etc. In fact, the state of Kiribati would probably disappear with such a step. One possible solution could be a joint migration to the acquired piece of land in Fiji. However, this land does not yet have any infrastructure, and the presence of the indigenous population brings other major potential for conflict. All in all, the migration with dignity approach would buy the desired physical security albeit with many other problems.
However, to ensure that Kiribati does not become one example among many in the near future, the decisive action of the international community is more important than ever before. For, as this article has repeatedly alluded to, the real underlying problem is the progression of climate change. While for Kiribati all mitigation measures are probably too late, for many other vulnerable regions of the world our actions today can still provide a future without dire conflict scenarios arising from the consequences of climate change. Determined climate action thus makes an enormously important contribution to global conflict prevention. In the words of Hopwood, ‘environmental problems are not local but global, so that actions and impacts must be considered internationally to avoid displacing problems from one area to another by actions such as releasing pollution that crosses boundaries, moving polluting industries to another location or using up more than an equitable share of the earth’s resources’[41].
Ole ter Wey, a Correspondent at Earth Refuge, is currently studying International Law and Human Rights at the UN-mandated University for Peace in San José, Costa Rica. He previously lived with a local community in Kiribati for over a year. There, he experienced first hand the consequences of climate change endangering the existence of an entire state
References
[1] Hopwood, B. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches, p. 39. Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, pp. 38-52. DOI: 10.1002/sd.244
[3] Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[4] van Trease, H. (1993). From Colony to Independence. In: H. van Trease, Atoll Politics – The Republic of Kiribati (pp. 3-22). MacMillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies.
[5] Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[6] World Bank (2020). Climate Change Knowledge Portal – Country Kiribati. World Bank Group. https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/kiribati
[7] United Nations (2019), General Assembly: National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21: Kiribati, A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1 (11 November 2019), p. 19. Available from undocs.org/en/A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1.
[8] Storey, D.; et al. (2010). Kiribati: an environmental “perfect storm”. Australian Geographer, Vol. 41(2), pp. 167-181. In: J. Campbell, et al. (2014). Climate Change and Migration Issues in the Pacific. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
[9] Ketchoyian, K. (2011). Kiribati and Sea Level Rise. ICE Case Studies. http://mandalaprojects.com/ice/ice-cases/kiribati.htm
[10] Abdalla, A. (2020). C.R. SIPPABIO – A Model for Conflict Analysis. University for Peace.
[11] Luck, E. C. (2002). Prevention: Theory and Practice. In: F. O. Hampson (Eds.), Prevention – Opportunities for the UN system (pp. 251-274). Lynne Rienner Publishers.
[12] Tanner, F. (2000). Conflict prevention and conflict resolution: limits of multilateralism. International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 82(839), pp. 541-559.
[13] Abdalla, A. (2020). C.R. SIPPABIO – A Model for Conflict Analysis. University for Peace.
[14] United Nations (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
[15] Abdalla, A. (2020). C.R. SIPPABIO – A Model for Conflict Analysis. University for Peace.
[16] Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition), p. 81. The Continuum International Publishing Group.
[17]Sylvester, O. (2019). Food security and sustainable agriculture in the 21st century: Key concepts and debates. University for Peace.
[18]D’Aspremont, J. (2015). The Collective Security System and the Enforcement of International Law. In: M. Weller (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (pp. 129-156). Oxford University Press.
[19]e.g., Samset, B. H.; et al. (2020). Delayed emergence of a global temperature response after emission mitigation. Nature Communications, Vol. 11(3261), pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17001-1
[20] e.g., Pala, Christopher (2020): Kiribati’s president’s plans to raise islands in fight against sea level-rise. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/10/kiribatis-presidents-plans-to-raise-islands-in-fight-against-sea-level-rise, last retrieved: 18.08.2021; CBC Radio (2020): The tiny Pacific nation of Kiribati wants to raise its islands to save it from the rising sea. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.5683498/the-tiny-pacific-nation-of-kiribati-wants-to-raise-its-islands-to-save-it-from-the-rising-sea-1.5682046, last retrieved: 18.08.2021
[21]Gormley, S. (2016). Migration with dignity: Their island nation may someday sink into the ocean, so what are Kiribati’s people to do?. Ottawa Citizen. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/migration-with-dignity-their-island-nation-may-someday-sink-into-the-ocean-so-what-are-kiribatis-people-to-do
[22] United Nations (2019), General Assembly: National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21: Kiribati, A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1 (11 November 2019), p. 19. Available from undocs.org/en/A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1.
[23]Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[24]Lister, N.; et al. (2015). Sustainable Artificial Island Concept Design for the Nation of Kiribati, p. 85. Ocean Engineering, Vol. 98, pp. 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.01.013
[27]Hopwood, B. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches. Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, pp. 38-52. DOI: 10.1002/sd.244
[28]Lister, N.; et al. (2015). Sustainable Artificial Island Concept Design for the Nation of Kiribati. Ocean Engineering, Vol. 98, pp. 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.01.013
[30]Pala, C. (2020). Kiribati’s president’s plans to raise islands in fight against sea-level rise. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/10/kiribatis-presidents-plans-to- raise-islands-in-fight-against-sea-level-rise
[33]Yuwei, H. (2020). Misinterpretation of photo of Chinese ambassador to Kiribati refuted. Global Times. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1198295.shtml
[34]Manor, I.; et al. (2018). Visually framing the Gaza War of 2014: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter. Media, War & Conflict, Vol. 11(4), pp. 369-391.
[35]Gormley, S. (2016). Migration with dignity: Their island nation may someday sink into the ocean, so what are Kiribati’s people to do?. Ottawa Citizen. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/migration-with-dignity-their-island-nation-may- someday-sink-into-the-ocean-so-what-are-kiribatis-people-to-do
[36]OHCHR (2020). Historic UN Human Rights case opens door to climate change asylum claims. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25482&LangID=E
[37]W. H. (2018). Why climate migrants do not have refugee status. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/06/why-climate-migrants-do-not-have-refugee-status
[39]Gemenne, F. (2015). One good reason to speak of ‘climate refugees’, p.71. Forced Migration Review, Vol. 49, pp. 70-71.
[40] Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[41]Hopwood, B. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches, p. 39. Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, pp. 38-52. DOI: 10.1002/sd.244
Rapid warming in regions across Russia has left millions in danger of displacement.
Climate scientists report that Russia is warming at 2.5 times the global average.1 Throughout 2020, Siberia experienced abnormally high temperatures and record breaking heat waves that peaked at 100º fahrenheit, (38º celsius).2 During the winter, temperatures were 50-59ºF (10-15ºC) above average.3 For reference, the median seasonal temperatures in this region tend to range from 60ºF (20ºC) in the summer to -13ºF (-25ºC) in the winter, with record lows reaching -90ºF (-67.8ºC) in northeastern areas of Russia.4
Siberia’s record high (100ºF) and low (-90ºF) display a temperature difference of 190ºF (87ºC). This spread exceeds some of the largest temperature deviations on earth.5
Frequent and intense variations in the country’s seasonality have exacerbated extreme temperature anomalies. These changes act as a catalyst for environmental disaster, feuling massive wildfires, torrential flooding, and melting of permafrost.
A vast majority of Siberian fires are burning above carbon-abundant peatlands and frozen soil that overlie actively thawing permafrost. These conditions have destabilized both rural and urban regions of Russia, resulting in increased damage to pipelines and the collapse of infrastructure. A report released from the Krasnoyarsk territory wrote that 60% of all structures in the closed city of Norilsk are deformed due to permafrost loss, adding to the displacement of its dense population.6
Research reveals that Siberian forest fires have caused a surge in carbon emissions by nearly one-third (395 megatonnes in 2020), in comparison to 208 megatonnes in 2019.7
An increase in tundra fires has also given rise to a fairly new phenomenon known as ‘zombie’ fires. These burns stem from summertime wildfires that survive throughout the depths of winter, brewing beneath the snow packed surface. They remain insulated by highly flammable, carbon-rich vegetation that smolders and reignites as the ground defrosts.8
These fires have begun creeping further into northern spreads of Siberia, where peatland is plentiful. Peat fires emit 100 times more carbon than typical wildfires, and can be more difficult to extinguish.9 As fires continue to emerge in permafrost zones, the release of methane and other hydrocarbons will intensify global warming.
Scientists warn that the permafrost layer may disappear completely within the next three decades if current warming trends prevail.10 These changes are predicted to release 100s of billions of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere, which will compound climate-sensitive issues around the world.11
Widespread flooding in Siberia has also contributed to large-scale degradation and displacement. During the summer of 2019, flash floods inundated nearly 103 communities, leaving 33,000 people displaced and 2,165 in immediate need of medical assistance.12
Extreme variations in regional rainfall characteristics have amplified the frequency and magnitude of recent floods. In June of 2021, the Crimean City of Yalta declared a state of emergency after a cyclone hit the Black Sea Peninsula, lashing the region with intense rain. So far, the floods have submerged the city of Kerch and some surrounding districts, forcing more than 1,300 people to evacuate their homes.13
A pervasive concern is that the Kremlin will continue to neglect the ever-present manifestations of climate change. However, the impacts of environmental disaster and displacement may eventually make climate policy too difficult to deflect.
The future of Russia’s socioeconomic well-being rests on the implementation of a strong adaptation framework. It will be crucial for nations to work in union against the adverse effects of anthropogenic warming in order to curtail climate collapse.
Rachel Aronoff recently graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in English, and a specialization in Literature and the Environment. She is also certified in health and wellness coaching, personal training, and in the process of becoming a yoga instructor.
References
1 Nilsen, Thomas. (2015). Arctic Russia is warming 2.5 times faster than rest of the globe. The Barents Observer. Retrieved June 18, 2021. https://thebarentsobserver.com/ru/node/158
The advent of the Fifth Generation (5G) networking system can be seen as a progressive step in our fast-growing world. However, one important aspect which should concern both governments and service providers is the effect of the 5G networking system on the right to a healthy environment.
In 2020, the issue was raised by scientists and doctors from 36 countries in an appeal to the European Union. The concerns were encompassed by numerous issues that have a direct link to the right to a healthy environment.
Escalations in Energy Consumption
There will be a massive escalation in energy consumption as large volumes of new components will be manufactured to enable the initiation of the 5G networking system. Such an enormous increase in energy consumption will directly affect and play a key role in climate change, as referred to in the IEA’s 2010 Report. Notably, approximately 4% of global electricity consumption and 1.4% of global carbon emissions are linked to telecommunication. The Ericsson Mobility Report projects that by the year 2025, 5G could have an estimated number of 2.6 billion users, and that the total number of global mobile subscribers could reach 5.8 billion.
As a result of these projections, it is believed that information technology could account for one-fifth of total global electricity consumption. By the year 2040, information technology could account for around 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In this way, the 5G system lacks energy efficiency and is not sustainable.
Increase in E-Waste
E-waste is made up of numerous components, the majority of which are hazardous. When these components are dismantled and inappropriately processed, they contribute to water, soil, and air contamination, and pose a serious risk to the right to a healthy environment. The Basel Convention was the first treaty that endeavored to safeguard human health – as well as the environment – against the detriment that has continually persisted through generations, management of businesses and corporations, transboundary movements, and the disposal of hazardous waste.
Notably, following the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, E-waste was added to Annex VIII of the Convention. In 2011, the Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI) was formally adopted at the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention in Columbia. Its purpose was to encourage environmentally-friendly consumer behavior, and to advance a better alternative for reuse and material recycling. However, the effectiveness of the initiative is yet to be evaluated.
In 2015, an outline for the Agenda for Sustainable Development 2030 was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, encompassing the 17 integrated Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). E-waste is specifically linked to many of these targets, and the increase in worldwide levels of E-waste poses a threat to the achievement of the SDGs.
The production of new devices incorporating the latest 5G network would accelerate the demand for this technology in replacement of older versions, which would in turn increase E-waste levels. The Global E-waste Monitor reports that global E-waste is estimated to reach about 74 megatonnes by the year 2030. This is about double the 2014 figures, and would further fuel higher rates of electricity consumption and the use of electronics with a much shorter lifecycle and fewer repair alternatives. In order for countries to manage and minimize E-waste in an efficacious and sustainable manner, coordinated action is required.
Threats to the Ecosystem
A survey by Ericcson indicates that in order to establish effective 5G networks, 70 million towers would have to be installed across the world by the year 2025. Such extensive installations would increase harmful emissions of 5G technology radio frequency waves. The known effects of towers and radio frequency waves on the ecosystem are multifaceted in that they affect human beings, birds, and insects.
Humans
According to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2011 report, radio frequency waves pose a potential threat of cancer in humans. In the same year, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe released Resolution 1815 on the Potential Dangers of Electromagnetic Fields and their Consequences on the Environment. It called upon European governments to take all reasonable steps that required to mitigate exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to children and young people who are potentially more vulnerable to developing head tumors.
In 2020, the Health Council of the Netherlands provided a detailed report evaluating the effect of 5G technology on the health of humans. The Council advised avoiding using higher frequency bands, since the risk associated with such higher frequency has not yet been declared. In light of this, the Council appealed to the European Union and requested a moratorium on the roll out of 5G technology until further research has been conducted to trace any potential health risks.
Birds and insects
The impact of cellphone towers and radio frequency waves on birds has been established in various research studies. In 2012, the Indian Environment Ministry published a report acknowledging the negative impact of the effect of cellphone towers on birds and bees. In a similar research study conducted in Spain, it was found that the radiation from these towers negatively affects the reproduction of birds. Further research has shown that insects – including honeybees – absorb a significant amount of radiation from the 5G spectrum. This causes alterations in both the function and behavior of insects.
Conclusion
This new and advanced technology is spreading rapidly across the globe, in spite of the serious threats it poses.
The developers of 5G are attempting to establish a network with a less harmful effect on the environment, but the results of this are yet to be ascertained. It should have been imperative that the implications of 5G networking were considered prior to its roll out, and governmental and international organizations still have not taken a hands-on approach. Efforts are allegedly being made to nullify the threats posed by 5G, but the authenticity of these reports is questionable.
The right to a healthy environment is crucially already under threat, and this should guide developers to consider the potential dangers posed by new technologies. Prevention lies in abiding by existing environmental policies, so that technological advancement is on par with the right to a healthy environment.
In November 2020, Central America was hit with not one, but two, devastating hurricanes: Eta and Iota, which caused extensive damage across Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, and Panama. Following these disasters, The Franciscan Network for Migrants reported that approximately 34 people emigrate every hour from Guatemala and Honduras because of climate-related reasons. By 2050, the World Bank estimates that 1.4 million people in Mexico and Central America could migrate due to the consequences of climate change.
Eta and Iota were recorded as Category 4 hurricanes, and two of the most intense storms in the region’s history. The severe winds and devastating floods affected six million people, and caused the displacement of nearly 600,000 people in Honduras, Guatemala, and Nicaragua. Little government assistance was given, meaning that up to 250,000 people were still in emergency shelters in January 2021. Eta and Iota destroyed people’s houses but also significantly impacted employment in the region. For instance, in Honduras, the agricultural sector provided for one-third of the country’s employment but 80% of this employment was destroyed by the storms.
President Biden’s Executive Order
In light of the clear acceleration of climate migration, President Biden signed an executive order in February 2021 on “Rebuilding and Enhancing Programs to Resettle Refugees and Planning for the Impact of Climate Change on Migration”. Federal agencies were to submit reports on climate change and its impact on migration, including a discussion on the implications of climate-related migration on international security, and a plan for protection and resettlement of those displaced due to climate change.
While this first step is an important one, as of now climate migrants do not have clear international protection. Under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, refugees are recognized as individuals outside their home country because they face persecution based on race, religion, nationality, or political opinion. As such, this definition does not include climate refugees – they are therefore being denied international protection. Biden’s executive order is a promising initial step, but the administration needs to go further. The United States (U.S.) is responsible for the largest share of heat-trapping fossil fuel emissions. These fossil fuel emissions are a large contributing cause of climate migration, so it is now crucial for the administration to include climate migrants in its migration policies.
Kamala Harris Disregards Climate Migration
In June 2021, Vice President Kamala Harris held a press conference with Guatemalan President, Alejandro Giammattei. She discussed the President’s plan to moderate migration at the southern border, and designated corruption and human trafficking as the most pressing causes of migration to the U.S. from Central America. Her visit to Guatemala came a few months after Hurricanes Eta and Iota, and President Biden’s executive order. Yet, Harris failed to acknowledge climate change as the biggest cause for migration in 2020.
The administration plans to tackle migration by investing $4 billion to “build security and prosperity” in Central America. This investment will be used to stimulate the region’s economy and to tackle corruption. Once again, this plan could help in the short term, but it fails to acknowledge more pressing matters that need to be dealt with in the long term, such as the effect of increasing global temperatures, rising sea levels, or severe weather events displacing millions of people. It seems futile for the Biden administration to invest a large sum of money to stimulate the economies of these countries without acknowledging the fact that their populations are already migrating due to climate change. The U.S. continues to fund fossil fuel projects in the Global South – from which a majority of climate migrants will be fleeing in the next 30 years – when its priority should be protecting those who have already fled.
It is crucial that now, more than ever, governments and international institutions change their policies to include climate migrants. Today, we witness the acceleration of climate change and the mass migration that it causes. This is no longer a problem for the future – it has already begun. With the COP26 taking place this November, governments must go beyond solely discussing climate migration. It is time to act and provide adequate international protection to the victims of human-caused climate change.
Flora Bensadon holds a degree in History and International Development Degree from McGill University. Through her studies, her culturally diverse background and her travels, Flora has taken a profound interest in the problems of migration, specifically those of climate refugees.
The global cryptocurrency revolution has reached an all-time high with people actively involved in cryptocurrency investing. The idea of a decentralized currency without privacy concerns has been the key factor behind the growing popularity of these digital currencies. This has been acknowledged by institutions like Deutsche Bank, which anticipates that by 2030 digital currencies will have over 200 million users and could eventually replace cash one day. Another major factor that propels the success of already popular cryptocurrency is its portrayal as a ‘greener’ alternative to traditional cash and its potential to evolve into a global currency. However, Elon Musk stirred global controversy when he questioned the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies, and subsequently declined to accept Bitcoin for Tesla payments.
The exchange rate of Bitcoin has fallen drastically, due to subsiding hype and excitement, the prevalence of common sense, and the global audience shifting their attention to how much energy is actually consumed by these cryptocurrencies. The potential conflict between these ‘future global currencies’ and the efforts being made towards ‘a sustainable future’ is intriguing. This article attempts to understand this potential conflict through a detailed analysis of the energy consumed by cryptos, its incompatibility with the idea of a sustainable future, and the challenges it poses to a greener tomorrow.
Cryptocurrency Mining and Energy Consumption
Cryptocurrencies, unlike the traditional banking system of maintaining account balances in a central database, make use of a distributed network of ‘miners’. These are a network of specialized computers that keep a record of new and constantly added blocks. A computational race exists between these miners to earn incentives, and as such blocks can only be recorded by solving cryptographic puzzles. Incentives or bonuses are only given to the recording miner. While on the one hand this assures a fail-proof system, on the other, it requires huge computational power. This mining process tends to lose efficiency due to the rising prices of the cryptocurrencies, because the mathematical puzzles to create blocks become more complex and require more computation power to keep the number of transactions constant. This means more computing power and energy is being consumed per block to process the same number of transactions in the face of the increasing complexity of the puzzles.
As per recent research by the University of Cambridge which aims to create a Bitcoin electricity consumption index, it has been estimated that the miners of Bitcoin alone are going to consume 130 Terawatt-hours of energy (TWh). This energy is close to 0.5% of global electricity consumption. Just like any other conventional source of energy, electricity has its fair share of carbon emission issues. Using the standard global scale, such an amount of electricity usage would put the Bitcoin economy on par – in terms of carbon dioxide emissions – with a small developing nation. It is also interesting to note that 65% of Bitcoin mining takes place in China, where the major source of electricity generation is coal burning. Many other countries around the world are primarily dependent on coal and fossil fuels for electricity generation. This is even more concerning as coal burning is a significant contributor to climate change, owing to the high carbon emission rates associated with it. An alarming report by CNBC suggests that Bitcoin alone produces 35.95 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions every year.
The Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goals
Under Article 2(c) of the UN Paris Agreement (a legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris on 12 December 2015) every signatory is obligated to make attempts to hold global temperatures within 2°C above pre-industrial levels. This agreement also reflects the understanding that the future of international finance must include a to switch to low greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the signatories that allow for such crypto-mining to continue are directly violating the agreement. Furthermore, the central idea of the agreement was to enable modern technology to be utilized in a way that mitigates greenhouse gas emissions to the highest standard possible. The highly polluting use of technology, such as that discussed above, would be in stark contravention of the spirit of the agreement.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a global agenda which was adopted by countries in 2015 with a vision to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity. The 17 SDGs and 169 targets are part of what is known as ‘the 2030 Agenda’ which recognizes that “eradicating poverty in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is the greatest global challenge and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development”. Usage of cryptocurrencies directly contradicts these goals which were formulated to ensure a sustainable and better future for humanity. They directly go against SDGs 7, 9, 11, and 12 which deal with ensuring affordable and clean energy, industry, innovation and infrastructure, creating sustainable cities, and responsible consumption and production respectively.
The Solution: Revamping the Crypto-Model
The analysis of the various reports and the due examination of the crypto energy consumption pattern highlights that the seemingly ‘green’ currency actually has a huge carbon footprint. The present generation of the human race, in its efforts to tackle global climate change, has been constantly trying to transition towards more energy-efficient technology. Millions of dollars are being poured into research and development to come up with sustainable and green technology. On the face of this, the growing popularity of cryptocurrencies can be seen as a major setback because, in their present state, they endanger the future of human civilization.
With global temperatures increasing, we have seen a fresh rise in global warming-related issues. Whether it be as a result of untimely flooding or pre-season blooming, the very existence of human life is being threatened. People are forced to leave their homelands because of climate stressors. It is ironic that the currency which promised to, in a way, mitigate the challenges of the global climate crisis has itself become one of its major causes. The energy consumption of these cryptocurrencies and the hope of a sustainable future are antagonist pairs; neither can live while the other survives. The key lies not in the complete abandonment of cryptos but a gradual transition to more energy-efficient ways of mining them.
Whether you’re in favor of cryptocurrencies or against them, there is little doubt that these blockchain-based currencies use enormous amounts of energy. Much of this energy usage comes from burning coal and other fossil fuels, although cryptocurrency advocates have argued that renewable sources are also a major component. While the exact figures are disputed, even the best-case scenarios indicate that mining is a major factor in carbon dioxide emissions. Thus, the question that naturally follows is: do we abandon the cryptocurrency framework? The answer to this question is tricky. While there is no denying that cryptocurrencies in their present state of operation are a great threat to the idea of sustainability, there have been recent developments of alternate cryptos which are more promising and less energy-consuming. For instance, Ripple (XRP) consume only 0.0079 KWh per transaction – this is highly power-efficient when compared to Bitcoins. Further, new forms of energy-efficient crypto mining are being introduced.
Cryptocurrencies, in their current form, are not only highly inefficient, but their continued usage can pose considerable danger to the future of humans. There is more than one solution to the problem: from devising a better mining strategy, to transitioning towards greener energy for mining. The entire concept is so nascent that hardly any academic debate or scientific report available could suggest concrete plans. However, looking at the growing popularity of cryptos, it is pertinent to note that there indeed exists a problem and the need of the hour lies not in ignoring it, but rather starting a meaningful discussion to come up with better strategies to effectively tackle it.
Raj Shekhar is a law student at National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India. He is the current Future Leaders India (Political Strategy) Fellowship holder.
Amid ongoing global debate around the definition, classification, and treatment of ‘climate migrants’, little attention is paid to what the people affected want.1 There have been multiple reports with varying estimates of the number of people expected to be displaced due to climate change by 2050. 2,3 The common link featured in these reports, however, is that the majority of climate displacement is and will be internal. People around the world will be forced to relocate within their own countries to escape the slow onset impacts of climate change. Even in the face of uninhabitable conditions, people are generally unwilling to leave their homes and relocate to foreign lands. So, in addition to arguing over cross-border arrangements, countries ought to come up with inward-looking strategies to deal with climate-induced displacement.
One needs to look no further than the island states in the Pacific as examples. These small island nations are more vulnerable to the acute effects of climate change than any other region in the world. 4 Sea-level rise, amongst other climatic changes, is threatening the existence of these geographically isolated and small landmasses. Kiribati, which rises no more than two meters above sea-level at its highest point, is one such island state. A 2016 United Nations report has shown that half of the households have already been affected by sea-level rise on one of Kiribati’s constituent islands.5 In neighboring Tuvalu, a UNU-EHS study found that 97% of surveyed households had been impacted by natural hazards between the period 2005 and 2015, yet only 53% of the people affected believed that they would be able to afford migration in the future.6
Despite the above, people of these nations have been unwilling to leave their homes, families, and lives. New Zealand’s Pacific Access Ballot, an annual lottery which selects people from five Pacific countries for New Zealand residency each year, has repeatedly had quotas go unfulfilled.7 The governments of these islands are trying to build adaptive capacity and employ migration as a means of improving the quality of life. The Kiribati government has implemented a program, entitled ‘Migration with Dignity’, which aims to create a skilled workforce that can find decent employment abroad. In 2014, the government also purchased 6,000 acres in Fiji to try and ensure food security whilst the environment changes.8 With support from the Green Climate Fund, the Tuvalu Coastal Adaptation Project will enhance resilience to coastal hazards on some of the nation’s islands.9
These measures might not be enough, but they are better than simply waiting for other countries to help. As Kiribati President, Taneti Maamau said: “We are telling the world that climate change impacts Kiribati, it’s really happening… But we are not telling people to leave.” 8 Rather than simply focusing on relocation – an option that does not support true self-determination for the affected people – international policy should provide adaptive capacity and long-term support to these island states. Many engineering options are available, such as coastal fortification, and land reclamation technologies. It is imperative, therefore, for developed countries to voluntarily adopt these measures before they are forced to do so.
Nikunj is a consultant currently working for a climate focused philanthropy. In the past, he has worked as a business strategy consultant across various sectors and has also volunteered for various non-profits. His undergraduate background is in Engineering from BITS Pilani. Interested in human-environmental ecosystems and how they adapt to climate change, Nikunj has been part of various climate adaptation projects.
Climate-induced violence is rising in poverty-ridden regions across the earth, and women are being left in the shadows of its wrath.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, compounding variations in seasonality have resulted in an increased incidence of extreme weather events, acute environmental degradation, and a widespread decline in quality of life. With more than 95% of farmed land using rain-fed cultivation, these regions are heavily reliant on stable rainfall cycles to maintain annual agricultural yields. 1 In recent years, increasing severity in climate variability has magnified the intensity and frequency of flooding and drought, exacerbating issues of food insecurity and resource scarcity throughout the land.
Changes in climate disproportionately impact the livelihoods of women because they possess limited social control and ownership of land, and often serve as primary caregivers within their communities. They also face increased exposure to gender-based violence during periods of economic and environmental upheaval, as well as harmful discrimination in the labour market, making it difficult to generate alternative sources of income as needed.
Economic pressures have intensified with environmental disaster in many rural areas of Sub-Saharan Africa, driving hunger-based fatalities. In Angola, girls as young as the age of 12 are resorting to prostitution in order to avoid starvation. 2 Crisis coverage from the Thomas Reuters Foundation reports that “a girl might get 500 kwanzas ($1) for sex – enough to buy about a kilo of beans or two kilos of maize – but could get as little as 200 kwanzas.. Sometimes they earn as little as 5 RGT ($0.31) for one sexual encounter, which is .. not even enough to buy a loaf.” 3 These conditions simultaneously place girls at higher risk of sexual exploitation and human trafficking due to the subversive nature of the sex market.
In the Amboseli basin of southern Kenya, rising temperatures have caused rivers and grasslands to dry up, causing women and young girls to walk extensive distances to collect essential resources including firewood and water. 4 A field report conducted by the UN Africa Renewal program affirms that these tasks are both physically and mentally demanding, as it may take more than 20 hours per week to locate clean water, examine existing well levels, and carry the water home. 5 This process leaves young girls vulnerable to sexual assault and rape, whilst worsening the spread of infectious disease and infirmity within already weakened communities.
Environmental extremes also aggravate the prevalence of child marriage in various rural regions. The intensity and duration of recent dry spells have left countless families in dire need of basic resources, causing many to offer their daughters as brides to help ease financial stress. In rural districts of Malawi, “girls are forced sometimes to marry younger than 14. Some are impregnated by schoolteachers, some are forced to get married so the in-laws will bring bread and butter to their homes, others marry because of peer pressure. Especially when harvests are not good, these problems arise as girls are used to generate income.” 6
An increase in child marriage has further driven the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM), as this procedure is often carried out in preparation for marriage. Despite bans that have been implemented to prohibit both of these practices, researchers in northern Kenya have witnessed a climate-related surge in cases. 7 Throughout the 2020/2021 season, periods of prolonged drought were superseded by widespread locust outbreaks, resulting in deeper impoverishment and irreparable damage to livestock and crops. Despairing households succumbed to desperate measures, marrying off their daughters in exchange for dowries. 8
Girls who have undergone FGM are also perceived as more ‘valuable’ in comparison to those who remain uncut, inviting higher bride prices. Many families are able to circumvent the bans on these practices by shipping their daughters to neighboring countries where laws are less restrictive, and having them sent back prior to marriage. 9
In the absence of government intervention, rates of child marriage and FGM will continue to rise in synchronicity with environmental disaster and displacement. A severe lack of legal reinforcement and safeguarding services in regions across Sub-Saharan Africa is contributing to this endless cycle of gender-based violence. If vulnerable areas are left without stronger protection aid, this issue will only continue to worsen as levels of hunger and extreme weather events become more pervasive.
It is vital to draw deeper attention to the connections between climate change and violence against women and children in order to subvert the underground nature in which many of these practices are conducted. In addressing the impacts of climate-sensitive stresses, it is crucial to accentuate the various gender disparities inherent in a shifting ecological framework.
Rachel Aronoff recently graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in English, and a specialization in Literature and the Environment. She is also certified in health and wellness coaching, personal training, and in the process of becoming a yoga instructor.
2. Batha, Emma. (2020) Cheap as bread, girls sell sex to survive hunger crisis in Africa. (2020). Thomas Reuters Foundation News. Retrieved May 24, 2021. https://news.trust.org/item/20200130182713-wao6m/
6. Climate change connections to HIV and AIDS. (2009). The Winds of Change: Climate change, poverty and the environment in Malawi, Oxfam International. Retrieved April 27, 2021. https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/winds-change
“We demand that Global North countries recognise climate migrants as such.”
– Xiye Bastida, youth climate activist, US Leaders Summit on Climate 2021
As climate activists demand accountability from powerful corporate and government actors, the disproportionate impacts of climate change on vulnerable groups is the imprint on the flipside of the climate justice coin. With climate change and human rights issues growing inseparable, activists are focusing their attention on vulnerable groups like farmers, women and people in poverty, especially in the Global South. An issue that encompasses all these groups is climate-induced displacement and migration.
‘Climate migration’ refers to the movement of people forced to leave, or choosing to leave their homes predominantly due to climate change impacts[1]. Slow onset climate change impacts that drive climate migration include crop failure, water shortage, and rising sea levels. These can pressure people to flee their homes either by rendering their livelihoods untenable (e.g. for farmers) or making their homes uninhabitable (e.g. due to sea level rise)[2]. Other sudden climate-induced events like flash floods and typhoons also drive temporary displacement.
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates that 80% of annual worldwide sudden onset natural disaster-induced displacement occurs in the Asia Pacific region, where income inequality, conflict, and regional connectivity are also major drivers of migration[3]. A 2010 report for the US National Intelligence Council predicted that climate change may induce cross-border movements of “Vietnamese and Indonesians to Malaysia, Cambodians and Laotians to Thailand, Burmese to Thailand and Malaysia, and Filipinos throughout the region”[4]. Within borders, coastal communities can feel the growing impacts of sea level rise, fish stock depletion and intensifying coastal storms, and may move inland away from the coasts. Nearby cities and urban areas with commerce, job opportunities, and family relations also serve as pull factors for displaced people[5].
LET’S TALK ABOUT IT
Climate migration remains on the fringe of discourse in the front-facing messages of some prominent climate movements, both in Southeast Asia and internationally. It is merely identified as one of many climate threats in cautionary messages about global warming, rather than a potential thrust of climate action. Mentions of climate migration or displacement usually take the form of standalone articles aiming to educate audiences about the urgency of climate change, such as those by Greenpeace US[6]. Extinction Rebellion US consolidates resources on climate change and migration on its website, directing users to news articles and research[7]. In news interviews, members of Klima Action Malaysia (KAMY), a Malaysia youth climate group, cite climate migration as one of the consequences of inaction[8].
Understandably, activists focus on solutions and opportunities that can lead to calls for action that their audiences can contribute to, and demands for governments and corporations. These are messages that feed into their positive imagination of a just transition and a climate-resilient future; but can climate migration be a part of that imagination?
The table below exhibits some examples of initiatives prioritised by these movements.
Organisation/initiative
Region/country
Main calls to action, demands or principles
Greenpeace International
International
‘Ways to Act’· Protect the Oceans· Tell your story· Stop plastic pollution· Join the movement for clean air· Prevent uncontrollable global fires· Raise your voice for climate justice
Sunrise Movement
United States
(Selected) principles· Stop climate change and create good-paying jobs in the process· People from all paths of life· Non-violence· Unite with other movements for change· Fight for the liberation of all people
Asia Climate Rally 2020
Asia
Demands· Climate action now· Defend our environmental defenders· Policies for the people and planet· Demand ambition, collaboration and accountability· Towards a just recovery
Youth Advocates for Climate Action Philippines (YACAP)
Philippines
‘Points of Unity’· Climate justice· Urgency of climate action· Defend our environmental defenders· Youth-led collective action· System change
Klima Action Malaysia (KAMY)
Malaysia
Demands· Inclusive and intersectional climate action· Serious political will· The right to climate information
Besides calling for accelerated reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, as shown in bold, most of these groups share a common thread on inclusiveness and climate justice — making sure that climate action considers the voice and well-being of all people, including vulnerable groups. It is evident that the protection of climate migrants does fall under the umbrella of inclusive climate action that is being championed by many activists; but it is discussed mostly insofar as minimising climate change can help to prevent climate displacement. The fact is that climate displacement is already happening. How does the current plight of climate migrants fit into the demand for a just transition?
A THREAT TO SECURITY?
Governments have already recognised the alleged security threat presented by climate migration for some years. The security-based narrative for approaching climate migration argues that instability in neighbouring countries can drive illegal migration, which can in turn exacerbate drug and arms trafficking and resource-related conflict[9]. This perspective uses self-interest as a credible motivation for governments, so integrating human rights and justice into such a mindset is a challenge. Some have responded to this security concern by advocating for a military strategy focusing on stronger border protection, but climate security expert Professor Lorraine Elliott warns this will instead likely increase instability and uncertainty, while further punishing those already vulnerable to the climate crisis[10]. In a report on climate migration, peacebuilding organisation International Alert stresses that “migration in itself need not be a destabilising factor… it is not the process, but the context and the political response to immigration that shape the risks of violent conflict”[11]. For example, in a study on Indonesian-Malaysian labour migration, researchers found that conflict was triggered when it shifted from “being perceived as an economic issue with potential gains for both countries” to a “political and security issue in which the interests of sending and receiving states were “viewed as threats to one another”[12].
INTERNAL DISPLACEMENT
In terms of internal displacement, case studies from the Philippines, Cambodia, and Indonesia have found inadequate institutional and legal provisions for the human rights of those affected by natural disasters — especially women, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Researchers’ recommendations included disaster risk management policies with specific guidelines on the treatment of vulnerable groups in compliance with international standards, as well as comprehensive laws enacting the rights of internally displaced people (IDPs) in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement. In particular, it was pointed out that such policy development would be an opportunity to overcome patriarchal beliefs and “harness the knowledge and experiences of women”[13].
There is, then, a precedent for climate activists to apply the “justice” in “climate justice”, to garner greater empathy and equity in government responses to climate migrants. Professor Elliott does not support “simply mainstreaming climate change into security discourses”, but rather for “bottom-up policymaking” that aims to strengthen adaptation, social resilience, disaster risk management, and sustainable development strategies[14]. This is echoed by a 2018 World Bank report on internal climate migration, which recommends that governments actively embed climate migration into development planning and seek to improve their understanding of the issue itself[15].
A POSITIVE OUTLOOK
Climate activists also favour a positive framing of climate action, not just as the prevention of disaster, but as an opportunity for better lives. A campaign by the Singapore Climate Rally called #TakeBack2050 encouraged its audience to imagine what life would be like in 2050 after overcoming the climate crisis. Participants raised their hopes for community gardens, renewable energy, and a more equitable society[16]. This uplifting narrative has already been embraced by many world leaders. At the US Leaders’ Climate Summit in April 2021, Vietnam’s President Nguyen Xuan Phuc emphasised that transitioning to a net zero economy would “bring about huge opportunities and benefits, including jobs, ensuring energy security and enhancing economic competitiveness and sustainability”.
Such positivity can also be applied to climate migration. Former director of the Australian Migration Research Centre, Professor Graeme Hugo, argued that climate migration can help build resilience and adaptive capacity in vulnerable areas. Migration can benefit host and source countries through remittances, knowledge transfer, increased foreign direct investment and diaspora involvement in development and most certainly, benefit migrants themselves and their families. Migration has also contributed to poverty reduction in Southeast Asia[17]. Therefore, viewing climate migration as a development opportunity rather than just a coping response can maximise the benefits for all parties.
Paying greater attention to climate migration as a tenet of climate justice is well-aligned with the existing principles and demands of climate activists. While Global North activists can argue for the moral responsibility of developed countries to help climate migrants in and from developing countries; Southeast Asian countries, which are mostly developing, call for different tactics. Framing the issue as a pragmatic development opportunity can help avoid excessive security tensions around climate migration in a region already rife with political turmoil, and instead encourage the mainstreaming of climate migration into national planning. Southeast Asian climate activists repeatedly point out that their countries are already experiencing some of the most intense impacts of climate change, which disproportionately affect vulnerable groups; and these include climate displacement and migration. It is an issue which presents both the urgency and potential for climate activists to call upon governments and the international community to recognise the opportunities that fair and well-planned climate migration and displacement policies in Southeast Asia can establish beyond humanitarian responses.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not represent the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute.
Jiahui Qiu is a research officer at the Climate Change in Southeast Asia Programme, ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore. She is a graduate in Environmental Studies from the National University of Singapore. Her interests include natural capital and ecosystem services, climate policy, and just transitions.
Earth Refuge Newsletter
Sign up to our Earth Refuge newsletter for the latest updates on climate change, environmental justice and migration!
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkPrivacy policy
