| Earth Refuge

December 8, 2021December 10, 2021

Loss and Damage Finance is Not About Charity

8 December 2021 – by Ole Ter Wey

On the penultimate day of COP26, a representative from the Climate Action Network presented Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon with an award called ‘Ray of the Day’. This symbolized recognition for a long overdue action: during the conference, Scotland became the first country in the world to contribute to a Loss & Damage fund, to help countries in the Global South respond to damage caused by climate change. Initially limited to one million pounds, shortly before the award was presented, First Minister Sturgeon even doubled the amount. A great act that deserved the rousing applause in the room as well as the award. Right?

What Constitutes a ‘Loss’ or ‘Damage’?

The term ‘Loss & Damage’ refers to destruction which has already occurred that can be attributed to climate change, despite mitigation and adaptation efforts. ‘Losses’ are permanent and cannot be recovered; loss of human life, extinction of biological species or destruction of cultural assets or culturally important places are among them. ‘Damages’ however, are reversible, at least in theory; examples might include damaged infrastructure or monetary losses from a collapse in the economy.

The History of Loss and Damage

Loss & Damage first came up in international policy in 1991, when the Alliance of Small Island States promoted climate insurance in the drafting of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which can be understood as the most important international agreement aiming to reduce anthropogenic harm to our climate system. Though the term ‘insurance’ did in fact make it into the UNFCCC document as an option requiring consideration , it took more than two decades for a Loss & Damage mechanism to actually be created.

Following protracted, acrimonious negotiations, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) was finally drafted in 2013. Its main task is to promote “implementation of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change…in a comprehensive, integrated and coherent manner.”^[i] In reality however, the means of WIM are limited to research and dialogue, not implementation at all. And whilst research and the initiation of conversations surrounding climate-induced loss and damage are two urgently needed components in the response to climate change, WIM makes no direct provisions for liability or compensation for loss and damage. Therefore, it must be stated that WIM is by far not as meaningful as the originally proposed climate insurance mechanism.

The case is similar for the so-called Santiago Network, which was established as part of the WIM in 2020. It is focused on ‘the implementation of relevant approaches [for averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage] at the local, national and regional level, in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change”^[ii]. Though for too long the lack of implementation of any compensation or liability mechanisms has hindered global progress in this sphere, in a positive move, COP26 discussions have now provided steps towards the operationalization of the Santiago Network.

COP26

At COP26 itself, the words of sympathy were consistently strong, with everyone claiming that they really do want to help. However, it seems that nobody wants to pay for it. Not only is this completely unacceptable, but it’s also tragically ironic. The Global North, with their reticence to contribute financially, is responsible for an unbelievable 92% of climate change^[iii], and has made gigantic economic profits through some of the most environmentally damaging activities. To the Global South, on the other hand, devastating damage has been done, with almost no recompense, financial or otherwise. People, cultures, and animal species are dying, local economies are collapsing, and people are forced to flee their homes. Loss & Damage is not about charity, but rather about reparation payments. The money that the affected countries and their populations require should be seen as a duty; something that is owed to them as opposed to a goodwill gesture.

At a side event at the conference, an NGO representative shared his difficult mission back home in Norway. The Norwegian government appears to be of the belief that by agreeing to contribute to what are known as adaptation payments of 100 billion USD per year, they will no longer be required to talk about Loss & Damage, being under the impression that the two payments basically constitute the same thing. The reality couldn’t be further from the truth, though the distinction is actually quite simple.

Adaptation aims to increase resilience in affected areas in a way that makes it possible to live with the consequences of climate change. Examples might include new crop varieties that can cope with changes in precipitation, or the construction of sea walls to protect against rising sea levels. Loss and damage payments, on the other hand, are due when such adaptation measures have failed. For example, if agriculture becomes completely impossible because of droughts, or people are forced to leave their homes and possessions behind because of flooding. Hence, the adaptation fund (which in itself is far from being provided fully) cannot be used as an excuse for not providing money for the Loss & Damage fund.

Author’s Note

It is noted that Scotland’s contribution to the climate fund is a step forward, albeit only a baby step. But at least a start has been made. However, I find it more than questionable that Scotland is being applauded, and its contribution being positioned as a great act of philanthropy. In reality it is only a partial fulfilment of the state’s international duty, and in the grand scheme of things, I believe it constitutes relatively very minor progress towards what is right, just and long overdue. In contrast, there isn’t enough applause for the young people who are fighting tirelessly for climate justice and who were the ones able to persuade Scotland’s First Minister Sturgeon to at least take this first step. I do trust that they will continue their fight and this step will soon be followed by many others.

Ole ter Wey 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. It was then that he began thinking about how to address forced migration and dedicated his Liberal Arts Bachelor to the topics of migration and integration.

This article was originally published in the Earth Refuge Archive as part of our collaboration with Human Rights Pulse on the COP26 Summit.

References

^[i] United Nations (2013): FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013, paragraph 5. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf#page=6

^[ii] UNFCCC (2019): Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts and its 2019 review, paragraph 43. https://unfccc.int/documents/209506

^[iii] Hickel, Jason (2020): Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary, page e399. In: The Lancet Planetary Health, Volume 4, Issue 9, September 2020, Pages e399-e404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30196-0

December 8, 2021December 10, 2021

The UN Climate Change Conference Neglected a Vital Consequence of Climate Change: Migration

aerial photography of footprints on shore during daytime

8 December 2021 – by Johanna Wassong

COP26, the 26^th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties, took place in Glasgow from the 31^st October – 12^th November 2021, and was branded as an attempt to “unite the world to tackle climate change”.

Though undoubtedly an important goal, the Conference’s agenda neglected a vital consequence and aspect of climate change: climate migration, potentially harming the sustainability of the negotiations and giving the impression that one of the most frightening consequences of climate change is being ‘swept under the rug’.

The main target of the UN climate change conference was to solidify the targets presented in the 2015 Paris Agreement, namely, to limit warming of the Earth’s temperature to 1.5 °C from pre-industrial times. The published aims of the negotiations are to:

Reduce emissions
Strengthen adaptation and resilience to climate impacts
Scale up finance and support.

The summit’s introductory document, website, and published targets hardly mentioned climate-induced migration. The only time where one could see negotiations approach the topic was on a single day under the theme of “adaptation, loss and damage”, whilst other agenda items ranged from the World Leader’s Summit to discussions relating to finance, energy, nature, science, and innovation,

Whilst this commentary does not intend to down-play the importance of such a conference as a positive first step, it must be acknowledged that to sideline climate-induced displacement is to ignore some of climate change’s most devastating impacts upon individuals, cultures and communities. Though COP26 mentions that “the international community must unite and support people who are most vulnerable to the impacts of the changing climate”, there do not appear to be any elements of this conference dedicated to those who are, and will be, forced to flee their homes as a result of increasingly hostile climates.

The approach of the United Kingdom

The UK’s leadership page itself is mainly focused on the economic aspect of climate change and its following ‘Green Revolution’, with every target or accomplishment listed on its presentation being associated with either economics or finance. Whilst it is true that long-term, durable solutions to the climate crisis do require financial backing, emphasising the economics at the expense of a focus on the lived experiences of the individual severely undermines the possibility of developing tenable solutions which are inclusive of people across the globe, living in countries with differing economic ‘buying power’.

Moreover, Boris Johnson’s statement that “securing a brighter future for our children and future generations requires countries to take urgent action at home and abroad to turn the tide on climate change” is firmly juxtaposed with the UK’s policy towards refugees, specifically the Home Office’s recently proposed ‘New Plan for Immigration’. At a time when the UK seeks to penalise, criminalise, and limit protections for those fleeing their homes as a result of persecution and violence, it seems sadly fitting that provisions for those made to leave their homes for environmental reasons are also neglected. Hostile attitudes towards climate migrants, and of displaced persons in general, occur for a multitude of reasons that are often shared across nations, including a denial of the existence of environmental refugees and also a generally negative attitude towards immigration.

For the UK at least, it seems difficult for the former to change whilst the latter still holds true; all the time that hostile policies are continually implemented towards those fleeing persecution, furthering the rights of those displaced through the effects of climate change will be an uphill battle. This is despite the fact that Western Nations are often disproportionately involved in the perpetuation of the factors which drive both forms of displacement.

The consequences of failure to address climate migration

Given that there are so many topics relating to climate change to cover, and such a long road ahead before rights are upheld for those forced to leave their homes, why is it necessary to include climate change migration issues in today’s discourse? The answer is simple: there is no time to wait. Climate migration will be one of the most important contemporary issues of the next 50 years as climate change causes environmental degradation in more and more areas of the world.

For example, today 1% of the world is a barely liveable hot zone, meaning that humans could not live in these areas due to their extreme weather conditions – specifically heat. By 2070 that zone could go up to 19% – almost a fifth of the planet. This means that more and more people across this type of territory will be displaced due to the destruction of their habitat, whilst others will be forced to flee due to flooding, natural disasters, extremes of weather, and rising sea levels. People have already begun to flee, not only from natural disasters and short-term environmental damage, but also from slow onset environmental decay.

In Southeast Asia the agriculture sector is suffering as rainfall patterns and droughts become more intense, causing the displacement of around 8 million people who have moved toward the Middle East, Europe and North America. The World Bank’s Groundswell Report suggests that by 2050, if no action is taken, there will be more than 143 million climate change migrants in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America alone.

Concluding thoughts

Despite having good intentions and aims in terms of prevention and economics, the COP26 summit failed to mention this and its potentially dire consequences for the international effort to tackle human displacement. This could in turn lead to a lack of funds, resources, and political will to provide help to people who have witnessed the destruction of their homes. Climate change migration deserves more academic, policy and political attention, and COP26 is a perfect example of this. Those at risk of becoming displaced deserve protection from long-lasting environmental damage, and those already displaced deserve international support and access to their full human and legal rights. Alongside affected communities, it is up to activists, environmentalists, and the general population to bring attention to the cause of climate migration, and to establish a protection and assistance framework.

Johanna Wassong is in her final year, studying International Relations at the University of St Andrews in Scotland, specializing in human rights and refugee rights in sub–Saharan Africa. She is currently writing her dissertation on the refugee politics after the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Johanna initially started working with refugees in her hometown Cologne, Germany during the European Migrant Crisis in 2015-2016 and was specifically confronted with the issues of environmental migration after the floodings in Ahrtal in Summer 2021.

This article was originally published in the Earth Refuge Archive as part of our collaboration with Human Rights Pulse on the COP26 Summit.

December 8, 2021December 8, 2021

Whither Jakarta? An Outlook on the World’s Fastest Sinking City

cityscape with lights turned-on during nighttime

8 December 2021 – by Harry David

With more than 10 million inhabitants, Jakarta has become one of the largest metropolitan cities in the world. While the city has witnessed rapid economic development, many social and environmental issues are yet to be resolved – most critically, the fact that Jakarta is sinking at the rate of 10 centimeters per year. This ticking time bomb is expected to displace the majority of Jakarta’s population by 2050.

Understanding Jakarta’s existential threat is not an easy task. The issue spans from inadequate urban planning to lack of governmental preventive actions, in addition to massive groundwater loss. The latter is particularly problematic for a local population that relies on groundwater, since without it, Jakarta will be unable to provide access to clean water for its inhabitants.

The extraction of groundwater in Jakarta on a massive scale over the past six decades is one of the major reasons for its sinking. Water exists between sediment layers in the ground underneath Jakarta, and when this is removed in excessive, unregulated amounts, the sediment layers can collapse and compress together, reducing the elevation of affected areas on a dramatic scale. The heavily impacted coastal area of North Jakarta has already sunk 2.5 meters over the past decade and many fishing neighbourhoods have been destroyed.

Due to its seasonal heavy rain climate and limited open space for water absorption, Jakarta has faced many annual floods; the most detrimental flooding in 2020 alone left millions affected, thousands displaced and at least 26 dead. Research shows that global warming is also a factor behind instances of severe flooding across Greater Jakarta, with increasing rainfall and extreme monsoon storms making the current situation worse. A report by Indonesia’s Meteorology, Climatology and Geophysics Agency indicates that Jakarta’s rainfall has reached 335 millimetres per day – enough to classify as extreme rain. Furthermore, some areas in Jakarta that are already below sea level are on the verge of sinking entirely due to unstoppable global sea level rise.

While many anticipate that Jakarta only has until 2050 before the issue is irreversible, there are concerns that the tipping point could occur even sooner. As the hub of Indonesia’s economic activities, Jakarta offers many job opportunities for Indonesians, hence the city still experiences an influx of people. With the population of Jakarta increasing annually, new high-rise apartments and housing complexes in Greater Jakarta are rapidly being built, further limiting open spaces and groundwater usage, and accelerating Jakarta’s sinking rate.

The government is expected to come up with feasible solutions on this issue for Jakarta, and both the local and national governments are being pressured by local residents and, to a lesser extent, NGO bodies, to address the issue. However, many perceive the government has not done enough to do so. Of all proposed solutions, one of the most controversial plans that the Indonesian government intends to carry out is to move the State’s capital. The government argued that as a city, Jakarta is burdened with overpopulation and environmental crisis, and currently intends to implement this transition by moving the State’s capital to the island of Borneo. Political leaders expect that moving the capital will decentralize power out of Java Island, helping to develop the economy of other islands. This move is also expected to revitalise the capital’s living conditions as it eases Jakarta’s over-population problems.

Whilst this initially sounds promising, many activists and research institutes think differently. Moving the capital to Borneo Island might be damaging for Indonesia’s rainforest in building the city. In addition, an issue of indigenous rights of tribal communities in Borneo Island also emerges in the discussion. Thousands of indigenous people may be displaced from their tribal lands as large areas of the forest are cleared to build the new capital. Moving the capital to another island will also not necessarily resolve Jakarta’s problem of land sinkage, because many people might still be reluctant to move, meaning that Jakarta will remain the home of economic and industrial activities, all of which will continue to face the same threats.

Apart from this, the government is also building a sea wall across Jakarta’s coastline to prevent sea level rise’s impacts on Jakarta. It may minimize the effects of sea abrasion on Jakarta, but given that the main cause of Jakarta’s sinking is the lack of government-supplied drinking water, this will leave a key issue unsolved. Less than 60% of Jakarta inhabitants are covered by piped water infrastructure, and even this is centralized in wealthy areas.This means that for as long as the population remains reliant on groundwater and the government remains unable to find an alternative way to supply its citizens with clean water, then Jakarta’s sinking rate will be nowhere near declining.

Jakarta may well be on its way to becoming uninhabitable in the near future unless solutions are found without any further delay. While the responsibility rests mainly on the government, it is also imperative for Jakarta’s inhabitants to not further exacerbate the problems. As a collective, Jakarta’s residents can slow the rate of damage by adopting a more environmentally friendly lifestyle, for example by using public transportation more frequently, effectively managing their waste, and consuming water more efficiently. By increasing their environmental awareness, Jakarta’s residents can help to alleaviate the negative impacts of climate change on Jakarta’s sinking, meaning that an integrated educational and political approach will be key. Whether Jakarta’s collapse as a city will happen depends on the ability of all societal actors to cooperate together in preventing this occurrence.

Harry David is a LLM student on the Erasmus Mundus International Law of Global Peace, Security, and Development programme at the University of Glasgow. He holds a BA in International Relations from Universitas Gadjah Mada in Indonesia , and also completed a Human Security short course from Kyoto University in Japan.

Harry has worked as a junior policy researcher at a diplomatic mission in Jakarta and as an executive at the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). He is passionate about sustainability, climate change, and human rights issues.

December 3, 2021December 3, 2021

Combatting the Climate Crisis in Malawi

3 December 2021 – by Rachel Aronoff

Climate change is dismantling some of the most fragile human-environment dynamics in existence. Across the globe, changes in seasonality are threatening the survival of regions that have relied on subsistence farming for centuries.

Malawi, a small country located in the heart of Africa, remains one of the most environmentally volatile nations on earth. For thousands of years, vast regions of rural Malawi have depended upon predictable climate patterns to ensure agricultural yields. Over the past two decades, however, increasing irregularities in seasonal weather patterns have made it difficult for small-scale farmers and communities reliant on subsistence farming methods to maintain their livelihood. In the absence of government intervention, human driven heating will continue to crumble these agrarian communities.

The ongoing climate crisis in Malawi must be examined at a micro level in order to address the issues that afflict the most vulnerable districts in the nation. It will be critical to develop a reconstructive framework that prioritizes the needs of local communities, and increases the adaptive capacity of those subsisting on the land in rural regions.

Compounding changes in seasonality have created immense challenges for a majority of the country’s population, who maintain a deeply interdependent relationship with the environment. More than 80% of Malawian farmers rely on stable and predictable rainfall cycles to support food production. ^[i] Due to extreme poverty, the use of artificial water channeling remains particularly low, with less than 5% of farmers adopting non-traditional irrigation techniques. ^[ii] The reliance on cyclical rainfall patterns intensifies the population’s susceptibility to the adverse effects of climatic extremes, such as flooding and drought. In order to mitigate the impacts of climate variability on annual agricultural yields and local food supply, it will be crucial to enable rural communities to utilize more efficient irrigation, flood diversion, and water storage methods.

How can access to water be improved?

The most functional water channeling method to administer in rural Malawi is the drip irrigation system. This technique involves direct and regulated application of water to the root zone of each crop through a nexus of subsurface pipes and tubes. This tactic minimizes runoff, evaporation, and conserves 30-65% more water compared to rainfed cultivation, making it most suitable for high temperature environments.^[iii] It has also been shown to generate higher yields and better quality produce than traditional systems, providing sufficient irrigation throughout the dry season, whilst preserving soil fertility. ^[iv]

Alternative irrigation methods also decrease the need for labor-intensive water carrying practices. This helps to improve the safety and productivity of women living in rural areas by reducing the burden of water transportation. A recent study reports that 13.54 million women (and 3.36 million children) in Sub-Saharan regions are responsible for water collection trips that take 30 minutes or longer.^[v] Women may spend an average of 4.5 hours per week collecting water, causing many to compromise their own safety along with the well-being of their children.^[vi]

The distance between many villages’ functional water points continues to expand as a result of environmental disaster. In 2019 alone, tropical cyclone Idai caused massive damage to the land and infrastructure, leaving nearly 700,000 people without secure routes to fresh water. ^[vii]

Aside from compromising food security, limited access to clean water also exacerbates health and hygiene issues, especially among rural communities. Recent statistics reveal that 9.9 million people in Malawi do not have access to basic sanitation facilities, resulting in approximately 3,000 under-five child deaths per year.^[viii] The construction of proper water facilities will be especially critical for women and young girls, who face increased risk of infection during menstruation, pregnancy, and childbirth.

The implementation of flood diversion channels and alluvial aquifers may also be helpful in improving water availability whilst averting extended drought. A new study finds that sand-river aquifers hold practical and economic potential for small-scale irrigation in the drylands of Africa.^[ix] These systems can aid in preventing displacement during the wet season as well, by diverting flood waters that often force families to abandon their homes and agriculture.

What else is needed to support subsistence-based communities in the face of climate change?

Whilst water security is crucial, additional public health measures must be taken to help establish resilience amongst climate-sensitive communities.

An Oxfam report estimates that 20,000 children in Malawi are born each year with HIV, and about half a million children are orphans due to HIV and AIDS.^[x] Climate variability heightens poverty rates, resulting in increased incidence of forced prostitution and trafficking. During periods of environmental distress, women and young girls are often forced or coerced to provide sexual services in exchange for food and water. Many women may resort to selling sex throughout spans of successive drought in order to save their own children from the grips of starvation. ^[xi] These measures magnify the spread of infectious disease, and women are frequently left overburdened in caring for those who are ill.^[xii]In repairing the health of rural communities, any form of climate adaptation should also involve the development of caretaking facilities for those who are ill and orphaned, as well as political and educational programs to help reduce the prevalence of basic rights violations.

It is clear that the challenges faced by climate-sensitive regions are becoming ever-more multifactorial, and may even prove insurmountable, if proactive support from the international community is not forthcoming. In order to develop a strong adaptation plan, we must foster greater financial support for rural regions affected by climate change. This will be key in facilitating increased access to effective subsistence systems, and building greater resilience among vulnerable communities.

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

^[i] Agriculture and Food Insecurity: Malawi. (2017). US Agency for International Development. Retrieved April 27, 2021. https://www.usaid.gov/malawi/agriculture-and-food-security

^[ii] Climate Change Impacts in Malawi. (2020). Assessing the impacts of climate change on the agriculture sectors in Malawi, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved April 27, 2021.

^[iii] Drip Irrigation: A Water Conserving Solution. (2004). Irrigation and Green Industry. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2021. https://igin.com/article-218-drip_irrigationa_water_conserving_solution.html

^[iv] Drip Irrigation: A Water Conserving Solution. (2004).

^[v] Hallett, Vicky. Millions of Women Take A Long Walk With A 40-Pound Water Can. (2016). NPR. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2021. https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/07/07/484793736/millions-of-women-take-a-long-walk-with-a-40-pound-water-can

^[vi] Caruso, Bethany. Women still carry most of the world’s water. (2017). The Conversation. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2021. https://theconversation.com/women-still-carry-most-of-the-worlds-water-81054

^[vii] Surviving Floods and Cyclone Idai in Malawi. (2019). OxFam. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2021. https://www.oxfamamerica.org/explore/stories/surviving-floods-and-cyclone-idai-malawi/

^[viii] Jones, Lily. 10 Facts About Sanitation in Malawi. (2020). The Borgen Project. Retrieved Sep. 24, 2021. https://borgenproject.org/10-facts-about-sanitation-in-malawi/

^[ix] Using nature-based water storage for smallholder irrigated agriculture in African drylands: Lessons from frugal innovation pilots in Mozambique and Zimbabwe. (2020). ScienceDirect. Retrieved Sept. 24, 2021. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901119311013

^[x] 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

^[xi] Climate change connections to HIV and AIDS. (2009).

^[xii] Climate change connections to HIV and AIDS. (2009).

November 15, 2021November 23, 2021

Could Climate Change Cause the Next Great War?

15 November 2021 – by Nikunj Bhimsaria

Melting ice shelves, cyclones, floods, wildfires – these are the visuals that come to mind when thinking about climate change. Increasingly, the global community is also realizing the impact of rising temperatures on the world’s poor and most vulnerable communities. But the future could be bleaker still – scientists opine that wars of the future could be fought over resources made scarce due to climate change.

Conflict over natural resources is not a new phenomenon. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests that in the last 60 years, at least 40% of all intrastate conflicts had a link to natural resources. Since 1990, at least 18 violent conflicts have been fueled by the exploitation of natural resources, whether high-value resources like diamonds, gold and oil, or scarce ones like fertile land and water. That being said, increasing numbers of climate-linked disasters, including desertification, more frequent and intense droughts, heavier rains, and flash floods have only added to existing tensions. An international group of scholars has recently concluded that severe climate change will lead to more conflict in the future.According to a 2014 report authored by a group of more than a dozen retired U.S. generals and admirals from the armed forces, climate change poses a serious threat to U.S. national security and is becoming a “catalyst for conflict” in vulnerable areas. This is not to say that the link between climate change and armed conflict is well understood. Disentangling higher temperatures, drought and sea-level rise from other factors, such as bad governance, corruption, existing ethnic tensions and economics, is difficult. But researchers do believe that even if climate change won’t initiate conflicts in the future, it could serve as a ‘threat multiplier’ and exacerbate crises.^[4]

A recent report from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre used advance machine-learning algorithms to identify five hotspots for potential conflicts where multiple countries shared the same water body. The hotspots identified were the Ganges-Brahmaputra region, where the water flows through Bangladesh and India; the Colorado river, which runs through the United States and Mexico; the Indus region, which has water bodies separating India and Pakistan; the Tigris-Euphrates, which flows through Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait; and finally, the Nile that runs through 11 African countries. Lack of water across these water bodies could intensify existing tensions among countries and bring about social unrest.

For example, Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia all depend on inflow from the Nile and have long exchanged political blows over the $5bn upstream Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) project. Egypt relies on the Nile for 90 per cent of its water needs while Sudan is highly vulnerable to droughts due to alteration of the river’s behavior. The in-progress dam will be able to bring electricity to over 50 per cent of Ethiopians who currently do not have it and also enable Ethiopia to control the flow of the Blue Nile, a major tributary of the Nile. When the Ethiopian government announced plans to press ahead with the project, Egypt and Sudan held a joint war exercise in May 2021, pointedly called “Guardians of the Nile.” The situation has perhaps the highest risk of spilling into a water war of all the disputes in today’s political landscape, but there are several other hotspots around the world.

Solutions to averting resource conflicts vary depending on a multitude of factors – sometimes resolution requires diplomacy, whereas other instances require innovative infrastructure projects. As climate change and growing human populations continue to compound the problem of resource scarcity around the world, bespoke solutions will become ever more necessary to stop conflict.

Nikunj Bhimsaria 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. He is committed to mainstreaming climate issues by combining research with human narratives.

October 12, 2021November 23, 2021

The IPCC Report: Human-Driven Climate Change is ‘Code Red’ for Life on Earth

14 October 2021 – by Crystal-Lee Harilall

“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.

September 23, 2021October 6, 2021

The Gendered Impact of the Climate Crisis

23 September 2021 – by Shambhavi Kant

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 around 55 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.

August 26, 2021August 26, 2021

Climate Change in Russia: An Impending Crisis

brown and gray concrete building during daytime

26 August 2021 – by Rachel Aronoff

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.¹Throughout 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.¹⁰These 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.

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

² Erdman, Jonathan. (2020). 100-Degree Fahrenheit Temperature Confirmed in Siberia; 90s Measured at Russian Arctic Coast. The Weather Channel. Retrieved June 18, 2021.https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2020-07-02-russia-100-degree-heat-record-confirmed

³ Question More. (2020). Siberia prepares for abnormally warm winter weather after year of record-breaking heat. RT Question More. Retrieved June 18, 2021. https://www.rt.com/russia/506198-siberia-abnormally-warm-winter/

⁴ Erdman, Jonathan. (2020)

⁵ Erdman, Jonathan. (2020)

⁶ Federal AIF. (2016). An attack on permafrost. Emergencies Ministry creates Arctic rescue centers. AIF. Retrieved June 18, 2021. https://aif.ru/society/safety/nastuplenie_na_vechnuyu_merzlotu_mchs_sozdayot_arkticheskie_spasatelnye_centry

⁷ Newsflash Reading. (2020). Copernicus reveals summer 2020’s Arctic wildfires set new emission records. Copernicus. Retrieved June 18, 2021. https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/copernicus-reveals-summer-2020s-arctic-wildfires-set-new-emission-records

⁸ Freedman, Andrew. (2020). ‘Zombie fires’ are erupting in Alaska and likely Siberia, signaling severe Arctic fire season may lie ahead. The Washington Post. Retrieved June 18, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/28/zombie-fires-burning-arctic-siberia/

⁹ Simon, Matt. (2021). Underground “zombie” peat fires release 100 times the carbon of wildfires. The Bulletin. Retrieved June 18, 2021. https://thebulletin.org/2021/03/underground-zombie-peat-fires-release-100-times-the-carbon-of-wildfires/

¹⁰ Conley, Heather and Newlin, Cyrus. (2021). Climate Change Will Reshape Russia. Center For Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved June 18, 2021.https://www.csis.org/analysis/climate-change-will-reshape-russia

¹¹Technical Summary. (n.d) SPECIAL REPORT: SPECIAL REPORT ON THE OCEAN AND CRYOSPHERE IN A CHANGING CLIMATE. IPCC. Retrieved June 18, 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/technical-summary/

¹²News. (2019). Over 400 people injured by East Siberia floods. Russian News Agency. Retrieved June 18, 2021. https://tass.com/emergencies/1067371

¹³Davies, Richard. (2021). Crimea – Over 1,300 Evacuated After Severe Flooding. Floodlist. Retrieved June 18, 2021. http://floodlist.com/europe/crimea-floods-june-2021

August 16, 2021August 16, 2021

The Effect of 5G Networks on the Right to a Healthy Environment

16 August 2021 – by Nabil Iqbal

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.

July 16, 2021November 25, 2021

How is the Biden Administration Handling the Climate Migration Crisis in Central America?

forest and mountain partially covered with fog

16 July 2021 – by Flora Bensadon

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.