On March 30th, 2021 the Migrants and Refugees (M&R) Section and the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development released a booklet entitled “Pastoral Orientations on Climate Displaced Persons” (POCDP). It provides guidelines on how the Church will respond to migration caused by climate change, promoting solidarity between individuals and urging the international community to care for this crisis through immediate action.
In the document’s preface, the Pope points out that displacement due to an uninhabitable environment might seem like a process of nature when it is in fact the result of “poor choices and destructive activity, selfishness and neglect.” The climate crisis we are now facing comes to no surprise as our environment has been decaying continuously since the start of the Industrial Revolution. While this crisis is a global one, the ones facing the most consequences are those who have contributed the least. Today, we witness the rapid acceleration of climate migration for which there needs to be immediate global responses.
“Come, let us talk this over. If you are ready to listen, we can still have a great future. But if you refuse to listen and to act, you will be devoured by the heat and the pollution, by droughts here and rising waters there” (cf. Isaiah 1:18-20) the Pope quotes. This message, although one of faith, strongly reflects how this crisis has been ignored by many players in the global community. It emphasizes the importance for those in power to listen and acknowledge the distressing position of climate migrants by taking necessary measures to mitigate its impact.
The POCDPbegins with a general introduction on the climate crisis and how it plays a role in the displacement of many. It is then followed by nine steps that deal with the various aspects of climate migration. They are the following:
Acknowledging the climate crisis and displacement nexus
Promoting awareness and outreach
Providing alternatives to displacement
Preparing people for displacement
Fostering inclusion and integration
Exercising a positive influence on policy-making
Extending pastoral care
Cooperating in strategic planning and action
Promoting professional training in integral ecology
Fostering academic research of CCD (Climate Crisis and Displacement)
Local church leaders and congregations were asked to develop these guidelines, particularly those who witnessed first-hand climate-related incidents or displacement, such as archbishop Claudio Dalla Zuanna from Beira, Mozambique. In 2019, the city of Beira was critically hit by Cyclone Idai causing massive flooding, the destruction of 90 percent of its buildings and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people. Having witnessed the emergency response to this natural disaster, the archbishop stated that it is not enough to solely resettle people. It is important to take additional measures by putting in place the conditions necessary to welcome climate migrants and to provide them with essential services.
Between 2008 and 2018, 253.7 million people were displaced by climate disasters. The document states that in the first half of 2020 only, 9.8 million people were displaced because of droughts, floods and other climate-related events. The number of climate migrants is still growing and is expected to reach 200 million by 2050. With those numbers in mind, the Vatican’s policy guidelines offer possible ways to raise awareness on climate migration and promote the importance of conversations between governments and policy makers. The M&R Section also encourages churches around the world to welcome displaced people, offer support and integrate them within their new society.
The POCDP is an important move towards a solution-based approach in the confrontation of the climate migration crisis. By calling for international help and action, the Catholic Church takes a stance in an important debate, which could bring positive changes to our current migration policies. While the primary message of this document relies on a message of faith, it extends a hand to climate migrants, making them feel seen and supported, a step most governments have not yet taken.
Flora Bensadon is an Earth Refuge Archivist with 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.
When you think of environmental contamination, what comes to mind? You’d be right to list examples of a polluted river, a skyline darkened by smog, or an oil leak in the ocean. These capture headlines, and they are an important part of the equation, but these viscerally visual images embody only a small part of the crisis we face. Much of the damage to the environment is harder to see and it is hiding in plain sight all over the nation. Take, for instance, Industri-Plex.
Early History
Industri-Plex is a 245-acre plot of land in Woburn Massachusetts, and it is emblematic of New England’s industrial heritage. This seemingly small plot of land is iconic as both the climax and the new beginning of a story stretching back hundreds of years. It is the tale of a small 1600s settlement, which would rise to an 1800s industrial powerhouse, become the fifth-most contaminated site in the country by the 1980s, and emerge anew in 2010s as a symbol of hope for a revitalized environment.
Nowadays, Woburn is a city of just over 40,000 inhabitants, with a diverse economic sector, but it wasn’t always so. For much of Woburn’s early history – as was the case with many cities, towns, and settlements in the 1600s – it was reliant on agriculture as its primary economic opportunity. Woburn began its first steps into its modern identity in 1648 with the opening of its first tannery. Shoemakers began opening up shop and, not long after, the demand for shoe leather led to the opening of more tanneries. To this day, Woburn’s school sports teams are called the Tanners, in recognition of this history.
Woburn’s location was a massive selling point for industry; it was just 12 miles north of Boston, and it had a large and steady supply of clean water from the Aberjona River. But circumstances improved even further for the City in 1803, with the opening of the Middlesex Canal and the Boston & Lowell Railroad in 1835; both created new means of transportation to and from Boston. Around the same time, just a few miles to the north, the American Industrial Revolution really kicked off in Lowell with the opening of large textile mills.
That industrial spirit was quick to spread across New England, and in 1853, Woburn Chemical Works was built in what would later be part of the Industri-Plex Superfund Site. The company manufactured chemicals used by tanneries and the textile and paper industries. Business was good at this time; the ease with which products could be transported to and from Woburn strengthened the economy and spurred industrial growth. With the onset of the American Civil War, the demand for shoes and boots skyrocketed and Woburn supplied that demand, further bolstering its economic success.
As the nation greeted the twentieth century, the tanning and chemical industries had cemented themselves as two hallmarks of Woburn’s industrial legacy. By 1875, Woburn had risen to be New England’s largest producer of leather and in 1901, a Woburn man by the name of Henry Thayer invented the process of chrome tanning. This revolutionary new process is faster than previous tanning methods and could cure leather in a single day. The process involved soaking leather in chromium sulfate, a mixture of chromium salts and acid produced by Woburn’s own chemical companies. The process also resulted in significant environmental damage as spilt chromium would leach into the ground and groundwater.
Companies in Woburn were also involved in the creation of glue. The process involved cooking raw animal hide and waste from chrome-tanned hide to extract the glue. The discarded hides and residues were dumped in various spots around the Industri-Plex site and would eventually become known as the four “hide piles.”
While companies came and went, the waste remained and continued to contaminate the land. Between the 1850s and the 1950s, the original Woburn Chemical Works was purchased and succeeded by a long chain of other chemical companies. The chain concluded with Stauffer Chemical Company purchasing Consolidated Chemical Company in the 1950s. Stauffer remained in operation until 1969.
In 1968, the Mark-Phillip Trust entered the scene with high ambitions of building a large industrial park over the yet-to-be-deemed Industri-Plex Superfund Site. They began purchasing parcels of land, which had been subjected to over one hundred and twenty years of industrial operations, and eagerly got to work on redeveloping the land. Development included the excavation of the old hide piles, which released noxious odors. What became known as the “Woburn Odor” was so bad that passersby on the highway, as well as residents from multiple nearby towns, would complain of the smell.
Creation of the Environmental Protection Agency and Superfund
Around this time, the country was beginning to take more notice of environmental contamination. Concerns over air, water, and land quality sparked then President Nixon to create the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970. National dialog around the environment reached a fever pitch in 1978, when the federal government purchased the homes and evacuated hundreds of people residing near Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New York. The horror of Love Canal was a significant factor in the 1980 creation of the Superfund program, which authorized the EPA to locate, investigate, and clean up the most hazardous materials nationwide.
Children are particularly at risk for adverse health effects from contamination. Image retrieved from Living on Earth
The Superfund program was and is an incredibly comprehensive response to one of the most complicated problems modern America has to face. It includes regulations on 761 substances, with almost 600 of them still in active use by industry around the nation. Superfund also includes one of the most aggressive liability frameworks possible under US law. This allows EPA to go after responsible parties and force them to clean up the mess they’ve left behind.
Over the next few years, EPA set out to identify the parties potentially responsible for the cumulative contamination within the Industri-Plex Site. Numerous tests and studies were conducted on the site, revealing heavy metals, organic wastes, and volatile organic compounds. These various forms of contamination weren’t just in the ground; they continued to move in the groundwater and were released into the air, posing a significant public health risk.
With the situation as dire as it was, the EPA settled on a plan to remediate the site in 1986. The plan involved negotiating with thirty-four past and present owners of land within the site to secure funding from them to clean up the contamination. While it might seem obvious at first glance that the corporations that contaminated the land would be held liable for cleaning it up, this was not the case at the time. EPA relied heavily on its new powers under Superfund to retroactively hold parties liable for the harm they left behind. In fact, Industri-Plex was a somewhat defining case for EPA.
Cleaning up Industri-Plex
Such significant contamination meant that the cleanup was going to be expensive, and some of the parties, including the Mark-Phillips-Trust, did not have the money to pay for their share in it. To resolve this problem, the Trust agreed to sell its land on site to reimburse the government for fronting some of the cleanup costs. Critically, this meant that it was the corporations, not the public, that were going to pay the cleanup.
As for the cleanup itself, under consent orders from EPA and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE, now renamed the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection or DEP) – Stauffer Chemical conducted numerous site assessments and studies of the surrounding geology. Their results confirmed the presence of organic and inorganic compounds in the soil. The results also showed that these contaminants continued to pose risks as they were migrating in the ground water and being released into the air as vapors.
Some of these hazardous materials could be treated on site, some could be consolidated and moved to a permanent disposal facility, but others were too expensive, too dangerous, or simply incapable of being removed or treated. Take, for example, the East Hide Pile. The hides would constantly release vapors, but when they were moved, the release of vapors (including the “Woburn Oder”) would substantially increase. Wherever you put a giant stinking pile of old animal parts, its going to cause problems.
So, environmental engineers devised a different solution. They installed what is called a “cap” over the hide pile, which would prevent the vapors from releasing into the air. On top of the cap, they placed a layer of top soil and planted grass on it to help root it in place. They then drilled monitoring wells and installed a vapor collection system so that they could make sure the protections were holding, and prevent leaching of contaminants into the groundwater.
Another hide pile on site. Below the grass, top soil, and clay cap the hide waste still remains. This is not a hill; this is mound of discarded animal parts. Image was taken by author in March, 2021.
Similar strategies were used for other hard-to-remove contamination on the site. As for the ground water, the responsible parties were obligated to capture and treat the ground water to prevent it from spreading the contamination further. This is a long and difficult process and is heavily reliant upon the availability of good data, and available methods of removal, as well as the geology itself.
In 1989, EPA, DEP, the City of Woburn, and the current and former landowners created the Site Remedial Trust and the Site Custodial Trust. These Trusts helped organize partnerships with private and public actors to help businesses return and remain on site during cleanup. Nowadays, Industri-Plex is diverse commercial and industrial area. The City’s largest employer, Raytheon, is set up within the borders of the Indusri-Plex Site. 45 other businesses also reside on site and cumulatively, the current Industri-Plex businesses generate $210 million in employment to the city annually, as well as property and sales taxes.
Industri-Plex Today
In 2020, a portion of the Industri-Plex Site was removed from the National Priorities list. Much of it remains under active monitoring and is subject to five-year reviews. The story isn’t over, but it has entered a new chapter. Woburn has been on the pulse of the American industrial experience since the beginning. When the industrial spirit swept the region, it was there that innovative new techniques for the production of leather and chemicals were created. It captured the quintessential nature of the American Dream, that a person with an idea and ambition could build something greater, and it helped vault America forward into the position it is in today. Of course, it was also there when the costs of that untamed ambition and the lack of understanding of the consequences, caught up to it and as a result, it was also on the front lines of America’s reckoning with environmental contamination. Today, Woburn continues to be on the cutting edge, standing as an example of what is possible when we commit ourselves to environmental revitalization.
New construction within the Industri-Plex Site. Investment continues to flow into the once fifth-most contaminated site in the nation. Image was taken by author in March, 2021
To be clear, despite the inspiring thread, this story is woven by over a hundred years of contamination. Over that time, people got sick, workers were taken advantage of, employers prioritized profits over people, chemicals were produced that contributed to contamination elsewhere, and millions upon millions of dollars were spent over decades ($70 million in the initial 7-year remediation alone) to get us to where we are today. Furthermore, the industrial practices that led to this reckoning are not gone. Corporations continue to attempt to subvert the government’s attempts to protect people and the environment. Agencies like EPA are a great improvement, but they alone will not solve the crisis facing our planet. And yet, this was an insanely complicated and dangerous situation, and people did come together to respond to it. Industri-Plex today should be seen as an example that change is possible, that absurd and creative solutions can work, and that the rewards of a healthy environment are worth the effort.
A picture is worth a thousand words; I believe this one is worth a lot more. Below is a field of solar panels, residing directly on top of the East Hide Pile. Quite literally, the present, standing atop the past, looking up towards the future.
The East Hide Pile was and is the largest such pile on site. Today it remains as a humbling reminder of the past, as well as a beacon of hope for the future. Image retrieved from Google Earth, Street view: 99 Breed Ave. Woburn, MA (March, 2021)
This article is part of our Spring 2021 collaboration with students from the International Human Rights Clinic at the Western New England University.
Andrew Hanna has always been fascinated by the “why” questions in relation to human behavior. That fascination pushed him to study psychology, sociology, and philosophy during my undergraduate studies. He concentrated in mental health services and worked for two and a half year as residential counselor. The work was transformative, traumatic, and ultimately marred by layers of structure issues which negatively impacted the health of the children he worked with. The frustration he felt with the mental health system pushed him to apply to law school. Andrew is now a 2L at Western New England University School of Law. It is his hope that through legal training, he can find a way to improve the systems that offer services to those in need.
Wildfires are not something most businesses on the United States’ West Coast can easily prepare for. They often occur with little to no warning, as they spread rapidly, and their path can be unpredictable. Even if a place of work itself is not at risk, employees’ homes and commuting roads are often damaged. On either side of highways, there are usually expensive fields and farmlands which have the capacity to burn rapidly. When highways, and railways, shutdown, employees often cannot make it to work. Once the fires have passed, the roads may remain closed due to the pavement’s temperature and the debris blocking the paths. When neighborhoods and towns are evacuated, employers lose a majority of their workforce, making it difficult for them to run their business. [1]
The Farming Industry
During the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, farmers were considered essential workers, which meant that they could continue to operate, but often under less-than optimal conditions. Due to the overlap between the pandemic and fire season, many migrant workers had left the California farming areas, which made for a scarcity of available employees. This meant a heavier workload and less productivity for the remaining workers. Once fruits and vegetables are ready to be harvested, there is usually only a window of a few days within which to pick them before they are rendered unmarketable.[2] This is what happened to a lot of products in California this season because the workforce was just not available.
The workers who were still farming faced a harsh reality. They often worked in temperatures over one hundred degrees Fahrenheit, for shifts spanning twelve-hours or more.[3] There was also a K-95 mask shortage, which risked the safety of the employees and the products being harvested. Many workers suffered heat-related injuries due to the extreme heat and the physical toll of the labor.[4] Farmers were often woken up in the middle of the night because they needed to move their cattle somewhere safer or because they themselves needed to evacuate.
When smoke and flames do destroy fields, the chemical composition of the soil is changed. Farming becomes more challenging and can even change the quality of the plants that are able to grow. The destruction of pastures also presents a challenge for farmers as it is the main source of sustenance for the livestock. Buying alternative food sources for livestock is expensive and oftentimes not worth the expense, forcing ranchers to slaughter early to avoid unnecessary expenses.[5] In the event that pastures are saved, herding the cattle can be difficult. The fires can destroy fences, some of which are multiple miles long (to fulfil the purpose of the enclosure of large plots of land). Transporting thousands of animals back to safe pasture is time-consuming, expensive, and physically demanding.[6] Rebuilding the fences is also a costly endeavor and time-consuming, but it must be done as quickly as possible so that the cattle are not lost.[7]
The Timber Industry
Scientists say that fossil fuels create a more considerable fire risk which could lead to the end of the timber industry, hurting many rural families who depend on the forests for a living.[8] Oregon is the number one producer of lumber in the United States (US), but even their trees take a very long time to grow. It can take over thirty years before a tree reaches a size appropriate for cutting.[9] A wildfire in Oregon destroyed a plot of 25-year-old trees at the Seneca Sawmill. Almost all of their younger trees were wiped out, and 25 years of work and care went to waste.[10] While many people heat their homes with oil and alternative energy, many Americans – especially those in rural areas – rely on lumber to stay warm in the winter. It is also used to make homes, furniture, and other products. The newly planted trees will take about 40-60 years before they can be harvested, which could create future layoffs and economic setbacks for the timber industry.[11] The logging industry will also be impacted, as with any issue of supply and demand: shortages will create a hike in prices and a more competitive industry, especially when up against timber yards in other states that are not facing wildfires.[12]
The Restaurant Industry
The restaurant industry has also suffered as the result of the smoke from wildfires, and the impact of COVID-19 preventative measures. Both of these factors have led to a reduction in tourism, which is what many of the smaller restaurants in California and Oregon rely on for businesses. COVID-19 regulations forced many restaurants to close their doors to inside seating and instead open up to outside seating. However, the smoke from the wildfires made the air outside unsafe as well. Even when the fire diverts and does not physically destroy buildings, the smoke makes the air quality in surrounding areas unsafe.[13] Restaurants in San Francisco have often had to close over the weekend, despite it being their busiest and most profitable time, because the air quality was too poor to safely host outdoor dining.[14]
It is important to note that restaurants and cafes that are Asian-run, or that serve Asian food have faced an increased decline in business since the start of the pandemic in February of 2020 due to a myriad of circumstances.[15] Travel restrictions and tax season meant that people had been eating out less, but COVID-19 misinformation surrounding the origins of the virus in China has also played a large role in increased xenophobia and discrimination towards the Asian community and restaurants. For instance, the Liang’s who own a small noodle bar to consider closing their doors.[16] They faced over a 50% drop in orders within just two weeks, and their situation is not unique – they are one of many businesses impacted in this way.
While customer orders were down, some restaurants kept busy feeding those who were protecting the community.[17] Tyler Florence, a chef from the World Food Kitchen, joined local chefs in Sonoma County, California to help feed those in need during the shutdown. While the restaurants were not open for business, they helped feed first responders and people forced to evacuate.[18] On one Sunday, they served over 6,000 meals to people in the area, including firefighters who spent over 12 hours working a shift and were too exhausted to cook. [19]
Fighting wildfires and the pandemic simultaneously have created competing risk analyses. Controlled burns are one way in which the government attempts to prevent wildfires. It helps in removing debris and other materials that could spread wildfires by burning them under close supervision. Even if under control, this is still a fire, and creates smoke which intensifies the already poor air quality in California’s valleys.[20] This can cause complications for older citizens and those with lung conditions. Poor air quality has led to an increase in hospitalizations, when health providers are already stretched thin due to COVID-19.[21] In response, the US Forrest Service decided to halt planned controlled burns so as not to worsen air quality conditions. However, the Bureau of Land Management continued their control burns as planned to prevent more wildfires in the future.[22] There are trade-offs to all of the decisions being made, but the public’s safety remains the top priority.
Conclusion
Restrictions on dining, travel, and social distancing have taken their toll on businesses. The pandemic safety precautions combined with environmental disasters – such as the wildfires and resulting smoke – have increased the struggles of many citizens living on the West Coast of the US. Farmers have had incurred extra costs trying to repair the damage to their soil, property, and crops/ livestock. This increases the risk of food shortages and farmer’s leaving the profession for a more economically sustainable career. The timber industry has suffered setbacks with the burning of their trees, which will take decades for them to recover, creating shortages in the not-too-distant future. Many Americans rely on wood to build and heat their homes. No industry has seem to escaped unscathed as the restaurant industry has also struggled with Coivid-19 protocols as outside dining is no solution when the outside air is unsafe.
This article is part of our Spring 2021 collaboration with students from the International Human Rights Clinic at the Western New England University.
Jennifer Fields is a second year Law Student at Western New England School of Law in Springfield, MA. She is on the Dean’s List and is working on a concentration in International and Comparative Law to complement her passion for justice. In college, she worked for Beit Ha’Gefen in Haifa, Israel, creating a safe, multicultural space for refugees settling into Israeli life. Currently, she is active in her community as a trained legal observer for the National Lawyers Guild and does Pro Bono work with the ACLU. When the season is right, she enjoys skiing and spending time on the water.
[2] Kelly Haddock, California Wildfires Effect on Agriculture, (Aug. 25, 2020), https://georgia.growingamerica.com/features/2020/08/california-wildfires-affect-agriculture
As climate change and subsequent environmental disasters continue to force people to leave their homes, policymakers and aid organizations must acknowledge that relocation is more difficult for vulnerable populations and low-income communities. Climate migrants are “involuntary movers,” but it is important to investigate the traumas and challenges of “involuntary stayers” in the context of climate crises as well in order to create robust support networks.
In instances of climate-induced displacement, the ordinary stresses of moving are compounded with the stresses of an environmental catastrophe. Not only must migrants account for the significant financial, social, and physical tolls of moving, but also consider the specific implications of the crisis facing their home. Flooding, fires, and other disasters related to climate change require rapid evacuation, forcing migrants to make split-second decisions about their material possessions in order to survive. A 2016 study by the U.S. Global Change Research Program found that many people who are exposed to climate disasters experience a plethora of serious mental health consequences, including depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder. The same study also indicated that children, older adults, and economically disadvantaged individuals are at a higher risk for mental health consequences as a result of exposure to climate disasters. These groups face an additional factor of compounding stress as a result of forced migration which can create additional barriers to relocation that are particularly problematic when an environmental catastrophe posits immediate danger.
The social, political, and economic factors that hinder flight in the aftermath of an environmental crisis are apparent in Flint, Michigan, where the 2014 decision to reroute the city’s water supply through the lead-contaminated Flint River has left the city in an ongoing water crisis. This disaster exacerbated an exodus of residents that has left particularly vulnerable populations behind. The city has seen a population decrease of over 23% since 2000, a lingering symptom of long-term disinvestment that stems from the collapse of Detroit’s auto industry in the late 1960s. As auto industry jobs left the area, affluent white families fled Flint and moved into the suburbs, a textbook example of white Flight. Flint’s low-income residents and communities of color had limited pathways to relocation due to redlining, a racially discriminatory zoning policy that was widely practiced in mid-century America, economic barriers and were left with no choice but to stay. Financial distress has plagued Flint since this collapse: the 2020 average median income was almost $25,000 below the Michigan state average, which is already about $5,000 less than the national average. Buying enough bottled water to meet the weekly needs of your family is a mandatory and significant expense in Flint that tightens budgets and sets the ordeal of moving out of reach for many.
Money is not the only thing that forces people to become “involuntary stayers”. The daily burden of the water crisis has a time cost, for cooking, cleaning, and showering with bottled water require countless errands and energy. “The rhythm of the family is disrupted,” says Dr. Tam Perry, a professor of social work and anthropology at Wayne State University in Detroit. Dr. Perry has been studying the impact of the Flint water crisis on older adults since 2014. Through her ethnographic approach to research in Flint, she has observed the ways in which everyday rituals and cultural practices have been altered to demand more effort, such as the process of cooking collard greens, a vegetable with great historical and traditional significance in Black culture going back to the American civil war. Preparing collard greens is a “source of comfort” and a way for people to “hold onto their cuisine in the face of a crisis,” says Max Smith, a social worker and research assistant to Dr. Perry. However, due to the resource-intensive preparation process, the sheer number of plastic water bottles needed to wash and boil collard greens makes the recipe prohibitive for those who need to conserve water in order to literally survive. This illustrates the cultural damage that can be created by environmental catastrophes for “involuntary stayers” and “involuntary movers” alike, as migrants may also experience feelings of cultural severance upon moving.
Though the contamination of Flint’s water supply was not the direct result of climate change, it stands as a pertinent example of environmental racism and neglect of human rights in a low-income community that is akin to many places currently confronting climate-induced displacement. Warming climates and gradually rising sea levels will produce evacuations over a long-term scale and in this way, Flint provides an important case study to inform future community displacement planning and migration patterns. The burden of the climate crisis will continue to fall most heavily upon low-income areas and communities of color. Governments, NGOs, and other organizations working at the forefront of these issues must consider this disparity in their mitigation approaches to ensure that there is adequate support for vulnerable populations that may not otherwise see relocation as financially, politically, or physically feasible, even in the face of a climate disaster.
Emma Cooper is a Michigan native currently studying at the University of California, Berkeley. This discussion of the cultural toll of environmental disasters builds upon an interview with Dr. Tam Perry, a professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan who has been conducting research on the social impact of the Flint Water Crisis since 2015, and Max Smith, a social worker in the Detroit area, who served as a research to Dr. Perry on several projects.
Due to its low elevation and vulnerable barrier islands, North Carolina is one of the more at-risk areas in the United States (U.S.) when it comes to sea level rise. It has the largest estuarine system on the U.S. Atlantic Coast, with over 2,300 square miles (3700 sq. km) of coastal land vulnerable to a one-meter rise in sea level. Current projections place more than 789,000 North Carolinian properties at risk in the next thirty years. In some places, tidal flooding has increased by 100 percent since 2000. Even before flooding, many residents will experience heftier down payments and inequities in insurance, which could increase household debt. Either way, North Carolina will experience an exodus of people moving westward. For some communities, a managed retreat is not so simple. Coastal areas like New Bern and Princeville can illustrate the pain and complexity U.S. climate migrants face due to rising sea levels.
New Bern
In 2018, Hurricane Florence swept through the coastal city New Bern, a storm that meteorologists claim was intensified by climate change. Flooding engulfed more than 800 homes, including multiple public housing complexes. Displaced residents in New Bern applied for temporary housing assistance and property loss reimbursements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), but for many of them, this didn’t solve the problem. Most FEMA reimbursements only last a few months, whilst opening new low-income housing is a multi-year process. Many New Bern locals ended up in shelters, crashing on floors, and renting motel rooms with their FEMA checks.
The search for new homes isn’t a simple one. Private parties can prey on low-income migrants for a profit, and there are fewer affordable housing projects available to households with mixed income. In the state of North Carolina, it is legal for landlords to discriminate against applicants with ‘section 8’ vouchers (a federal subsidy on housing intended to ensure safe private housing for low-income residents). In Trent Court, New Bern’s housing project, landowners decided to demolish the damaged buildings despite former residents continuing to inhabit their old homes.
Increasing storms and floods are displacing those who cannot afford to stay. Public housing residents, along with other poor, disabled, elderly, and vulnerable people are forming one of the first waves of climate migrants in the U.S. According to a 2017 report, 9 percent of public housing units and 8 percent of privately owned federally subsidized housing units in the U.S. sit in a floodplain. This is close to 500,000 units and approximately one million people. Many residents of government-subsidized housing in New Orleans, Miami, Houston, and Puerto Rico have already become climate migrants. With sea levels on the projection to rise, New Bern is posed to be one of the canaries in the coal mine for American citizens living in public housing.
Princeville
For many communities, the problem is not only finding a new home but leaving their current one behind. Princeville, a small town of approximately two thousand people, was a symbol of resilience. It is believed to be the oldest town chartered by freed slaves, originally named Freedom Hill and established by freed slave and carpenter Turner Prince. Residents dealt with Jim Crow-era vigilante violence directed at a self-sufficient all-Black town. Its population remains 96 percent Black.
Situated along the Tar River, Princeville experiences frequent flooding. This was one of the main reasons Black people in the 19th century were able to settle the land in the first place—white landowners did not want it. The relegation of Black people to flood-prone land and hazardous areas exposes them to greater levels of environmental threats. This inequality became clear when the town has battled two supposed “100-year storms” within the span of twenty years (i.e., Hurricane Floyd in 1999 and Hurricane Matthew in 2016). Homeowners faced a difficult decision: either remain in an increasingly hazardous floodplain or sell their homes to FEMA and risk an end to their community.
Selling their property to FEMA would have prevented anyone from building again on their flood-prone land and led to a reduction in the town’s tax base. Many residents have relocated, but FEMA has helped fund multiple projects to rebuild county infrastructure for the locals who remain. In December of 2020, Princeville developed a comprehensive plan for redevelopment. Only time will tell if the town can withstand an increasing rate of storm surges and flooding.
For many of its residents, Princeville stands as more than their home, but as a land tied heavily to their history and culture. Uprooting their lives means more than a loss of property. For many groups, especially Native or Indigenous communities, the loss of one’s home can be harmful to one’s identity, and relocation may not be a remedy for that loss.
Current State of Migration in NC
For the financially well-off households impacted by natural disasters, western migration might be a smoother process. Real estate agents are more likely to flag down climate migrants who bring substantial financial resources with them to Western North Carolina. They will offer properties that will only increase in price with the influx of potential buyers. Wealthy out-of-state buyers have already been flocking to these mountains for years in search of second homes, and when surveyed, the vast majority of buyers claimed climate issues were a strong motivator. When more low-income households must move west, the limited supply of available property will likely skyrocket due to increased demand. Those who cannot afford the inflated prices will have a difficult time finding a place to live.
It is hard to say if the available resources North Carolina has to offer will ensure the safety of its citizens. The state does not have the best track record when it comes to confronting sea level rise. In 2012, NC-20 lawmakers passed a controversial bill that, according to policy manager Tancred Miller, “put a moratorium on using any official numbers, rates of sea level rise for state-level planning or state-level regulation.” In other words, the bill did not allow state and local agencies to base policy decisions on models that include the rapid accelerating effect of global warming. Instead, decisions had to be based on outdated historical data that places sea level rise projections much lower than what scientists claim. According to the Columbia Undergraduate Law Review, this bill “ignores crucial scientific evidence and has the potential to harm North Carolinians on the coast.” The North Carolina Coastal Federation claimed the bill “may result in unintended consequences for coastal property owners.” Current policies now fit later scientific reports, but the bill paints a picture of NC lawmakers’ hesitation to face the encroaching issues climate change brings.
The many complexities of climate migration only magnify on the global scale as international communities seek refuge across national borders. Leaving one’s country carries with it further conflicts of culture and identity. If the U.S. hopes to lead in the effort to combat climate-induced displacement, it needs to learn from the issues face by its own citizens.
Benjamin Chappelow is a writer and narrative designer in the Appalachian mountains, United States. As an immigration researcher and former Narrative Writer for the Climate Resilience Toolkit, he is focused on how the stories we tell dictate our behavior in an ecological crisis. When he is not writing, Benjamin is trying to teach his cat how to type so he won’t have to.
When it comes to the question of refugees and providing aid, the Global North is first in line with answers and propositions. However, when it comes to acting on the agreed upon policies and practices, the Global North is also first to counter-act with policies relieving the states from cooperation and burden sharing to protect their own interests (Behrman 2019:59). Over the past few decades, the world has witnessed a dramatic increase in refugee flows, to which states in the Global North answered by restricting entry to their territory. As we move into the 21st Century, the world now faces new challenges and the emergence of a new type of refugee: those fleeing their countries due to climate related issues. The Global North adopted restrictive policies when faced with the ongoing refugee crisis, which leads us to believe it will do the same throughout the 21st Century. This essay will thus be focusing on just that.
First, we will define the system of remote control and discuss the different border controls set in place within the Global North. We will continue by establishing the lack of governance within the international refugee regime, which eventually leads to a lack of accountability of the Global North with regard to refugees. Finally, we will discuss the role of public opinion in the refugee protection discourse.
Remote Control
Remote control is a “system of passports, visas, and passenger ship checks” that keeps people from leaving for certain destinations without having passed initial screening (Fitzgerald 2019:4). For instance, states have put in place pre-clearances in foreign airports to avoid having refugees reach their territories. The same governments also converge on global visa policies, carrier sanctions and liaison officers (Fitzgerald 2019:14-15). In addition, they campaign for remote control throughout the countries of departure, like the British government did in 1934. They successfully pressured the Greek government to pass a law prohibiting anyone without a valid passport or visa to leave from Greece to Palestine (Fitzgerald 2019:5). These policies of expulsion, and many others, are meant to keep asylum seekers away from the Global North (Fitzgerald 2019:1). Because of the non-refoulement clause of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention (Hatton 2020:82) that prevents refugees from being sent back to their persecutors once on the territory, states now result in the manipulation of territoriality (Fitzgerald 2019:9). It allows states the possibility to refuse entry to refugees by saying they did not actually step foot into their territory.
Border reinforcements of wealthier democratic states therefore suggest the following: While the respective governments do cooperate amongst themselves to exclude refugees and migrants, there is a lack of willingness to cooperate in the burden-sharing when it comes to the reception of refugees. Yet, more lenient border policies would further provide refugees with protection and aid by providing them basic human rights. This entails access to safety, to food, to shelter, to healthcare, to education and to work (Feldman 2012:391). However, given the current geopolitical context, it does not seem that recipient states would enact such policies due to the fact that they perceive refugees as an economic strain (Behrman 2019:59).
Refugees can first be perceived as an economic strain because of the expanses spent by host countries to provide them with the necessary protection, which is with national resources and services, as previously mentioned. This would result, according to International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates, in refugees costing countries of the European Union 0.1% of their GDP (Shellito 2016:16). In addition, refugees might also disturb local economic markets, from food to housing, thus altering prices. For instance, Turkey has faced a sharp increase in rental pricing because of the refugee crisis, which hurts Turkish families with relatively low incomes (Shellito 2016:17). And so, because refugees can negatively impact host countries’ economy, said countries are less inclined to adopt lenient border policies.
Lack of Governance
The international refugee regime has always lacked a clearly defined system of global governance, allowing states of the Global North to avoid their responsibilities. It remains restrained as it contains no binding obligation on states to cooperate or ensure the functioning of the regime (Betts and Milner 2020:1-4). In turn, this weak governance has prevented important forms of dialogue, political engagement and cooperation, which are necessary to facilitate international cooperation or the realization of the regime’s core objective: solutions for the protection of refugees (Betts and Milner 2020:4), including those affected by climate change.
The United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”) the regime’s primary institution, was founded to provide this protection; it also supervises the application of conventions and develops international refugee law (Goodwin-Gill 2020:2). However, the UNHCR’s financial structure was designed to make it dependent on Western states as it relies mostly on the donation of those governments (Parekh 2020:28). Its role is to supervise the international refugee regime and publish non-binding guidelines on the application of international refugee law. Because the UNHCR does not hold power to enforce any rule of law (Goodwin-Gill 2020:40), it constrains its ability to resist or influence the actions and interests of more powerful states (Betts and Milner 2020:2). Thus, as nothing prevents governments of the Global North from prioritizing their own interests above their responsibility to help refugees, they have no incentive to cooperate with the international refugee regime any more than they already do (Parekh 2020:23).
Finally, states of the Global North measure their success in the refugee regime in their ability to control refugees by containing them in their regions of origin (Betts and Milner 2020:7) or monitoring their movement through remote-control policies (Behrman 2019:48). And so, as long as refugees remain in the Global South, whether in their home region or refugee camps, governments will neither be motivated to cooperate empathetically, nor feel the pressure to assume their share of the burden (Betts and Milner 2020:7).
Lack of Accountability
States within the Global North have a duty to rescue due to the superior means they possess over developing countries. However, because they are not the cause of the problem, nor have they initiated the events that forced refugees to flee their countries of origin, they minimize their obligations toward refugees (Parekh 2020:23). Although their duty to protect and rescue comes second to their own interests, states of the Global North are still seen as rescuers. As a result, they are somewhat excused from taking on too much of the burden of refugees (Parekh 2020:24). As it is not clear who should be responsible for the protection of displaced persons, those who fail to rescue are rarely held accountable.
However, if wealthier states with actual resources to help cannot be blamed for not upholding their duty of rescue, they can be blamed for being co-contributors to a system that structurally prevents the majority of refugees from seeking refuge because of the aforementioned remote-control policies (Parekh 2020:27). If not held accountable for their actions, governments will continue to allow the perpetuation of human rights violations refugees face.
For example, in 2010, following the destructive earthquake that occurred in Haiti, Haitians have been granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS); it allowed them to work legally in the United States (US). Unfortunately, in 2017, the Trump administration attempted to end TPS for Haitians (Macdonald 2019). Although it did not succeed, this kind of behavior is a clear indicator of the current US president’s stance toward refugees, bringing us to believe that cooperation and burden-sharing will not be increased in the near-future. And consequently, without accountability, governments might try to further minimize their role within the international refugee regime.
Public Opinion
Finally, while governments of the Global North have been struggling between their own interests and their moral obligations to refugees, the rise of nationalism has only added fuel to the push back against refugees (Parekh 2010:23). Although populist political parties might not always get elected in office, they still shift the agendas of other political parties towards a more anti-immigration stance (Hatton 2020:87). In fact, general public opinion has shifted dramatically against immigrants all across the Global North, due to the overall climate that surrounds refugees and asylum seekers more specifically (Hatton 2020:88). For example, because public opinion is strongly against unauthorized entry; an increase in the number of arrivals has induced hardened attitudes towards immigrants as a whole (Hatton 2020:89).
As the decisions of the democratic governments in the Global North normally reflect the majority of the populations’ point of view towards a contentious topic, the rise of nationalism across the Global North has the ability to reveal the poignant possibility that the burden-sharing and cooperation of Western governments and related institutions within the international refugee regime will not increase in the decades to come.
Flora Bensadon is a recent graduate of History and International Development from McGill University, Canada. 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.
Alexander Betts and James Milner. May 2019. “Governance of the Global Refugee Regime,” World Refugee Council Research Paper No. 13: 1–14.
David Scott FitzGerald. 2019. “Never Again?” In: Refuge Beyond Reach: How Rich Democracies Repel Asylum Seekers, 21–40. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
David Scott FitzGerald. 2019. “The Catch-22 of Asylum Policy,” In: Refuge Beyond Reach: How Rich Democracies Repel Asylum Seekers, 1–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hurricane Eta, the twelfth hurricane of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season, made landfall in Central America on 3 November. In the following days, Eta wreaked havoc across Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Honduras, leaving over 200 dead and thousands more without homes.
The rainfall, winds, and flooding from Eta produced an estimated seven billion dollars in damage and left few lives in the region untouched. A mere 13 days later, Hurricane Iota followed in Eta’s wake, creating an additional $1.25 billion in damage.
It is worth noting that these climate challenges are not exclusive to Central America, and these events are not new. Steve Trent, executive director of the Environmental Justice Foundation, notes, “Eta and Iota are one wake-up call among many—Maria, Idai, Irma, Harvey, Katrina, Kenneth. There is a litany of names of increasingly destructive hurricanes and cyclones that are causing the death or displacement of millions. Every day brings new damning stories from every corner of the world.” The stories are even more damning when they involve the destruction or displacement of thousands of families and the erosion of entire cultures and ways of life.
It will take years for the region to recover from the damage caused by Eta and Iota, much of which was uninsured. Immediate relief attempts have already faced difficulties due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the unstable nature of many governments and communities in the region will require careful attention both in the long and short term.
In particular, Eta and Iota will likely spur new waves of internal and international migration, which must be anticipated and adequately addressed to ensure the safety of affected populations. The “Dry Corridor” of Central America faces the combined impacts of both “slow-onset” hazards, such as drought and sea-level rise, and “sudden-onset” hazards, such as hurricanes. Pablo Escribano, a Thematic Specialist in Migration, Environment and Climate Change at the International Organisation for Migration’s (IOM) Regional Office for Central America, North America and the Caribbean, observes that this combination makes Central America particularly vulnerable.
Many of the communities that bore the brunt of Eta and Iota relied on small-scale agriculture, and these sudden-onset disasters caused further disruption to a way of life already under threat from slow-onset hazards. In Central America, relief and recovery efforts are complicated by state fragility, which has allowed for the growth of organised crime. These vulnerabilities may make migration a compelling solution. Driven by the knowledge that their home communities are unlikely to be restored to liveable condition for years, if at all, migrants may seek refuge and opportunity in cities in their home countries. If their home states are unable to provide for them, many may also choose to migrate across borders.
The challenges, then, are twofold. First, governments, IGOs, and NGOs must provide for the needs of the displaced with particular attention to women and minority groups whose needs have historically been overlooked and who, as a result, face additional burdens in migrating or rebuilding their livelihoods. Second, they must create long-term visions and frameworks to build resilience amongst affected communities and prepare for inevitable future disasters.
The Challenges to Forming a Solution
Addressing the needs of these displaced peoples is complicated by the lack of information surrounding the links between climate change and migration. Escribano highlights that surveys of the caravan that brings Central American migrants to the United States-Mexico border have not been able to deduce whether climate change and extreme weather have motivated significant migration. Instead, most cite economic hardship and loss of livelihood as their reasons for migrating, even though climate may be a driver of such hardship.
Similarly, Escribano says, “we’ve managed to raise attention to the areas of origin of migrants, but we’re not paying as much attention to destination areas or figuring out where these migrants settle and what challenges they face.” By filling these gaps in knowledge, policymakers and humanitarian groups will be able to understand migrants’ needs, better help them adapt to their new surroundings and establish the support networks necessary to economic and social stability.
One key area of concern is cities. Migrants to urban areas face difficulties in building social safety nets, and in Central America they frequently seek employment in the informal economy. However, the informal labour market is highly unstable and provides limited access to healthcare and other resources; so migrants remain vulnerable to crime and exploitation. These hazards are compounded for women and ethnic minorities. Urban development must be mindful both of creating and addressing sustainability goals and of promoting the welfare of these underserved populations.
Some governments in Central America are beginning to recognise the link between migration and climate change. Belize, for example, has integrated migration issues into its national climate strategy. After Eta and Iota struck in November, the Guatemalan and Honduran governments called for international recognition and assistance in addressing the climate crisis. Yet, as Andrew Harper, the UNHCR’s Special Advisor on Climate Action, notes, “in Central America, there are a number of states that have been in denial about climate change, but those states are also the ones that are often being hammered by extreme weather events.” As a result, Harper continues, “you have to be smart in how you approach these issues. You have to find a common point of understanding.”
However, though some governments are finding themselves no longer able to deny climate change, they continue to overlook the impacts of events like Eta and Iota on migration and mobility. The latest migrant caravan, which departed from Honduras in mid-January, has been met with violence and disdain by the Guatemalan and Mexican governments. Ironically, however, as Amali Tower, founder and executive director of Climate Refugees, observes, “the Trump administration slashed aid to Central American countries intended to aid development of jobs and sustainable farming.” Had such aid not been slashed, migration may not have become as pressing a concern.
These developments have placed migrants in a double bind, which has been particularly challenging for the region’s Indigenous communities. Tower points to “structural discrimination, systemic exclusion, and a long history of human rights abuses, including land dispossession and even environmental leaders being killed” as a few of the reasons why “it’s not surprising that the development of Indigenous populations in every Central American country lags far behind national averages”. Climate change, including desertification and sea level rise, is already forcing Indigenous peoples to leave their ancestral homelands, thereby uprooting the fragile cultural and social structures that have afforded them agency in otherwise deeply hostile surroundings.
Yet, the situation is not without hope. Kayly Ober, Senior Advocate and Program Manager of the Climate Displacement Program at Refugees International, points to sustainable development solutions that focus on building resilience in order to enable access to key resources that allow people to remain in their communities in the face of climate change. This includes, for instance, flood- or drought-resistant seeds, alternative irrigation methods, and skills training for occupations outside of agriculture. Ober states that “it’s about giving people options and enabling them to live in dignity”.
The EJF’s Steve Trent echoes the importance of living in dignity, pointing out that “99% of all deaths from weather-related disasters occur in the world’s 50 least developed countries, which contribute less than 1% of global carbon emissions”. Recognising the rights and listening to the voices of those most affected by climate injustice is therefore key to formulating effective policies at the national and international levels.
When it comes to formulating such policies, Andrew Harper remains positive: “people now recognise that, the longer we delay, the more far-reaching and costly and lethal the consequences are”. Trent expresses a similar sentiment, stating that “it is not too late to act. What is needed now, above all, is political will and leadership”. The COVID-19 pandemic may have provided some of that will. On one hand, Harper points out that though the pandemic may have distracted people from the issue of climate change, on the other, it has demonstrated that communities can join together in the face of an existential threat.
The struggles and lessons from Central America’s experience with Eta and Iota serve as an urgent warning. Countless other communities, ranging from Scandinavia to the Sahel to the South Pacific, are facing similar challenges. Though there is still time to act, it is limited. Only with proactive governments equipped with a strong understanding of the needs of their people can the climate crisis—and the migration issues that inevitably follow—be adequately addressed.
Maggie is an undergraduate at the University of Oxford, where she has held leadership roles with a student-run publishing house and a student-run art gallery, among other groups. She is particularly interested in womxn’s rights, disability rights, prisoners’ rights, and environmental justice.
One year ago, Australia was hit by a bushfire season of unprecedented scale and intensity, causing widespread environmental destruction and loss of property, and life. Now eclipsed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the Trump-Biden election, last year’s devastating phenomenon is becoming a distant memory. Though this does not mask the reality that thirty-three human lives were lost, over 3,000 homes were destroyed,[1] and three billion animals were killed or displaced.[2]
I was living in Canberra, Australia, during what is now colloquially known as the ‘Black Summer’. It felt as if the apocalypse was near. For weeks, we lived in a cloud of yellow smoke through which, at times, you would be lucky to see a few metres ahead. As bushfire smoke carries hazardous particles, residents started wearing bulky P2 masks both in- and outdoors – mind this was pre-COVID times. The smoke permeated inside our houses, and many experienced respiratory issues, constant headaches and sore eyes. As fires approached borders, many residents had to evacuate their homes.
The Orraral Valley fire burning on the outskirts of Canberra – Source: abc.net.au
Every day we heard stories of family members, friends, and other Australians who fell victim to the bitter harvest of one of Australia’s worst bushfires. I have cousins who are farmers in New South Wales that lost over 700 sheep and cattle to the flames. While they stayed to defend their property against encroaching fires which saved the structure of the house itself, many other vital resources turned into ash. With hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland burnt, countless other farmers suffered the same fate or worse, and will be recovering for years to come.
Roughly a week after the worst of the bushfires passed, and less than 24 hours after a massive dust storm blanketed entire towns and again blacked out the sun, Canberra was lashed with a severe hailstorm.[3] In the middle of summer and with bushfires burning across the country, golf ball-sized hailstones damaged thousands of cars, buildings, and trees, and injured or killed many animals.
Reparable damage to a car or house pales in comparison to stories from tiny Pacific island nations, whose residents have already permanently lost significant areas of liveable or arable land due to rising sea levels. Yet all of these extreme weather events are portents of impending climate crises which will continue to cause destruction and loss of life until drastic action is taken.
A climate migrant is forced to relocate when life in their current home becomes insupportable. As we are already seeing climate change-related disasters cause unsustainable living situations, it is no longer a hypothetical scenario for future generations to face, but a reality occurring within our lifetimes. These stories represent the beginning of such conditions that will only continually worsen, and ultimately result in an increase in climate migrants.
Current systems are failing climate migrants. Not only are governments and corporations neglecting to make the extreme policy changes necessary to halt climate change, but existing legal frameworks are insufficient to protect climate migrants in their plight. The international community has an obligation to undertake a reform agenda in this area, in order to afford increasing numbers of vulnerable climate migrants the protections they require and deserve. A bushfire season of this magnitude will certainly not be our last.
Gabriela Freeman is a soon-to-be lawyer and graduate of Law and International Relations from the Australian National University. Gabriela’s diverse cultural background and love of nature have influenced her twin passions for human rights, particularly for migrants and refugees, and the environment. She is committed to gaining the skills to effectively advocate for marginalised people, and meaningfully contribute to the climate justice movement. Outside of work, you can find her outdoors in the Australian bush, reading Richard Bach, or learning to play the drums.
The view that poverty leads to pollution and environmental destruction, or that poorer people care less about the environment, was for a long time firmly embedded in traditional views of environmentalism. Western environmentalists sought to conserve the natural environment in selected protected zones or areas, often displacing local communities that had lived on the land for centuries. This approach not only had limited success in addressing wider ecological challenges, but also caused social injustices and further marginalisation of vulnerable groups. A similar approach underlies some development models, according to which a community or state must first reach a certain level of economic development before they could (or should) be concerned with addressing environmental destruction.
Yet in reality, poorer people often live closer to the land and have a more direct interest and concern in environmental protection. For example, while wealthy people can afford to move to clean, pollution-free areas, economically and socially marginalised people often suffer the health and quality of life consequences of environmental destruction and waste generated by the wealthy.
Furthermore, we live in what the chemist and Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen has termed the Anthropocene; an epoch where no part of the world remains unaffected or untouched by negative human influences and destruction. This destruction ranges from polluting 88 percent of the ocean surface with plastic waste, to causing an estimated 1 million species to be threatened by extinction, to even changing the chemistry of the air. Today it is clear that the “pollute now, clean up later” model which most developed countries followed, is no longer a feasible option. At the same time, consumption and inequality, and thus the asymmetrical consequences of environmental destruction, continue to rise.
Intersecting Social and Environmental Vulnerabilities
In recognition of this reality, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the world’s governments at a special UN Summit in 2015 under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Agenda 2030 and the SDGs serve as the current blueprint for the future of humanity. Comprising 17 Goals, the SDGs cover all aspects of human wellbeing, from peace to clean water, gender equality to climate action. Under the slogan of “leave no-one behind” the SDGs aim to eradicate poverty and hunger, reduce inequality within and among states, and provide a “plan of action for people, planet and prosperity”. It recognises that ecological sustainability and environmental protection cannot be reached without addressing people’s basic needs and ensuring a more equitable sharing of the limited planetary resources. Conversely, it also recognises that people can only “fulfil their potential […] in a healthy environment”.
However, the idea that the people who suffer most from social and economic injustices are also the worst affected by environmental degradation and destruction, has a longer history. The Environmental Justice (EJ) movement emerged in the United States in the 1980s, when a predominantly African American neighbourhood in Warren County, North Carolina, was identified by the government to host a toxic landfill. This started a national movement of people speaking out against environmental injustices targeting communities based on their “race and economic status”. Despite its origins in the US, EJ has a lot in common with the “environmentalism of the poor” as it developed in other parts of the world around the same time. From India, to Brazil, to Nigeria, local groups have risen up in protest over oil extraction, dam construction, mining, and monoculture production affecting marginalised groups. Broadly conceived, the term EJ could be applied to this wide range of activities all rejecting the “unequal distribution of ecological costs and benefits”.
Synergies and Complementarity of SDGs and Environmental Justice
There are many ways in which the aims and principles of EJ and the SDG targets overlap, especially in the inseparability of social and ecological concerns, in the recognition of the need to address inequality and intersecting vulnerabilities, and in addressing patterns of consumption which underlay inequality and degradation.
They also complement one another in that the SDGs set concrete targets for achieving these common aims, such as ensuring that all people have access to clean water and sanitation (Goal 6), affordable and sustainable energy (Goal 7), sustainable industrialisation (Goal 9) and inclusive, safe and resilient cities (Goal 11).
SDG Goal 16 is also closely related to the ambitions of EJ, in that it explicitly aims to achieve access to justice for all. SDG 16 in particular “calls for non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development – to ensure that the SDGs leave no one behind”. It also requires of states to provide for inclusive processes for decision-making, access by the public to information and equitable access to justice, thereby empowering people to direct the various elements of development above.
EJ on the other hand affirms “the right to be free from ecological destruction”. This language of “rights” supplements the language in the SDGs which in the setting of “goals” and “targets” does not have the same strong component of entitlement and enforceability.
The areas of overlap between the SDGs and EJ in their aims and underlying principles allow them to be applied in a way that is mutually reinforcing. While the EJ is very much a grassroots movement, the SDGs are a globally orchestrated development plan implemented at the highest levels. Drawing on the strengths of each – local level advocacy and community mobilisation and participation of the EJ and the broad strategic aims of the SDGs – the two systems may strengthen the common goal of ecologically sustainable and equitable human development.
Elsabé is a human rights lawyer by training and currently works in human rights at the African regional level. She is specifically interested in issues related to extractive industries, socio-economic rights, sustainable development and transitional justice. She is a co-editor of an edited volume: Governance, Human Rights and Political Transformation in Africa, and is excited to edit content for this inspiring initiative.
It is undeniable that the effects of climate change disproportionately impact the poor. Climate change interferes with the full exercise of multiple fundamental human rights—like the rights to health, water, food, and housing—through its adverse effects on ecosystems, natural resources, and physical infrastructure.
Since the evolution of Homo sapiens, the earth’s dynamic climate has played a pivotal role in the accumulation, distribution, and preservation of natural resources and wealth. In order to survive and develop, societies have had to constantly adjust behaviours to the climate. Adaptability determines humanity’s ability to cope and recover from events. The largest distinction in adaptation strategies lies between developing and developed countries.
According to the Global Climate Risk Index, eight of the ten countries most affected by extreme weather events from 1998 to 2017 were developing nations. These countries are vulnerable not just to frequency of events but also in their limited capacity to deal with impact. With an increase in intensity and duration of adverse weather events, time and resources available to rebuild will decrease. The impacts of climate change, however, far exceed these broad terms. Effective public health infrastructure underpins the social and economic development, and climate change starkly affects water and sanitation, prevalence of disease, food availability, population growth, and migration.
Water and Sanitation
Over two billion people are dependent on drinking water contaminated with faeces. Water availability and sanitation is an existing issue that will intensify quickly with an increase in the global temperature. Access to reliable sources of drinking water is a fundamental human right entwined in article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the right to a standard of living adequate for health and wellbeing. However, this basic need is not met in many parts of the world. Contaminated water can transmit a myriad of diseases, like polio, typhoid, cholera, and dysentery as well as more-familiar diarrhoea—an illness that is laughed off in the West but causes 485,000 deaths per year in developing countries due to contaminated water. As rainfall and temperature change over time, the provision of clean water, adequate sanitation, and drainage will become even more strained.
Although rainfall is projected to increase in the moist tropic regions and higher latitudes, it is forecasted to decrease in middle latitudes and semi-arid low latitudes. In the regions experiencing reduced rainfall, river levels will drop and warmer temperatures will degrade water quality as dilution of unfavourable contaminants decreases, oxygen dissolves at a slower rate, and micro-bacteria become more active. Climate change exacerbates conditions in already drought-stricken regions, reducing access to clean water and generating drier conditions that strain agriculture and lead to more wildfires.
Disease
The effect of climate change on global disease patterns will intensify existing vulnerabilities across the world. Transmission rate and spread of rodent-borne and vector-borne diseases is expected to increase with the temperature—for example, experts have seen the rate at which pathogens mature and replicate within mosquitos accelerates with temperature. Insect population density and bite frequency also rises. A study by the University of Princeton found that mosquito abundance increases 30 – 100% with every 0.5 degree increase in temperature in the East African Highlands. According to the World Health Organization, over 405,000 people die of malaria annually with the vast majority (>97%) of deaths occurring in developing countries of Africa and Southeast Asia. As habitat distribution of mosquitos changes with the climate, human populations with little or no immunity to infections may be at risk, finding themselves in new transmission zones.
The human right to the “highest attainable standard of health” is implicated by climate change through increased spread of disease and the resulting decreased capacity of health care facilities to cope. This will disproportionately impact the poor through access to quality healthcare, both cost and availability. Malaria can be prevented through spraying DDT, using mosquito nets, taking medications, and through education surrounding stagnant water sources near the dwelling. Malaria can be treated, but most of these solutions are not available to developing countries.
Food Insecurity will Grow With Climate Change
The Climate and Food Vulnerability Index found that the ten most food-insecure countries in the world generate under half a tonne of CO2 per person—collectively 0.08% of total emissions. Crops, forestry, livestock, fisheries, and aquaculture will all be affected by rising temperatures, changes in precipitation regimes, and increased concentrations of CO2. This includes changing patterns of plant and livestock disease, affecting crop yields and agricultural production. Increased frequency of extreme weather events will destroy crops; flooding and rising sea levels will contaminate fresh water sources and agricultural land or cause salinisation and the elimination of nursery areas for fish.
Regions where subsistence farmers, Indigenous people, and coastal communities undertake small-scale food production are particularly vulnerable. This is often due to lack of access to optimal land, adequate agricultural inputs, and access to trade. Approximately three-and-a-half million annual deaths of mothers and young children can be attributed to malnutrition, low birth weights, and non optimal breast-feeding. Growth stunting due to chronic undernutrition affects one in every three children under five-years-old born in developing countries.
It is likely that some agricultural regions will benefit in productivity with the warming climate, but this is almost entirely in high-latitude developed countries that do not already have large proportions of malnutrition. The impacts of climate change on food security and malnutrition are expected to be colossal. Access to food has been recognised as a fundamental human right, and climate change can threaten this through availability, accessibility, adequacy, and sustainability of food—all elements that are already reduced in developing nations.
Migration and Resulting Conflict
Population growth is occurring in conjunction with climate change, intensifying established issues with shelter, water, and food insecurity. With more environments becoming flooded, arid, or inhospitable, large-scale population migration is likely. The UN projects that global populations will reach 9.8 billion by 2050, with roughly 83 million new additions per year. The majority of this increase can be attributed to a small number of countries. It is expected that by 2050, half of the world’s population will reside in India, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Tanzania, the United States, Indonesia, and Uganda. Eight out of nine of these are Global South nations. Most developed countries are predicted to stay in similar numbers and would even decline slightly if not for the expected migration from developing countries.
Drought increases and desertification of arid environments will cause population migration into urban areas from drought-hit, rural areas. Sea levels are rising as a result of both ice-cap melt and oceanic thermal expansion associated with climate change and will be a prominent driver of large-scale population displacement all around the world.
Impacts will be felt most severely in densely-populated, low-lying river deltas including the river delta of Bangladesh. The IPCC reports that nearly one million people will have to migrate by 2050, growing to over two million by 2100 due to sea level rise.
For some countries it is quite simple: elevate or relocate. But both of these solutions bring a myriad of problems, especially on a large scale.
Responsibility of Developed Nations
The wealthy countries of China, the United States, and the European Union are the world’s top emitters of fossil fuels and contribute over half of global emissions. The reality is the countries that will suffer most gravely are those that have contributed least to the problem. These top emitters contribute 14 times the emissions of the bottom 100 countries. Without substantial action from these countries, the world will struggle to tackle climate change. Questions must be raised about international justice and the violation of human rights.
The disproportionate responsibility of climate change across the world must be represented at an international political level. And the pressure must be put on those key players. This is the focus of some UN initiatives including the Paris agreement and Sustainable Development Goals. Industrialised, wealthy nations are not spared the effects of climate change. On the contrary, climate change exacerbates inequities here as well. Ultimately, climate change gives Western nations a heavy hunch of responsibility. We have the resources, science, and technology to change the trajectory; the Global South often does often not.
Corporate responsibility must also be addressed. Worldwide, 100 fossil fuel corporations are responsible for 71% of all industrial emissions. Even if corporations agree to emissions reduction targets, they often fail to include the emissions associated with the entire life cycle of products—from upstream emissions associated with extraction, production, and processing to the downstream emissions of product use and disposal. Some companies will only include emissions associated with their own facilities, which can be an extremely small proportion of the total. The devil is in the details. It should be a requirement for all corporations to accurately measure emissions and report them with full transparency. These should be reviewed externally and held to accord in emission reduction targets.
Individual actions are important for the climate movement, but corporations have the ability to influence consumer habits, drive policy change, and respond quickly and boldly to the climate crisis. We must hold them accountable.
At this stage in time, industrialised nations are demanding developing countries spend their scarce resources on adaptation and coping strategies to survive. These resources should be spent dealing with existing problems, not those exacerbated by climate change. Aotearoa, as one example, must step up to put pressure on corporations as well as other developed nations to do the same. The Zero Carbon Act was a significant step in Aotearoa, accounting for a climate commission, periodic risk assessments, and national adaptation plans; however, it fails to make the unequivocal link between climate change and human rights—a valuable tool that could escalate action. We have set emission reduction targets, we have raised expectations, but it is still not reflected in a demonstrable, measurable reduction of CO2.
Measurable progress speaks louder than targets, and emissions must be reduced to net zero. Only then will we gain the respect and leverage necessary to encourage significant action in other Western countries. Empathy is an innate human attribute, and if we could prevent the incomprehensible suffering of millions, would we not? Those in developed nations will still find that climate change will cause disruption and discomfort, at best; but the poor will suffer gravely.
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
