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.
In the summer of 2021, Western Europe experienced some of the worst flooding in decades. It caused tragic loss of life and widespread destruction across Europe, with its effects felt in Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. The catastrophic floods were especially powerful in Germany, where 180 people died, 700 were injured, and at the time of writing, 73 people are still missing. Preliminary calculations by German insurance companies suggest that there has been a cost to the economy of 4.5 – 5.5. billion euros, for damage to insured property alone.[1]
Whilst these events are both heart-breaking in their impact on people’s lives, and shocking in their unprecedented nature, this is but one notable example in Western Europe of a trend that has been occurring in other parts of the world for decades, leading to displacement and devastation across the globe. By examining the impact of flooding in the Ahrtal, Germany, scientists have uncovered additional compelling evidence in support of the human-induced contributions to the worsening of natural disasters.
The Ahrtal in Germany – an idyllic region often known for its local wineries and a popular tourist spot for hikers – was and continues to be one of the worst affected regions. At the height of the floods, it is estimated that approximately 90 litres of rain per square meter were falling into the regions around the rivers Ahr and Erft daily, more than any rainfall pattern noted in weather records so far[2].
Can explanations be found for these unprecedented events?
One of the factors predisposing the Ahrtal to flooding is the geography of the region: some valley sections create a funnel effect in the event of extreme floods due to the narrow nature and steep slopes. However, that does not necessarily encompass the full explanation for this catastrophe, which is estimated to be a once in 500-year event, or even rarer according to a study conducted by an international group of scientists from across Europe and the US.[3]
It was also found that human-induced climate change altered both the likelihood and intensity of the heavy rainfall which caused the severe flooding in Western Europe. In other words, not only has human induced climate change made the chances of such flooding happening greater, but it has also led to a worsening of the severity of heavy rainfall events. The study assessed general data from 1-day and 2-day rainfall events separately, and this disaggregation helped to analyse the changes in rainfall duration over the past decades.
The research group landed on three key findings. Firstly, they were able to demonstrate that rising temperatures have made flooding itself worse – climate changed increased the intensity of the rainfall event by about “3 – 19% compared to a global climate 1.2 °C cooler than today”. They also showed that climate change has made the probability of such an event occurring far higher – the likelihood of flooding has increased by a factor of between 1.2-9 compared to a pre-industrial climate. The study also looked at what would happen if the global temperature would continue to increase, up until 2°C warmer than pre-industrial times. Worryingly, the study found that these trends in severity and likelihood would continue to worsen along this predicted trajectory[4].
Though research demonstrating the harms of climate change and global warming already exists, environmental politics within Europe have been slow to change. However, this study based in Western Europe itself, tangibly links climate change to catastrophic effects on people’s livelihoods, and demonstrates its influence in causing huge displacement issues. Though it is unfortunate that governments have in the past not been willing to mobilise when such displacements are occur in far-off countries, it seems possible that in the face of such local impact, this study may succeed where others have failed in galvanizing European action.
The climate crisis as a crisis of global displacement
Due to the extreme floods, and the long-term effects that they had, the residents of the Ahrtal were severely displaced, both in the long and short-term. Whilst volunteering in the Ahrtal, reconstructing a destroyed house which belonged to a local police chief, I heard examples of the displacement which so many were forced to face after their houses were swept away by the floods or ripped down by the authorities due to extreme flooding damage.
One couple explained how their children had to start the new school year in a new region, living with their grandparents, because their own house cannot be lived in, and the school building had also been damaged. This is just one of many examples of the displacement and disruption the residents of the Ahrtal have had to manage. Moreover, ever since the initial, immediate displacement caused by the loss of their home, the residents have continued to experience long-term issues.
Even 3 months after the catastrophe, residents continue feel the ramifications of the disaster. For example, in the city of Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler, citizens are left without gas and heating, a challenge that could persist until the winter. Currently, 150 people are still lacking access to these basic services, and others are already living in emergency shelters supplied in the form of containers[5]. The long-term displacement and consequences are often invisible, overlooked as the media turns its attention elsewhere.
There has been widespread disappointment amongst residents with the way the disaster has been handled, not only in terms of the lack of alarm and warning residents received[6], but also in terms of organization after the crisis. One local describes how all of fundraising activities and donations have been organized privately, and there is a palpable feeling of having been let down by the government amongst the affected community. Politicians have expressed their horror and have vowed to fight climate change, with German environment minister Svenja Schulze stating that the recent floods are “the consequences of procrastination and hesitation” in fighting climate change.[7] However, one must be cautious in their optimism in believing meaningful policy change will occur, as these statements were overshadowed by rhetoric surrounding the recent national election in September 2021.
These catastrophes, however, are not new to some developing countries, but a wakeup call only for Western nations. Unfortunately, developing nations such as Bangladesh, countries in the Sahel region and island-nations such as the Maldives, have experienced extreme weather changes and increasing frequency of natural disasters. The question remains if the recent flooding will wake up western nations now that there have been climate-induced disasters and climate induced displacement on their doorstep.
Johanna Wassong is a final year International Relations student 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 refugee politics following the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
Johanna initially started working with refugees in her hometown of Cologne, Germany during the so-called Refugee Crisis of 2015, and was specifically confronted with the issues of environmental migration after the 2021 summer floodings in the Ahrtal.
References
[1] Bundeszentrale Bildung, “Jahrhunderthochwasser 2021 In Deutschland | Bpb”, Bpb.De, 2021, https://www.bpb.de/politik/hintergrund-aktuell/337277/jahrhunderthochwasser-2021-in-deutschland.
[2] David Young, “Klimawandel, Flut An Ahr Und Erft – Und Die Frage Nach Dem Verschulden”, Deutschlandfunk, 2021, https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/studie-zeigt-zusammenhang-klimawandel-flut-an-ahr-und-erft.2897.de.html?dram:article_id=501936.
[3]“Heavy Rainfall Which Led To Severe Flooding In Western Europe Made More Likely By Climate Change – World Weather Attribution”, Worldweatherattribution.Org, 2021, https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/heavy-rainfall-which-led-to-severe-flooding-in-western-europe-made-more-likely-by-climate-change/.
[6] Deutsche Welle, “Germany Ponders Lessons From Deadly Floods — As It Happened”, 2021, https://www.dw.com/en/germany-ponders-lessons-from-deadly-floods-as-it-happened/a-58311369.
[7] David Ehl, “The Climate Crisis Can’t Be Stopped, We Must Adapt”, Deutsche Welle, 2021, https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-the-climate-crisis-cant-be-stopped-we-must-adapt/a-58294704.
Climate change is forcing the displacement of people, both within states (i.e., internally displaced persons or ‘IDPs’) and beyond borders (i.e., climate change-forced migrants). According to the United Nations Refugee Agency (‘UNHCR’), as of 22 April 2021, climate change has triggered more than twice as much displacement than conflict has in the last decade.[i] Since 2010, weather emergencies have caused an average of 21.5 million people to move per year.[ii] The International Panel for Climate Change (‘IPCC’) recently found that climate change exasperates gender inequalities and women are less likely to have equal rights and access to resources.[iii] These inequalities appear to result in women being more likely to be displaced than men, and it has been reported that women represent 80% of people displaced by climate change globally.[iv]
Research is showing that this increase in displacement has a direct effect on the rise of modern slavery. Although each year more traffickers are being brought to justice,[v] modern slavery still presents serious cause for concern, particularly when contemplating an increase in vulnerability as people are affected by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, climate change, and conflict amongst other factors. Migrants account for a considerable share of detected victims globally as they are often marginalised and impoverished, and therefore preyed upon by traffickers.[vi]
The aim of this paper is to examine the causal relationship between climate change and sex trafficing – specifically with regard to women. The experiences of children will also be included where possible. The experiences of non-binary victims have not been included due to a current lack of data which needs to be addressed in future research. The paper also aims to highlight recent migration and pollution trends in order to give an overview of who is being affected and where accountability should lie. Sex trafficking is examined as opposed to other forms of exploitation, such as forced labour (including domestic servitude), organ harvesting, forced adoption, or forced criminality. This is due to the fact that, according to data gathered about detected victims, the majority of modern slavery cases constitute sexual exploitation. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (‘UNODC’) Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2020 records that 50% of those detected were trafficked for sexual exploitation, 38% were trafficked for forced labour, 6% were forced into criminality, and just over 1% were forced to beg. Smaller numbers were reported for people trafficked for the purposes of forced marriages, organ removals, and other types of exploitation.[vii]
Women and girls are the focus of this paper as they continue to be the most affected demographic. The UNODC recorded that in 2018, for every 10 victims globally, about five were adult women and two were girls.[viii] The International Labour Organization (‘ILO’) also recorded that in 2017, women and girls accounted for 99% of victims in the commercial sex industry.[ix]
Climate change and women
Forced migration as the result of climate change has risen in the last decade and is projected to continue rising. Some states are large enough geographically that governments can move citizens to areas of the country that are not as affected by climate change yet- such as away from coast lines for example. However, to do this people are often placed in camps, thus becoming internally displaced persons. Although this means that they still have recognised rights from their governments, IDPs are often more vulnerable than non-displaced persons due to the fact that they may have to inhabit camps with poor sanitation, limited access to clean water and food, higher rates of disease, and sometimes social and economic exclusion.
A study on internal displacement camps in Northern Uganda showed that placing people into these camps hampers the rights provided by citizenship as people do not always have their basic needs met, such as access to adequate healthcare facilities.[x] Moreover, climate change can put stress on national infrastructures and limit access to land which can cause food insecurity. It is not uncommon for IDPs in internal camps to suffer from food shortages.
Other states, including low-lying Small Island States (‘SIDS’)- such as Kiribati and the Maldives, do not have the capacity to internally protect all displaced citizens.[xi] Consequently, many are forced to cross state borders due to adverse weather caused by climate change. The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol (‘the Refugee Convention’) do not currently recognise climate change as a ground for claiming refugee status.[xii] A refugee is legally defined as a person who is ‘unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion’. The 1967 Protocol removes the temporal and geographical limitations of the Convention’s definition.[xiii]
The 1951 Refugee Convention was drafted because of people who were displaced due to World War Two and so only applied to people displaced due to events that occurred before the 1st of January 1951 and state parties could choose to restrict its application to only cover Europe. The Protocol removes these limitations so that the Refugee Convention can be applied globally and for events up to present day.
This lack of legal protection for those who are forced to cross borders due to hazardous weather caused by climate change are often from countries that contribute the least to climate change and may already have been vulnerable to poverty- for example, SIDS according to 2019 data, made up seven of the ten countries globally that face the highest risk of internal displacement from extreme weather events but SIDS per capita emissions are around a third of those from high-income countries.[xiv] C02 emissions are of particular concern as the IPCC identified that Green House Gases (GHGs) are the main anthropogenic contribution to climate change, with the main gas being CO2[xv]. According to data from 2018 published by the World Bank, the ten countries that produce the highest level of CO2 emissions are as follows:
China (10,313,460 kt);
United States (4,981,300 kt);
India (2,434,520 kt);
Russian Federation (1,607,550 kt);
Japan (1,106,150 kt);
Germany (709,540 kt);
Republic of Korea (630, 870 kt);
Islamic Republic of Iran (629,290 kt);
Indonesia (583,110 kt); and
Canada (574,400 kt).
These countries are typically considered to be ‘developed’ and therefore better equipped to respond to adverse weather conditions. It seems that this group of states should be held accountable if forced migration from climate change is to be prevented- this would also follow the ‘polluter pays’ principle wherein those who produce pollution should bear the responsibility of managing it to prevent damage to the environment. Many of the countries that appeared to produce the lowest number of CO2 were SIDS such as the Seychelles (620); Sao Tome and Principe (140); Samoa (320); Palau (290); Nauru (70); the Federated States of Micronesia (180); the Marshall Islands (190) and Kiribati (80) amongst others.[xvi] As aforementioned, SIDS often contribute the least to carbon emissions but are the group of states that are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change.
Research in this area shows that it is women and girls who appear more at risk of displacement due to climate change, particularly those who live in developing countries.[xvii] This is likely due to pre-existing gender inequalities that render women and girls to have less access to resources, including land. Following floods, wildfires, droughts and other extreme weather events, food can be scarce as crops can be destroyed and agricultural land can be in left in conditions that make it difficult to cultivate food in adequate quantities. Women and girls being denied access to land can then be another barrier in them being able to grow food so this coupled with devastation from extreme weather means that women and girls are disproportionally affected.
Data from the United Nations shows that women are more vulnerable to the effects of climate change than men, as they constitute the majority of the world’s poor, and their livelihood is also more dependent upon the natural resources that are threatened by these changes.[xviii] They also are more likely to face economic, social, and political barriers as a result of existing gender inequalities which limit their ability to access resources and cope with the effects of climate change, making them less likely to be involved in any decision-making processes.[xix]
Sex trafficking and women
The 2016 UNODC Global Report found that when using data that was disaggregated by gender, it was clear that women and girls are usually trafficked for marriage and sexual slavery, whereas men and boys are often trafficked for forced labour.[xx] There are several societal reasons for this gender inequality. For example, women are disproportionally affected by poverty as they are often excluded from economic and educational resources and opportunities- research shows that women are generally paid less than men are, many women are in the informal economy which means they are not likely to have secure employment contracts and are not always paid enough to get out of poverty. This same research also shows that women do at least twice as much unpaid care work as men do.[xxi] On top of being unpaid this gives them less opportunity to engage in paid work. Traffickers prey on poorer individuals who are in need of an income to survive and may not recognise the signs of exploitation until it is too late. In many societies women have been treated as unequal to men and have been sexualised or objectified, and their societal ‘value’ is perceived to be lesser than that of men.
Although the Refugee Convention does not require State Parties to legally recognise forced migration from climate change as grounds for refugee status, Article 6 of the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (“CEDAW”) stipulates that State Parties “shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women”.[xxii] It can therefore be argued that due to the link between climate change forced migration and sex trafficking in women and girls, the latter should be tackled by reducing and preventing climate change forced migration in order to mitigate the vulnerability exploited by traffickers.
Of the top CO2 producing countries listed above, eight have signed and ratified CEDAW. The United States of America has signed the treaty but is yet to ratify. Iran ratified the treaty in 2003 but this was later vetoed by the Guardian Council. This means that the majority has acknowledged their responsibility to take all appropriate measures including the implementation of legislation that protects women and girls from sexual exploitation and although some progress is being made this does not appear to be happening effectively enough to protect women and girls.
Conclusions
It is clear, therefore, that as the result of existing gender inequalities and vulnerabilities, women and girls are most affected by climate displacement globally. This renders them more susceptible to human trafficking and sexual exploitation.
The main solution for preventing women and girls being so vulnerable would be to achieve economic and social gender equality. However, this is obviously a long-term aim. More short-term solutions could include increasing economic opportunities for women and girls such as providing education, vocational training, and apprenticeships. The dissemination of information to women and girls on their rights and on sexual exploitation could help them recognise signs of coercion and give them avenues in which to report it. This could include information on rights and signs of exploitation at displacement camps, information on the legitimacy of overseas ‘job’ opportunities, and the visitation of displacement camps by qualified people such as aid workers and governmental officials. The equal employment of women in such positions as well as in law enforcement and border officials could help women and girls to feel safe to report sexual exploitation. The accountability of states that contribute the most to climate change needs to be examined in order to reduce CO2 emissions. Tackling the causes of climate change could help mitigate one area where women and girls are disproportionally affected. The accountability of the traffickers also needs to be addressed more as this is often lacking in research conducted on sexual exploitation. Efforts could be made to target key areas to ascertain exploitation networks by identifying states that are affected the most by extreme weather conditions caused by climate change. Looking at routes that displaced people take and monitoring these as well as migrant camps could help protect people whilst also maintaining surveillance for perpetrators. Cross-border cooperation would also be advantageous for the identifying of perpetrators- as forced migration and sex trafficking often involves crossing state borders then communication between states is key.
Rebecca Allen obtained her MA in Human Rights from UCL. Her dissertation looked at displacement from climate change, the accountability of governments, and the role of advocacy networks. She now works as a researcher. Her main areas of interest are climate change, displacement, modern slavery, and the effects of conflict upon civilians.
She is passionate about using her research to bring attention to marginalised groups and the need for policy change to protect the rights of people in vulnerable situations.
[v] UNODC, ‘Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2020’(United Nations, January 2021). Since 2003, the number of those convicted per 100,000 people has nearly tripled.
[x] M. Oosterom, ‘Internal Displacement, the Camp and the Construction of Citizenship: Perspectives from Northern Uganda’, (2016) 29(3) Journal of Refugee Studies.
[xi] Data from 2016 showed that China, the Philippines, and India had the highest number of internally displaced persons from disaster. However, these states have more capacity for moving citizens internally but it is small island states that are disproportionally affected. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, ‘Global Report on Internal Displacement’, (2017), <http://www.internal-displacement.org/global-report/grid2017/>.
[xii] In Ioane Teitiota v. The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (New Zealand Supreme Court, 2015),the Court rejected the claimant as a ‘climate change refugee’ on the basis of lack of legal recognition of climate change as grounds for refugee status.
[xiii] Refugee Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol (1951), United Nations.
[xiv] Oxfam, ‘Forced from Home: Climate-fuelled Displacement’, 2019.
“It’s an act of sabotage on our future, a reckless and totally irresponsible act.”[i]
Such was the reaction of climate official Ian Fry, from the tiny South Pacific Island nation of Tuvalu, to Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997 and represents the first instrument in international law to contain legally binding greenhouse gas limitation and reduction commitments for industrialized countries. As such, Canada’s withdrawal from this legal milestone not only directly worsens the situation of threatened states such as Tuvalu through its apparently intended increase in greenhouse gas emissions, but also sends an ominous signal to the rest of the world, potentially opening the door for other states to follow suit.
Tuvalu is one of the countries suffering the most from the consequences of climate change. Rising sea levels are causing the erosion of ever larger coastal areas of the island nation’s low-lying atolls (coral reefs).Groundwater is becoming saline, threatening both food crops and drinking water supplies, and the increasing number of storms is destroying vital infrastructure in the country. Thus, Fry’s statement can be understood as an example of a global trend: the consequences of climate change are increasingly being recognized as a massive threat to peace for more and more states.
Examples of possible sources of conflict arising from climate change include the struggle for resources[ii], food scarcity[iii], and forced migration, with estimates for the year 2050 ranging from 200 million[iv] to 1 billion[v] climate refugees. The view that not only the consequences, but also the underlying causes of climate change, can be perceived as a threat to peace in their own right, seems set to gain acceptance.[vi] And these very causes of climate change can, in turn, often be clearly attributed to the actions of certain states.
Based on this extremely limited introduction, it becomes important to consider the question of whether states whose citizens, economies, and cultures suffer particularly severely from the consequences of man-made climate change may, under certain conditions, resort to the use of force against the polluter states.
In what situations might the use of force in the name of climate change be legal?
There are two possible scenarios under which the use of force may be legal: in the name of self-defense, or with the permission of the UN Security Council.
Regarding self-defense, Article 51 of the UN Charter (1945) states an “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against [themselves or another] Member of the United Nations”. If this is interpreted literally, the legality of the use of force against “climate rogue states”[vii] can already be ruled out. Without wanting to belittle the threat of heavy Green House Gas (GHG)-emissions, this is definitely a different kind of threat than ‘an armed attack’.
However, if one takes the commonly accepted requirements of the so-called ‘Caroline Test’, a closer look is worthwhile. The Caroline Test lists a number of criteria that must be met for the right to practice self-defense. In the original formulation of this test (Webster, 1841) it says that, “a use of force can [only] be admissible if there is ‘a necessity of self-defence, instant, over-whelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation’. Moreover, ‘the act, justified by the necessity of self-defence, must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it’.”[viii] In essence, this test argues that the two key requirements to justify the use of force in self-defence are ‘necessity’ and ‘proportionality’. While ‘proportionality’ determines the intensity of force that may be used, the requirement for ‘necessity’ determines whether a resort to the use of force is permissible at all. Thus, the necessity criterion is more interesting for us at this point.
Especially given the Test’s requirement for a threat to be ‘instant [and] over-whelming’, it would seem, given that GHG emissions don’t instantly affect populations, that the necessity criterion cannot be fulfilled. The reality is that many of the harmful effects of climate change take years or decades to come to light, and the delayed effects of emitted GHGs make it extremely difficult to attribute a specific consequence of climate change to a specific state. Thus, at least in the current state of climate change, under this framework it would be argued that states do have the time and therefore possibility to choose other means than force, which in turn must always be a last resort[ix]. In summary, then, “[u]nless the global climate was at a tipping point, and the attacking state or coalition knew it, the imminence of the threat implied by necessity would be absent.”[x]
Instead, the justification for a military strike against GHG-emitting facilities through anticipatory self-defense seems more realistic. This is because such a military strike would involve the pre-emptive thwarting of probable harm emanating from a state which is either unwilling or unable to stop this harm from happening, just as the theory of anticipatory self-defense states. However, the application of this particular variety of self-defense is highly controversial. Many scholars believe “that the pre-emptive use of force against emerging threat(s) is unauthorised under existing legal framework.”[xi]
As such, the use of force against climate rogue states cannot be justified on the basis of Article 51 of the UN Charter as acts of self-defense, at least for the time being. The other alternative for nations to legitimize a resort to use of force would be by being granted permission from the UN Security Council (UNSC). As a first step in this respect “[t]he Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”[xii] This type of determination of threats to global peace is usually expressed in a UNSC resolution. Such resolutions not only officially determine that the situation in question is a legitimate threat to the peace, but also provide recommendations or decisions regarding “what measures shall be taken […] to maintain or restore international peace and security”.[xiii] Article 41 of the UN Charter lists a number of peaceful means by which the identified threat to peace shall be overcome. However, if these peaceful means were deemed by the UNSC to either have failed or to be inadequate, the resort to the use of force would be possible[xiv].
Because such a UNSC resolution does not exist as of today[xv], it would be tempting to dismiss this approach as irrelevant. However, this would be too simplistic. In general, the UNSC has an obligation to determine threats to peace[xvi]. A glance at the past shows that this can also involve categories of illicit conduct other than classic, direct violations of the sovereignty of states. In 1992, for example, the UNSC confirmed that “[t]he absence of war and military conflicts among States does not in itself ensure international peace and security. The non-military sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian and ecological fields have become threats to peace and security.”[xvii] Thus, it is by no means impossible that calls for climate change to be classified as a threat to peace[xviii] will be heard. And indeed, there have been repeated shifts in this direction in the recent past.
The UNSC, for example, “has held four open debates specifically on climate security risks”[xix] already. At the most recent of these open debates, climate change was unanimously referred to as a ‘threat multiplier’[xx], but no agreement could be reached on a classification as a threat to peace itself. Since two or three of the five permanent members with veto power in the UNSC, China and Russia, and in recent years also Trump’s USA, have taken the politically motivated stance that “[i]n fact, qualifying climate change as a threat to the peace was, in their view, neither ‘right’ nor beneficial”[xxi], this classification is not to be expected in the near future.
How might this change in the future?
Nevertheless, should climate change be classified as a threat to peace at some point, the whole situation could possibly change very quickly. The effectiveness of peaceful means can already be doubted from today’s point of view, since neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the Paris Agreement can be considered to have effectively halted climate change and GHG emissions[xxii]. Were a Security Council resolution to be passed, it could open the door for the use of force against climate rogue states. For very practical reasons, however, it must be asked at this point whether this would actually be effective, either in combating climate change, or in furthering and protecting human rights at all. If a tiny state like the aforementioned Tuvalu suddenly had the theoretical right to take military action against a large country like Canada, it would still lack the means to do so. Thus, the jus ad bellum wartime principle of ‘probability of success’, in contrast to the other principles[xxiii], could not be fulfilled under any circumstances[xxiv]. The principle of ‘probability of success’ states that war can only be justified if such violence has a real chance of changing the causal grievance in the long run. If Tuvalu is now apparently justified in using force against Canada due to changed conditions, there is still the question of how it should win this war. Tuvalu does not have an army, and if one were to be created, it would almost certainly not be able to take on the Canadian army. A tiny country like Tuvalu trying to take military action against a superpower like Canada is likely to cause harm and loss of life, but has very little chance of bringing about change.
From this point of view, the proportionality of military action is also highly questionable. Because the principle of proportionality prohibits any “attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”[xxv] The invoking of the right to collective self-defense could provide a remedy[xxvi]. Going beyond this, the question may even arise, “[i]f a state pursues or allows very damaging activities that harm its own population or the international community as a whole through climate change, would it be legal to use force to stop those activities in the name of humanitarian intervention or the Responsibility to Protect [R2P]?”[xxvii]. However, this would only be possible if the UNSC classified the consequences of climate change as a mass atrocity crime[xxviii]. Additionally, the status of R2P is also controversial[xxix].
Conclusion
The scope of this paper could only provide a very rough framework. Nevertheless, it was possible to show why there is currently no legal resort to the use of force against climate rogue states and under what circumstances this assessment could change in the future. In addition to these findings themselves, however, it is momentous that such deliberations are taking place at all. Of course, no one wants to see countries become violent in the name of climate change, nor to see the devastation of communities, cultures and infrastructure that comes with war and violence. That the use of force is even being discussed is testament to the fact that there is still no actual, reliable way of holding states accountable for their international climate responsibilities. Countries and ecosystems around the world are at a breaking point, and in the not-too-distant future, the progress of climate change could lead to an even more frightening scenario.
Given that climate change is already triggering violence today, as destroyed homes or impeded access to drinking water might cause people in hardship to resort to violence in order to ensure their survival. If those states, whose citizens are worst affected, in their desperation see no other way out than using force against climate rogue states to stop them from causing further harm, we could see a rapid downturn into a new spiral of violence. Finding a way of holding states accountable for their international climate responsibilities is urgently needed, because otherwise violence will not only increase as a consequence of climate change impacts, but seems likely to also increase as an attempt to control the reckless actions of other states.
However, as explained in detail above, the use of force would not even come close to solving the problems caused by climate change. It must therefore be a top priority that international cooperation eventually lives up to its name and that a viable solution for the well-being of all in the face of the changing climate is found and implemented. We need to finally come together as an international community in holding nation states accountable – because only in this way can we ensure that this paper remains what it is: the description of an intellectual, purely theoretical thought experiment.
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.
[ii]Gleditsch, Nils Petter (2012): Whither the weather? Climate change and conflict. In: Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 49(1), pp. 3-9. DOI: 10.1177/0022343311431288.
[iv]Brown, Oli (2008): Migration and Climate Change, p. 11. In: IOM Migration Research Series, Vol. 31. https://www.ipcc.ch/apps/njlite/srex/njlite_download.php?id=5866
[v]Bassetti, Francesco (2019): Environmental Migrants: Up to 1 Billion by 2050. https://www.climateforesight.eu/migrations-inequalities/environmental-migrants-up-to-1-billion-by-2050/
[vi]e.g., Steinbruner, John D. (2013): Climate and Social Stress – Implications for Security Analysis, p. 37. Washington: The National Academies Press.
[vii]Martin, Craig (2020): Atmospheric Intervention? The Climate Change Crisis and the Jus ad Bellum Regime, p. 334. In: Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 45(S). DOI: 10.7916/cjel.v45iS.5786.
[viii]Corten, Olivier (2017): Necessity, p. 862. In: Marc Weller, The Oxford Handbook of The Use of Force in International Law, pp. 861-878. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[ix]UNOCHA (2012): Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets in Support of Humanitarian Emergency Operations: What is Last Resort?. http://www.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/Last%20Resort%20Pamphlet%20-%20FINAL%20April%202012_5.3.pdf
[x]Kinsella, David (2013): The Use of Force to Achieve Climate Change Goals, p. 18. http://web.pdx.edu/~kinsella/papers/isa13.pdf
[xi]Mirza, Muhammad Nasrullah (2019): Use of Force in Self-Defence for Global Peace: A Conceptual Framework, p. 21. In: Strategic Studies, Vol. 39(3), pp. 1-21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48544307
[xii] UN Charter (1945): United Nations Charter (full text), Art. 39. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text
[xv]Bourghelle, Valentine (2019): Climate change in the Security Council: On the road to qualifying climate change as ‘threat multiplier’. In: Völkerrechtsblog, 9 December 2019. DOI: 10.17176/20191209-180639-0.
[xvi]Dipalo, Sabina (2018): The Security Council’s Non-Determination of a Threat to the Peace as a Breach of International Law, p. 61. In: Pécs Journal of International and European Law. 2018/01, pp. 61-81. http://ceere.eu/pjiel/wpcontent/uploads/2018/08/63pjielPJIEL1801.pdf
[xviii]e.g., Scott, Shirley V. (2008): Climate Change and Peak Oil as Threats to International Peace and Security: Is It Time for the Security Council to Legislate?. In: Melbourne Journal of International Law. Vol. 9(2), pp. 495-515. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/1683221/Scott.pdf
[xix]Toufanian, Melissa Turley (2020): Climate Change at the UN Security Council: Seeking Peace in a Warming World. https://unfoundation.org/blog/post/climate-change-a-un-security-council-seeking-peace-warming-world/
[xxi]Bourghelle, Valentine (2019): Climate change in the Security Council: On the road to qualifying climate change as ‘threat multiplier’. In: Völkerrechtsblog, 9 December 2019. DOI: 10.17176/20191209-180639-0.
[xxii]As the most prominent examples, neither the Kyoto Protocol nor the Paris Agreement could significantly change the progress of climate change.
[xxiii]Proper authority, just cause, right intention, proportionality, last resort.
[xxiv]Stanford Encyclopedia (2016): War, 2.5. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
[xxvi]Kunz, Josef L. (1947): Individual and Collective Self-Defense in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, p. 872. In: The American Journal of International Law. Vol. 41(4), pp. 872-879. https://doi.org/10.2307/2193095
[xxvii]Gray, Christine (2012): Climate Change and the Law on the Use of Force, p. 238. In: Rosemary Rayfuse, International Law in the Era of Climate Change, pp. 219-241. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
[xxviii]Nollkaemper, André (2017): Failures to Protect in International Law. In: Marc Weller, The Oxford Handbook of The Use of Force in International Law, pp. 437-461. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[xxix]Glover, Nicholas (2011): A critique of the theory and practice of R2P.
The suburban lawn, also known as turf grass, exists as a space of fruitless continuity. In the United States it is the largest crop by acreage, tripling corn, yet it produces no nutritional or agricultural value. Americans use nine billion gallons of water per day to maintain their lawns, but research has found as much as 50% of that water goes to waste due to inefficient irrigation methods.[i] Residents destroy between 5,000 and 385,000 acres of natural habitats per day using harmful chemicals, clearing away biodiverse land vital for pollinators in the process.[ii]
To make matters worse, lawn equipment also makes up 4% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions,[iii] outstripping emissions from livestock and manure.[iv] Though the UK any other suburban-abundant nations descended from Great Britain (e.g., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) may not hold the lawn to such heights as the United States, they too share similar residential traditions. As droughts, wildfires, and colony collapse loom, why are so many people holding on to something that sucks up so much water, time, energy, and wildlife while producing so little?
Its Origins
The lawn acts as a symbol of middle-class ideals, of curb appeal and leisure time. It demonstrates civilization ‘triumphing’ over wild land by ritually manicuring it into uniformity, and has become a hallmark of residential life across much of the Global North. However, turf grass isn’t a part of North America’s natural prairies, meadows, or pastures. Poa pratensis, better known as Kentucky bluegrass, and its related species, make up almost every suburban lawn, but are native only to Europe and Asia – not to areas like Kentucky at all.
What we know as lawns today emerged in 16th century France, where aristocratic landowners had slaves and peasantry cultivate empty spaces of neatly manicured grasses.[v] Being able to afford to keep empty space that produced no food was a sign of vast wealth. The lawn grew in popularity within Great Britain, where Enclosure laws ended land rights for commoners and put an end to commonly owned land. These laws prevented individuals farming on the formerly shared land, pushed them into wage labor for landowners, who could deem that the land would be cultivated for strictly aesthetic purposes. Once the British empire established colonies in North America, colonists sought to mimic these displays of elite wealth. Indigenous communities—who had cultivated and maintained the landscape through controlled burning and establishing interdependent relationships with the wildlife—were either killed or driven off the perennial prairie grasses, where colonists would replace native Buffalo with European cattle.
However, these cattle, woefully maladapted for their new North American habitat and couldn’t get enough nutrients from the North American terrain. And so, the British brought their own grasses from Europe, which pushed out native plants and animals that could not subsist with the Kentucky bluegrass. As they shaped the North American land to look like a European countryside, ecological colonization became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
By the late 19th century, with the invention of the push lawnmower, the sprinkler, and the birth of the suburbs, the lawn began to shift from a symbol of wealth and leisure to one of conformity. Lawns were no longer something only the ultra-elite could have. After World War II, middle-class people afford to cultivate their own little pieces of luxury. With soldiers returning home, warfare chemicals becoming reinvented as pesticides and artificial fertilizers, and rapid suburban development, having a strip of trimmed grass in front of your house became the staple of a domestic life.
A significant part of your property value is its curb appeal (how attractive your house looks when viewed from the street). But because the front lawn connects to the street, it isn’t a space cultivated for use. You might imagine the front lawn as a space for children to play, but with cars speeding down your street, dogs defecating in your grass, and the lack of privacy, the backyard is generally where domestic life (playing, gardening, grilling, swimming) resides, and the front lawn serves as a symbolic space of uniformity with the neighborhood. So roughly half of the lawn space you own serves no physical purpose. And while it may be your property, depending on where you live, the front lawn’s aesthetic does not belong to you. Instead, it must conform to outdated legislation based on guidelines set by tradition, no matter how inefficient or harmful those guidelines may be.
Its Disutility
The Kentucky bluegrass can only naturally thrive in climates like those of Northern Europe, which means residents who live anywhere other than New England and some parts of Canada need to constantly tend to their Kentucky bluegrass to keep it alive. The same goes for other common lawn grasses such as scutch grass (native to Africa) and Zoysia grass (native to Asia and Australia, typically hardier than the other two and often used for golf courses). As a result, most residential areas are ripping out native plant species, inserting nonnative grass species in an incompatible climate, and constantly tending to them so they don’t die. These grasses typically require more water than what natural rainfall provides. They require fertilizers to pump more nutrients into a soil in which it has not evolved to grow. And even if you do those two steps right, they require constant maintenance in order to fit an aesthetic ideal.
However, even if one does want to move towards a more natural and less wasteful gardening approach, letting your lawn die and decreasing curb appeal does come with obstacles. If your property is governed by a Homeowners Association, they can fine you for not maintaining your lawn.[vi] One common practice is for the HOA to hire a landscaping crew to renovate your lawn, and make you pay the bill. In certain jurisdictions, you can even be arrested for not mowing your lawn.[vii] For those who are old or physically unable to tend to their lawn, there is no exception.
Aside from the harms inflicted on biodiversity and water security, there are also practical, financial, and health and safety challenges related to lawns. Many choose, or are forced, to hire professionals to handle lawncare, and the average American homeowner spends between $700 and $2,600 per year.[viii] In countries like Australia and Canada where the average suburban lawn is much smaller in surface area, costs are expected to be less. It would be cheaper to tend to your lawn yourself (Americans on average spend $1080 on lawn equipment),[ix] but this increases the likelihood of physical injuries. In 2016, more than 86,000 American adults and 4,500 children went to the emergency room for lawnmower-related injuries.[x] Those whose jobs involve lawn maintenance also face considerable danger. In 2019, 229 ground maintenance workers died from workplace-related accidents, more deaths that year than firefighters and law enforcement combined.[xi]
As freshwater becomes increasingly scarce, using nine billion gallons of water a day to maintain golf courses, roadside greenways, and lawns is a dire misplacement of resources. Despite this seemingly limitless enthusiasm for the garden lawn, in the drier parts of the U.S. and Australia, we are already seeing restrictions and mandates on how households use limited supplies of water. In Australia’s New South Wales, from December 2019 to February 2020 the government placed restrictions on the use of sprinklers and hoses for watering lawns and washing cars.[xii]
The world’s freshwater security is becoming increasingly jeopardized, and if water supplies continue to fall in the near future, governments will be forced to further restrict outdoor water use. In states like Nevada, lawmakers are banning the watering of grassy areas that do not serve a function, mainly at office parks, in street medians, and at entrances to housing developments. This trend might continue for other states reliant on the Colorado River, which is continuing to dry up.[xiii]
So, with lawns causing all these problems, what are some alternatives?
What else can we do with our property?
Turning away from the traditional lawn may feel uncomfortable. As humans, we have evolved towards conformity. We want to feel a sense of belonging to a tribe. Even without local law enforcement or HOAs forcing you to keep a turf grass lawn, some people naturally want to keep up their home’s appearance. We want to feel like a part of our neighborhood. We want to be aesthetically united with our neighbors.
According to biologist and entomology professor Douglas W. Tallamy, getting rid of the lawn doesn’t mean losing a sense of community. As he states in his book Nature’s Best Hope, you can imagine your property “as one small piece of a giant puzzle, which, when assembled, has the potential to form a beautiful ecological picture.”[xiv] He proposes we exchange the traditional residential lawn with native plants that can support local species. Based on one’s given location, replacing 70% of one’s property with native plant species can provide wonderful benefits to local birds, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates.[xv] While invasive does not always mean harmful, filling your lawn with plants that require less water and offer better support to local pollinators is one step towards building a more beneficial landscape.
Another alternative is gardening. Fruit and vegetable gardens, per square foot, require 75% less water on average.[xvi] Even in places like California where water is scarce, gardening under proper methods is more than feasible.[xvii] If you take pleasure in the constant maintenance a yard requires, keeping and maintaining a garden provides a similar outdoor routine that needs less carbon-emitting lawn equipment and produces (sometimes literal) fruit for your labor. We can learn from Cuba’s organoponicos (urban farms).[xviii] With the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 90s and an 80% reduction in the country’s trade, Cuba faced a dire hunger crisis. It had to produce twice as much food with less than half of its usual chemical inputs.
With fewer resources, Cuba converted much of its residential land for gardens. Residents utilized more integrated pest management, applied soil and composting conservation methods, and rotated crops. By 2002, Cuba produced 3.2 million tons of organic food from organoponicos, staving off impending hunger crises. Such a radical change to a more nurturing suburban landscape could help remedy food deserts in urban and rural areas. At the very least, converting empty lawn space to gardens would redirect limited resources towards more beneficial investments while keeping properties lush and green.
As individuals, taking small steps is the key to creating a more beneficial landscape. One such step would be working within your local community—with neighborhood committees and HOAs—to make sure property owners have a greater freedom in their choices, and allow homeowners to establish more beneficial spaces without punishing them for going against uniformity. If you’re too busy to garden, replacing yard décor with native vegetation provides benefits to wildlife without all the upkeep. Inform your neighbors about the problems with turf grass lawns, and of the alternatives available. The pride many people take in their lawns isn’t rooted in the lawn itself, but the act of maintaining and cultivating an aesthetic space. If we get rid of the turf grass lawn, we can hold on to the culture of lawncare while changing residential spaces to actually provide utility. And with impeding droughts on the horizon, the time redirect water towards necessary channels is growing more urgent.[xix]
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.
[xiv] Tallamy, D. W. (2020). Nature’s best hope a new approach to conservation that starts in your yard. Timber Press.
[xv] Narango, D. L., Tallamy, D. W., & Marra, P. P. (2018). Nonnative plants reduce population growth of an insectivorous bird. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(45), 11549–11554. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809259115
“What is the use of a house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?” ― Henry David Thoreau, Familiar Letters
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) released its Sixth Assessment Report (“the Report”) in August 2021. The detailed assessment on the “physical science of climate change” sheds light on the severity of climate change and comprehensively speaks to the escalating effects of greenhouse gases on Earth that are so much worse than we previously believed. It is, at this juncture, undeniable that the determining factor accelerating climate change is humans. The impact of ‘human-driven’ climate change is patent in recent devastating climate-related disasters and weather extremes across the globe. The pertinent question remains as to whether nations can combat the outcomes of climate change on humanity, or whether such changes are irreversible. The Report is envisaged to carry extra weight in anticipation of the COP26 global climate summit to be held in Glasgow, UK, in November 2021.
Background
The Report is the culmination of several years of research, comments, and drafting by over 200 scientists that was approved by 195 states. It is the debut report of a forthcoming trilogy, with the objective of evaluating climate change, its effects, how it can be slowed down, and what can be done to tackle its deepening and rapid damage. The Report assesses our past, present, and future climate status, its impacts and future risks, the available options to mitigate the effects, as well as adaptation suggestions. It aims to enlighten policymakers as to the scientific findings of climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals and envisions a collective goal of implementing laws and statutes which take cognizance of these scientific findings.
The Paris Agreement, which was signed by several nations worldwide in 2015, was employed to ensure that global surface temperature remains far below 2°C and particularly maintained below 1.5°C. The Report specifies that, alarmingly, in each scenario assessed by scientists, the present century will see the failure of both thresholds if immediate action is not implemented to halt the outcome. Carbon dioxide emissions are to be significantly reduced across the globe for any hopeful change to materialise.
The Report’s findings may be condensed to a few main takeaways. Firstly, the Report confirms that drastic weather changes and events (especially as of late) are directly linked to human behaviour. Humans are altering the climate system. Secondly, the link between greenhouse gases and global temperature is further confirmed. Carbon dioxide emissions are recorded to be at their highest in the last two million years. Climate catastrophe is additionally driven by methane emissions from agriculture and livestock rearing, as well as the burning of fossil fuels. This may be avoided if there are “immediate, deep and sustained emissions reductions”. Thirdly, the Earth is heating up at a distressing rate. Global surface temperature is recorded to be at the greatest it has been in the last 125 000 years. It has been 1.09°C higher between the period 2011 – 2020 than it was in the period 1850 – 1900. The impact of the Earth’s warming is far-reaching, devastating, and infiltrates into all livelihoods, ecosystems, and species on the planet.
As indicated by the Report, “with every additional increment of global warming, changes in extremes continue to become larger”. This essentially denotes that even an increase in global surface temperature by 0.5°C perpetuates the frequency of wildfires, intense rainfalls, droughts, and heatwaves, to name a few. The changes in climate and extreme weather patterns are unparalleled and pose an immediate threat to communities and their social security and wellbeing around the globe. Finally, the Report signifies that sea level rise has tripled since the 1900s – 1970s, with human behaviour being the “very likely” determining factor in the melting of the glaciers and reduction in Arctic sea-ice since the 1900s. In fact, research shows that the Arctic “is heating up at a rate that is more than twice as fast as the global average”.
Human Handiwork = Code Red
The Report is unfaltering with respect to the impact that humans have had on the planet, and more specifically, on the dire state of the global surface temperature today. It states that “it is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, oceans, and land.” Fossil fuels are warming the Earth at an unprecedented pace. Climatologist Xuebin Zhang pointed out that “[t]he evidence is everywhere: if we don’t act, the situation is going to get really bad.” In 2019, carbon dioxide emissions were the highest they have been in the last 2 million years, while methane and nitrous oxide emissions – the other two major gas emissions – were recorded to be their highest in the last 800 000 years.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres stated that it is “a code red for humanity. The alarm bells are deafening, and the evidence is irrefutable.” He further noted that the global surface temperature threshold of 1.5 °C, as internationally agreed upon, was “perilously close. We are at imminent risk of hitting 1.5 °C in the near term. The only way to prevent exceeding this threshold is by urgently stepping up our efforts and pursuing the most ambitious path. We must act decisively now, to keep 1.5 alive.” The Report warns that unless immediate action is taken communally across the globe, the climate shifts will be irreversible. Global surface temperature is expected to crossover the 1.5°C threshold within the next 20 years.
What’s To Come
Man’s hand, as observed by scientists, in extreme changes in the atmosphere, land, the ocean, and the glaciers is striking. Should any meaningful and alleviating steps not be taken, five future impacts may be noted based on predictions made by scientists after assessment of all possible scenarios. Firstly, the Arctic will essentially be without ice at least once in the month of September before the year 2050. Secondly, even at 1.5°C, extreme weather patterns and natural disasters will become even more frequent and widespread, which will be “unprecedented in the historical record”. Thirdly, sea level events are projected to occur at least annually at more than half of tidal gauge locations by 2100, whereas in the past, extreme sea level events only occurred once in a century. Due to unremitting ocean heating and the ice melting, sea levels are “committed to rise for centuries to millennia”. Sea levels “will remain elevated for thousands of years”.Fourthly, the global surface temperature will exceed the 1.5°C threshold by the year 2040. Finally, wildfires will become more frequent in many regions around the world.
What Can Be Done
By 2050, global emissions ought to reach net zero, if we are to honour the commitment made in the 2015 Paris Agreement and maintain the global surface temperature to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels. According to Valérie Masson-Delmotte, climatologist and one of the scientists who worked on the Report, “the climate we experience in the future depends on our decisions now.”
The quality of our atmosphere must change drastically. Carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases are to decrease substantially worldwide for the global surface temperature to stabilize over the next 20 to 30 years. According to the UN chief, “inclusive and green economies, prosperity, cleaner air and better health are possible for all, if we respond to this crisis with solidarity and courage.” A daunting thought, however, is that despite mitigating steps being available to avoid a complete climate catastrophe, the benefits of these steps will only be realised in decades to come. While some impacts may fortunately be limited in the grand scheme of climate change, many other devastating outcomes will remain an immediate threat to communities and will escalate over the forthcoming years.
The Report is an essential component in sparking international negotiations and informing states on the status and actions that they are required to execute. The Report is especially relevant in light of the upcoming COP26 climate conference to be held in November 2021. All nations should collectively aim to reach net-zero greenhouse emissions and commit to the decreasing of global heating “with credible, concrete, and enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)” stipulating detailed steps to be taken. The situation is critical. It is imminent. We have been warned by preceding generations, and this may be our final warning as the future of life on Earth rests on what we elect to do with the scientific findings embedded in the Report. The bloody snare of climate change will entrap both present and future generations – it is up to us as to how to mitigate the effects.
Crystal-Lee Harilall is an admitted attorney of the High Court of South Africa and LLM candidate in Human Rights Law. She is passionate about using Law to explore social justice, sustainability, and the distressing effect humans have had on the planet.
It is well known that during times of conflict, women and girls face increased violence and discrimination. The same can unfortunately be observed when people are forcibly displaced or forced to migrate due to extreme climate change and natural disasters. It has been reported that if global warming is not limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius, forced displacement will be one of the most detrimental realities faced by already-vulnerable communities. Climate change is causing more frequent and intense weather events resulting in mass migration and displacement.
By the end of 2020, extreme weather conditions left around55 million people internally displaced. The situation is projected to worsen by 2050, when approximately 150 million people will be displaced. Despite the bewilderment, destruction, and panic that people face as a result of climate change disasters, women and girls arguably shoulder a bigger burden that forces them to migrate for survival.
Why are women more vulnerable to the impact of climate change?
The vulnerability of women to the effect of climate change stems from various social, cultural, and economical factors. Women and girls constitute a major portion of the population living in poverty that are highly dependent on natural resources for their livelihood. This is especially so in rural areas where women are solely responsible for fetching water, collecting wood for cooking, heating, and various other household activities.
Moreover, the combination of deep-rooted and prevalent socio-cultural norms, restricted livelihood options, and limited or wholly precluded access to technologies and information bars the adaptive capacities of displaced women and girls. Women and girls are often denied the right to education and are forbidden from participating in public spheres or occupying decision-making roles. Consequently, women are less likely to receive important information that enables appropriate emergency responses, further limiting their right to adapt once they have been displaced.
On the other hand, socio-cultural norms and gendered responsibilities in various communities actually avert women from migrating to other places during times of calamity. This has the potential to increase the vulnerability of women if they are forced to stay in a place where resources are scarce. This leads to women being forced to travel long distances in search of basic necessities such as food and water, exposing them to the risk of sexual harassment, violence, and assault during the journey.
The gendered impact of climate migration on women
The negative effects of climate change on communities around the world have made the increased risk of gender-based violence a matter of significant concern. A study conducted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (‘IUCN’) found climate change to be a catalyst for gender-based violence.
A spike in the extreme effects of climate change has resulted in scarcity of resources. As a result, communities have been forced to migrate from one place to another in search of a better quality of life, which deepens pre-existing gender inequalities. Gender-based violence against women is often used as measure for reinforcing control over remaining resources. For instance, it has been reported that in eastern and southern Africa, particularly in Kenya, fishermen have refused to sell fish to women who do not agree to engage in sexual intercourse with them. This practice is known as the Jaboya System.
Child brides, human trafficking, and health issues
Specifically, the paucity of food and water caused by climate change has also created a host of other social issues. First, a new generation of child brides has been raised, in Malawi and Mozambique, because families are no longer in a position to feed or educate several children. In an attempt to avoid this problem, parents often marry (or perhaps sell) their daughters, to any man, at a young age. Child marriage clearly impacts the physical, mental, and sexual well-being of a child and is an abhorrent violation of children’s rights.
Second, climate change and natural disasters have exacerbated the issue of human trafficking. Women and girls are often trafficked for sexual exploitation, forced labor, and beggary amongst other reasons. Most of those who fall prey to trafficking are migrants and asylum seekers. The UN Environment Programme has observed a 20-30% increase in the incidents of trafficking following natural disasters.
Third, women and girls displaced by climate change and natural disasters are more likely to face severe health issues. Due to limited access to basic health-care services and sanitary products, women and girls face an increased risk of contracting life threatening diseases and infections. This has been observed in several countries. For instance, in 2019, Cyclone Idai resulted in the displacement of thousands of people in Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi. Even today, these displaced women and girls remain without access to proper healthcare facilities. For these reasons, climate change should be considered a women’s rights issue.
Conclusion
In 2018, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (‘CEDAW’) established the General Recommendation No. 37 on Gender-related dimensions of disaster risk reduction in the context of climate change (‘GR37’). This was the first time that a United Nations body addressed the connection between climate change and human rights, and focused on the gendered impact of climate change. GR37 elucidates that State Parties can and should be held accountable for the negative impact of climate change on women and girls.
Prevalent gender inequality has resulted in miserable conditions for women and girls as the result of climate change and subsequent migration. Violence against women is an impediment to conservation and sustainable development. For instance, it has been reported that sexual violence and exploitation are being used to prevent women from participating in ecosystem restoration activities. The improvement of women and girls’ adaptive capacities to climate change is of paramount importance as its effects can and do deepen existing gender inequalities. As women continue to have less opportunity to mitigate and cope with the effects of the climate crisis, there remains a dire need to take stringent action to ensure their safety and well-being.
For these reasons, adaptation initiatives designed to identify and address the gender-specific impacts of climate change, along with representation of the needs and demands of women in restoration planning are required to safeguard the interests and rights of women and girls.
Shambhavi Kant is a third year law student at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. She is extremely interested in the field of Human Rights and likes to write about similar topics.
“Environmental problems threaten people’s health, livelihoods and lives, and can cause wars.”[1]
“This place once used to be my home!” I remember well Akineti’s (pronounced ‘Akines’) facial expression when she told me this whilst pointing beyond the coastal line. I recognized a combination of desperation, disbelief, and anger. Of course, I cannot exclude the possibility that my own feelings prejudiced my perception. Akineti and some 2,000 other I-Kiribati (people of the South Pacific island nation Kiribati, pronounced ‘Kiribas’) live on the small atoll of Tabiteuea North, and therefore, at the forefront of climate change threats. Akineti continued:
“When I lost my home to the sea, my two sons and I fled to Tarawa [capital of Kiribati] to find a job and better protection from the threats of climate change, such as the lack of fresh water supply. However, I then returned only one year later as the situation in Tarawa was even worse than in Tabiteuea. We barely found a place to stay as Tarawa is very densely crowded, I could not grow my own food because of salination, and in the dry season there was almost no clean, fresh water supply.”[2]
In order to place this very personal story within a wider context, the following paragraph shall introduce the reader to the island nation of Kiribati and the impact and challenges climate change has on its people. The aim of this essay is to explore how people like Akineti and the citizens in Kiribati can live a peaceful life despite the threats already mentioned and further elaborated upon below.
Overview of the Situation
The Republic of Kiribati lies about halfway between Australia and Hawaii in the South Pacific and consists of 33 atolls. Together, these atolls make up a mere 800 square kilometres of land. If the sea areas are included in the calculation, Kiribati is one of the largest countries in the world – about the size of India.[3] Until 1979, Kiribati was a British colony. Probably not entirely by chance, the young island state was given its independence in the same year that the last phosphorus deposits were mined, thus exhausting the country’s largest source of income to date.[4] Not least because of this historical incident, Kiribati has been dubbed one of the world’s so-called LDCs (‘least developed countries’). In addition, the Kiribati atolls have a special feature that makes them particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change: the highest elevation of each island rises only three to four meters above sea-level.[5] According to calculations commissioned by the World Bank, about two thirds of the atolls will have sunk into the sea by the end of this century. The same study has found that in less than forty years, life on the islands will no longer be possible due to the salination of the groundwater.[6]
Today, climate change already causes some severe problems for I-Kiribati. According to the United Nations (UN), ‘[c]ommon effects of climate change felt and experienced are coastal inundation, loss of houses along [the] coast leading to relocation of villages to safer inner areas of islands, [and] aggravated soil infertility with sea water intrusion’.[7] This direct ecological impact of climate change ultimately leads to the deterioration of local socioeconomic conditions as it exacerbates the existing development pressures of rapid urbanisation, pollution, and poor sanitation which in turn compromise the availability of freshwater resources and the land that sustain the communities that depend on them.[8]
Though the intensity of these effects will only increase in the future, there is no violent or even open conflict, neither within the Kiribati population nor between Kiribati and any other state. In the Inventory of Conflict and Environment database, the Level of Conflict as well as the Fatality Level of Dispute (encompassing military and civilian fatalities) were predicted as ‘low’[9] and this prediction was confirmed in the last decade. This begs the question of whether conflict resolution really is the right approach to address the above-stated problems. Unfortunately, this superficial understanding of the concept of conflict resolution is applied far too often. As Prof. Emeritus Amr Abdalla[10] and the former UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser Edward C. Luck[11] and others have emphasised, conflict prevention is at least as important as conflict management, conflict resolution, and conflict transformation. Rather, these three concepts only increase in importance when conflict could not be prevented in time. In order to prevent conflict, it is necessary to recognize conflict potentials at an early stage and to respond proactively.
In the present instance, some latent conflict potentials are obvious. The more citizens flee from the particularly threatened outer islands (such as Tabiteuea) to the main island, the more the overpopulation of Tarawa increases. This results in a variety of potential conflicts, ranging from disputes over land and the struggle for jobs, to increasingly poor sanitation – this list is not exhaustive. Cases in which, despite sufficient information, no timely action was taken can be used here as deterrent examples. Perhaps the cruellest result of a missed opportunity for conflict prevention was the Rwandan genocide in 1994.[12] More than half a year before the genocide began, in August 1993, a report by the UN human rights investigator for Rwanda warned of an escalation of violence between the population groups. But despite these and other early warnings, the UN did not intervene until many hundreds of thousands of lives had already been lost. Even if the dimensions in Kiribati are of a much smaller scale, it is nevertheless evident that immediate action must be taken to prevent the initial tense situation from turning into outright violent conflict. That said, before launching into a discussion of concrete measures, the peace that shall be achieved for the people of Kiribati must first be transformed into tangible objectives.
How could peace be achieved more generally?
Specific needs
To achieve stable and long-lasting peace, the basic human needs of all parties must first be met. These are non-negotiable.[13] Since in this case of conflict prevention we initially consider only one (albeit heterogeneous) party, the most urgent needs can be identified quite clearly. The Kiribati population fundamentally requires respect for their rights to life, security, and dignity, as set forth in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.[14] It is important to break down these abstract demands more precisely into specific interests
As such, the present main interests of I-Kiribati’ are food security, sufficient access to clean drinking water, and enough space within which to live. Due to the rural exodus caused by climate change, more than 50% of the Kiribati population currently live on the 15 square kilometre main island of South Tarawa. This means that the island has one of the world’s highest population densities of more than 3500 people per square kilometre. This restricts living and farming space, and it also limits job opportunities or access to education given the lack of resources to accommodate the population. The citizens of Kiribati are forced to resort to expensive imported food, with little chance of earning an income. In addition, the sanitation facilities and infrastructure are not designed for such masses of people. This in turn leads to an increase in the contamination of the groundwater and more frequent outbreaks of disease. There are of course many other problems which could be further elaborated upon, but which are beyond the scope of this study. It does not take much imagination to realize that if the above-mentioned threats and pressures continue to increase, an escalation of the enormous conflict potential into violent conflicts could occur over scarce resources. But what must be done now to prevent such an eruption of conflict?
The approach to conflict resolution in general and conflict prevention specifically must be to tackle the causes of conflict at its roots and not merely its symptoms.[15] In this case, these roots are very quickly dug out. All the problems described are attributable to rising sea levels and therefore to climate change.
Approaches to combating climate change
Approaches to combating climate change stem from many different disciplines. Firstly, the field of peace education should be highlighted as possibly one of the most important. In order to achieve change, it is essential to educate people to think critically. This is particularly true in relation to climate change not only for affected populations but especially for external people whose thoughtless participation in the current social order contributes to the progression of climate change. Otherwise, in the style of banking education, only the status quo is maintained. Peace education, with its realistic and critical approach, is therefore predestined to address structural problems, since it ‘strives for the emergence of consciousness and critical intervention in reality’[16].
Secondly, sustainable agriculture can also play a major part in combating climate change by replacing the use of pesticides with more diversity in the crop fields. The loss of more and more diversity in different crop varieties in general and of genetic diversity within a particular crop type due to ubiquitous monoculture poses a threat in the face of climate change. The world population depends on a diminishing variety of crops. And if this one genetic variant of wheat, for example, were to grow worse due to climate change, large parts of the population, especially in developing and least developed countries, would suffer from hunger. Greater diversity in crop fields is therefore an important adaptation to climate change. Moreover, the production of food represents a significant part in the emission of greenhouse gases. It is primarily the production of livestock products that contributes to climate change. Thus, driving the shift from industrial agriculture to agroecology and promoting a more effective, plant-based food supply.[17]
Finally, climate agreements such as the 2015 Paris Agreement or the 2009 Copenhagen Accord also play an important role. These represent globally negotiated climate targets such as limiting global warming to a maximum of 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius. However, the legal status of such agreements is problematic.[18] The Copenhagen Accord is not legally binding, and the Paris Agreement also has its weaknesses. For instance, big players such as the United States (US) and Brazil can withdraw from the agreement, which would represent an immense drawback in the fight against climate change as these states are among the biggest polluters in the world.
What could peace look like in this situation?
Would it be advantageous, then, to support these existing attempts to address climate change in the hopes of maintaining conflict prevention in Kiribati? As plausible as this consideration may seem, it can and must be rejected. For Kiribati, the insight of the international community comes simply too late. The climate reacts slowly to human efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. According to various sources,[19] the climate is only reacting to today’s greenhouse gas emissions with a delay of about 50 years. In other words, even a global end to greenhouse gas emissions starting tomorrow cannot change the fate of Kiribati. I would like to emphasise once again that the fight against climate change is not pointless, but rather that it comes too late for Kiribati. Nevertheless, we may still contemplate which of these peace-bringing approaches would be most promising for conflict prevention in Kiribati.
Taking a slightly futuristic approach would lead us to discuss the lifting of the atolls and strengthening the walls of the freshwater lens. Indeed, there are already some artificial islands in the world whose construction has been adapted. One of the most famous is probably the palm-shaped Palm Jumeriah in Dubai. While this island was created completely from scratch, in Kiribati there would only have to be an elevation of the existing island. This could involve shovelling sediment from the lagoon to gradually raise the island further out of the water. What sounds simple at first, however, means tremendous structural problems for an inhabited island as well as the need for an enormous amount of financial resources. Nevertheless, China is an even more a potent advocate for this solution.[20]
An alternative approach lies in planned migration, or ‘migration with dignity’[21]. This plan was long promoted by former Kiribati President Anote Tong before current President Taneti Maamau’s technocratic approach of lifting the islands became the focus of national interest.
What are the challenges to peace?
Mangroves
Kiribati is already taking adaptation measures to keep the consequences of climate change within tolerable limits. For example, the population is building so-called sea walls to provide some protection during high tide. In addition to other personal protection measures taken by the citizens, the state itself is also promoting projects to prevent land erosion, for example. To this end, large areas of mangroves are being planted in coastal areas, and the resulting strong root network at least slows down the erosion of the coast.[22] However, as an investigative committee of the Kiribati government has also confirmed, these isolated measures will only be able to provide relief for a very limited period.[23]
Floating islands
Commissions of experts are proposing stronger measures for habitat conservation. Researchers from University College London’s Mechanical Engineering Department, for example, are proposing ‘to construct major sea defences, dredge the seabed to reclaim earth or ship earth to Tarawa Atoll, [or to] construct a platform over the island or raise all buildings on stilts’[24]. They even present a floating island as a promising measure. It would consist of 102 triangular aircushion-supported modules, six of which would form a separate district that would be as autonomous as possible whilst still connected to all other communities. The researchers also suggest that ‘[l]ocal photovoltaic and hot water solar panels [are supposed to] provide energy, and rooftop collection and large storage reservoirs [to] provide fresh water’[25]. They promise the citizens of Kiribati ‘that traditional values and lifestyles can be respected and preserved’[26] and at the same time that their quality of life can be drastically improved. These promises of a better life through technical achievements can be cited as a prime example of a techno-centred understanding of sustainability. This is characterized by the conviction that damage caused by climate change can be absorbed by technology, and thus fights the symptoms instead of the origin of the problems. This understanding of sustainability is said to be particularly close to economy as it would not require major cuts in carbon emissions but allows for further economic growth without changes in the means of production.[27] Indeed, this rather economy-centered approach is also reflected in the report of the researchers of the London College, which promises Kiribati the possibility of economic growth based on sustainable design as a result of the adaptation.[28]
Unsurprisingly, however, the vision of the floating island does not begin with economic growth, but with an immense investment. The estimated cost of implementing such a huge project is £874 million per community. If 17 communities and five strategic areas complete the artificial island, the total cost will amount to £19.2 billion [~$25 billion].[29] For an LDC state with a GDP of $188.3 million this is an absurdly high sum. For other states with a significantly higher economic output, this would not be completely unthinkable. So, when a country with a large margin of manoeuvre such as China offers its help, Kiribati will certainly be listening.
Kiribati is now planning to raise its existing islands by one to two meters with China’s help.[30] As President Maamau has stated, ‘[t]here are already plans to build up part of [the capital atoll] Tarawa through dredging fill materials from the lagoon’[31]. He adds that the main island is to be raised, and that the ‘20-year vision has also included strategies to secure dredgers that will assist with these efforts as well as dredging channels in the outer islands’[32]. Thus, the measures could potentially lead to a relaxation of the situation, as fewer people would move from the outer islands to the main island, minimizing the negative effects of overpopulation as described above.
China’s role
The increasingly strong role of China in Kiribati, which is relatively close to Hawaii, is viewed with suspicion by Western forces. In fear of a Chinese military base in Kiribati, the US and its allies in the Pacific, Australia, and New Zealand are trying to frame relations between Kiribati and China in an unfavourable light on the international stage. In August 2019, for example, when the Chinese ambassador was ceremonially received on an outer island, he was given a path of young men lying on the ground in accordance with the local culture. This is one of the highest honours in Kiribati, and if the ambassador had rejected it and not walked over the men’s backs, it would have been considered insulting. Some Australian media, however, used the resulting photograph to portray China as ‘an imperialist state intent on colonizing the world’[33]. This deliberate misinterpretation of the image is a typical way of discrediting the opponent in conflict situations.[34] Though China is clearly aiming to strengthen its influence in the region, considering the fact that if Kiribati does not take effective measures within the next 30 to 40 years, the country will no longer be habitable, it is understandable that China’s offer to help would be accepted.
Migration with dignity
An elevation of the island could just be presented as a first option for the prevention of conflicts, which in Kiribati are increasingly arising from the consequences of climate change. In very simple terms, the shrinking of the island due to rising sea levels was identified as an underlying cause of potential conflict. Since mitigation measures of climate change are too late for Kiribati due to the delayed response of the climate, an approach to conflict prevention in the elevation of the island was thus discussed. However, some weaknesses of this idea, such as its feasibility, were also revealed and questioned. Another approach can be outlined in equally very simplified terms as follows: The original cause of conflict (climate change) for Kiribati cannot be reversed in time. And as with the island elevation approach just discussed, this scenario as well identifies Kiribati’s geographic features as another cause of potential conflict. To address these location issues, an even more radical measure could also be thought through as an alternative to elevating the island: Kiribati’s population is suffering from the effects of climate change combined with the island’s geography. Since climate change cannot be stopped in time, why don’t people move to another location? In this regard, former Kiribati President Anote Tong coined the term ‘migration with dignity’ during his period in office.[35] The idea behind it is to be prepared in the event of the foreseeable end of the island nation. A few years ago, Kiribati has therefore even bought land on an island of Fiji. However, there is little to no infrastructure there, so it would not be feasible to simply move its inhabitants there. Moreover, the country is at least partially inhabited by an indigenous tribe of Fiji, which is why another conflict party could potentially be added in this scenario. But is the purchase of land the only route to regulated and dignified migration?
So far, the answer to this question is probably yes. In 2015, Ioane Teitiota, a citizen of Kiribati, claimed asylum in New Zealand as the world’s first climate refugee. But the New Zealand court rejected the claim and Teitiota’s appeal to the OHCHR was not granted either.[36] The fact that climate refugees have not yet been legally recognized seems at first glance to be rooted in bureaucracy. The 1951 Geneva Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not cover such migrants, since it was originally drafted to protect those fleeing persecution, war, or violence.[37] However, on closer inspection, it seems that the UN is reluctant to put refugees from war and climate refugees on the same level, as it fears compromise in the support of war refugees. For ‘if the UNHCR broadens its definition of “refugee” to support an entirely new category, it is unclear if the political appetite exists to provide the necessary funding’[38] or whether the support of all refugees would be stopped. Contrary to these concerns, there are loud voices calling for exactly such a legal recognition of climate refugees as well. They claim that ‘in order to qualify as a refugee, you need to be fleeing persecution, or to fear persecution. Forgoing the term ‘climate refugee’ is also, in a way, forgoing the idea that climate change is a form of persecution against the most vulnerable and that climate-induced migration is a very political matter, rather than an environmental one.’[39]
However, until such a legal status is established, Kiribati is trying to take alternative paths and has concluded binational agreements with Australia, for example. The deal provides for young people in Kiribati to be specially trained for jobs in demand in Australia and then allowed to work in Australia, thus facilitating access to an official residence permit[40]. In this way, as many people as possible are to succeed in migrating with dignity. However, serious disadvantages of this approach are the so-called brain drain, as many young, well-trained workers leave the country, and the loss of Kiribati culture. While it can be concluded at this point that a violent conflict over resources in Kiribati would be successfully prevented in this scenario, the question of whether the many difficulties of migration do not also provoke some potential for conflict remains.
Conclusion
In conclusion, an evaluation of the two presented scenarios shall be made. The first part of the paper explained why conventional measures for environmental protection come too late for the Kiribati population. Subsequently, two adaptation measures were presented, which are exactly adjusted to the special situation of the island nation. First, the possibility of an artificial elevation of the island was discussed. The technocratic approach has many advantages: The Kiribati population can remain in their accustomed (though certainly changed) environment and, above all, remain together as a community. This would also ensure the preservation of the rich Kiribati culture and language. In Kiribati I felt the strong desire of the people to be allowed to stay in their country and especially not to give up the independence they gained only 40 years ago. Moreover, if the outer islands were to be raised along with the main island of Tarawa, the overpopulation in Tarawa could decrease, thus alleviating a great potential for conflict. However, it should not go unmentioned that Kiribati would be moving between the fronts of a growing international conflict between China and the Western powers. Furthermore, the issue of climate change and rising sea levels would remain a constant topic of discussion, as the adaptation measures would have to be repeated at regular intervals.
The latter point is a major advantage of the migration with dignity approach. Once the migration to a less vulnerable place has been successfully completed, the issue of climate change loses its everyday threat to I-Kiribati. However, another weak point in this scenario cannot go unmentioned: Who says that integration into the new environment will succeed? The many potential conflicts that can arise from a failed integration can be seen in almost every region of the world, even if an analysis of this problem is not possible in the context of this paper. Additionally, the Kiribati culture and language is in danger of being lost in the event of scattered migration to different places in Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, etc. In fact, the state of Kiribati would probably disappear with such a step. One possible solution could be a joint migration to the acquired piece of land in Fiji. However, this land does not yet have any infrastructure, and the presence of the indigenous population brings other major potential for conflict. All in all, the migration with dignity approach would buy the desired physical security albeit with many other problems.
However, to ensure that Kiribati does not become one example among many in the near future, the decisive action of the international community is more important than ever before. For, as this article has repeatedly alluded to, the real underlying problem is the progression of climate change. While for Kiribati all mitigation measures are probably too late, for many other vulnerable regions of the world our actions today can still provide a future without dire conflict scenarios arising from the consequences of climate change. Determined climate action thus makes an enormously important contribution to global conflict prevention. In the words of Hopwood, ‘environmental problems are not local but global, so that actions and impacts must be considered internationally to avoid displacing problems from one area to another by actions such as releasing pollution that crosses boundaries, moving polluting industries to another location or using up more than an equitable share of the earth’s resources’[41].
Ole ter Wey, a Correspondent at Earth Refuge, is currently studying International Law and Human Rights at the UN-mandated University for Peace in San José, Costa Rica. He previously lived with a local community in Kiribati for over a year. There, he experienced first hand the consequences of climate change endangering the existence of an entire state
References
[1] Hopwood, B. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches, p. 39. Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, pp. 38-52. DOI: 10.1002/sd.244
[3] Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[4] van Trease, H. (1993). From Colony to Independence. In: H. van Trease, Atoll Politics – The Republic of Kiribati (pp. 3-22). MacMillan Brown Centre for Pacific Studies.
[5] Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[6] World Bank (2020). Climate Change Knowledge Portal – Country Kiribati. World Bank Group. https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/kiribati
[7] United Nations (2019), General Assembly: National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21: Kiribati, A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1 (11 November 2019), p. 19. Available from undocs.org/en/A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1.
[8] Storey, D.; et al. (2010). Kiribati: an environmental “perfect storm”. Australian Geographer, Vol. 41(2), pp. 167-181. In: J. Campbell, et al. (2014). Climate Change and Migration Issues in the Pacific. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific.
[9] Ketchoyian, K. (2011). Kiribati and Sea Level Rise. ICE Case Studies. http://mandalaprojects.com/ice/ice-cases/kiribati.htm
[10] Abdalla, A. (2020). C.R. SIPPABIO – A Model for Conflict Analysis. University for Peace.
[11] Luck, E. C. (2002). Prevention: Theory and Practice. In: F. O. Hampson (Eds.), Prevention – Opportunities for the UN system (pp. 251-274). Lynne Rienner Publishers.
[12] Tanner, F. (2000). Conflict prevention and conflict resolution: limits of multilateralism. International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 82(839), pp. 541-559.
[13] Abdalla, A. (2020). C.R. SIPPABIO – A Model for Conflict Analysis. University for Peace.
[14] United Nations (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
[15] Abdalla, A. (2020). C.R. SIPPABIO – A Model for Conflict Analysis. University for Peace.
[16] Freire, P. (2005). Pedagogy of the Oppressed (30th Anniversary Edition), p. 81. The Continuum International Publishing Group.
[17]Sylvester, O. (2019). Food security and sustainable agriculture in the 21st century: Key concepts and debates. University for Peace.
[18]D’Aspremont, J. (2015). The Collective Security System and the Enforcement of International Law. In: M. Weller (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (pp. 129-156). Oxford University Press.
[19]e.g., Samset, B. H.; et al. (2020). Delayed emergence of a global temperature response after emission mitigation. Nature Communications, Vol. 11(3261), pp. 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-17001-1
[20] e.g., Pala, Christopher (2020): Kiribati’s president’s plans to raise islands in fight against sea level-rise. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/10/kiribatis-presidents-plans-to-raise-islands-in-fight-against-sea-level-rise, last retrieved: 18.08.2021; CBC Radio (2020): The tiny Pacific nation of Kiribati wants to raise its islands to save it from the rising sea. https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-wednesday-edition-1.5683498/the-tiny-pacific-nation-of-kiribati-wants-to-raise-its-islands-to-save-it-from-the-rising-sea-1.5682046, last retrieved: 18.08.2021
[21]Gormley, S. (2016). Migration with dignity: Their island nation may someday sink into the ocean, so what are Kiribati’s people to do?. Ottawa Citizen. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/migration-with-dignity-their-island-nation-may-someday-sink-into-the-ocean-so-what-are-kiribatis-people-to-do
[22] United Nations (2019), General Assembly: National report submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 16/21: Kiribati, A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1 (11 November 2019), p. 19. Available from undocs.org/en/A/HRC/WG.6/35/KIR/1.
[23]Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[24]Lister, N.; et al. (2015). Sustainable Artificial Island Concept Design for the Nation of Kiribati, p. 85. Ocean Engineering, Vol. 98, pp. 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.01.013
[27]Hopwood, B. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches. Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, pp. 38-52. DOI: 10.1002/sd.244
[28]Lister, N.; et al. (2015). Sustainable Artificial Island Concept Design for the Nation of Kiribati. Ocean Engineering, Vol. 98, pp. 78-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.01.013
[30]Pala, C. (2020). Kiribati’s president’s plans to raise islands in fight against sea-level rise. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/10/kiribatis-presidents-plans-to- raise-islands-in-fight-against-sea-level-rise
[33]Yuwei, H. (2020). Misinterpretation of photo of Chinese ambassador to Kiribati refuted. Global Times. https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1198295.shtml
[34]Manor, I.; et al. (2018). Visually framing the Gaza War of 2014: The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Twitter. Media, War & Conflict, Vol. 11(4), pp. 369-391.
[35]Gormley, S. (2016). Migration with dignity: Their island nation may someday sink into the ocean, so what are Kiribati’s people to do?. Ottawa Citizen. https://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/migration-with-dignity-their-island-nation-may- someday-sink-into-the-ocean-so-what-are-kiribatis-people-to-do
[36]OHCHR (2020). Historic UN Human Rights case opens door to climate change asylum claims. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=25482&LangID=E
[37]W. H. (2018). Why climate migrants do not have refugee status. The Economist. https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2018/03/06/why-climate-migrants-do-not-have-refugee-status
[39]Gemenne, F. (2015). One good reason to speak of ‘climate refugees’, p.71. Forced Migration Review, Vol. 49, pp. 70-71.
[40] Tereroko, T., et al. (2007). Republic of Kiribati – National Adaption Program of Action (NAPA). Environment and Conservation Division, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Agricultural Development – Government of Kiribati. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/napa/kir01.pdf
[41]Hopwood, B. (2005). Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches, p. 39. Sustainable Development, Vol. 13, pp. 38-52. DOI: 10.1002/sd.244
Rapid warming in regions across Russia has left millions in danger of displacement.
Climate scientists report that Russia is warming at 2.5 times the global average.1 Throughout 2020, Siberia experienced abnormally high temperatures and record breaking heat waves that peaked at 100º fahrenheit, (38º celsius).2 During the winter, temperatures were 50-59ºF (10-15ºC) above average.3 For reference, the median seasonal temperatures in this region tend to range from 60ºF (20ºC) in the summer to -13ºF (-25ºC) in the winter, with record lows reaching -90ºF (-67.8ºC) in northeastern areas of Russia.4
Siberia’s record high (100ºF) and low (-90ºF) display a temperature difference of 190ºF (87ºC). This spread exceeds some of the largest temperature deviations on earth.5
Frequent and intense variations in the country’s seasonality have exacerbated extreme temperature anomalies. These changes act as a catalyst for environmental disaster, feuling massive wildfires, torrential flooding, and melting of permafrost.
A vast majority of Siberian fires are burning above carbon-abundant peatlands and frozen soil that overlie actively thawing permafrost. These conditions have destabilized both rural and urban regions of Russia, resulting in increased damage to pipelines and the collapse of infrastructure. A report released from the Krasnoyarsk territory wrote that 60% of all structures in the closed city of Norilsk are deformed due to permafrost loss, adding to the displacement of its dense population.6
Research reveals that Siberian forest fires have caused a surge in carbon emissions by nearly one-third (395 megatonnes in 2020), in comparison to 208 megatonnes in 2019.7
An increase in tundra fires has also given rise to a fairly new phenomenon known as ‘zombie’ fires. These burns stem from summertime wildfires that survive throughout the depths of winter, brewing beneath the snow packed surface. They remain insulated by highly flammable, carbon-rich vegetation that smolders and reignites as the ground defrosts.8
These fires have begun creeping further into northern spreads of Siberia, where peatland is plentiful. Peat fires emit 100 times more carbon than typical wildfires, and can be more difficult to extinguish.9 As fires continue to emerge in permafrost zones, the release of methane and other hydrocarbons will intensify global warming.
Scientists warn that the permafrost layer may disappear completely within the next three decades if current warming trends prevail.10 These changes are predicted to release 100s of billions of tons of Co2 into the atmosphere, which will compound climate-sensitive issues around the world.11
Widespread flooding in Siberia has also contributed to large-scale degradation and displacement. During the summer of 2019, flash floods inundated nearly 103 communities, leaving 33,000 people displaced and 2,165 in immediate need of medical assistance.12
Extreme variations in regional rainfall characteristics have amplified the frequency and magnitude of recent floods. In June of 2021, the Crimean City of Yalta declared a state of emergency after a cyclone hit the Black Sea Peninsula, lashing the region with intense rain. So far, the floods have submerged the city of Kerch and some surrounding districts, forcing more than 1,300 people to evacuate their homes.13
A pervasive concern is that the Kremlin will continue to neglect the ever-present manifestations of climate change. However, the impacts of environmental disaster and displacement may eventually make climate policy too difficult to deflect.
The future of Russia’s socioeconomic well-being rests on the implementation of a strong adaptation framework. It will be crucial for nations to work in union against the adverse effects of anthropogenic warming in order to curtail climate collapse.
Rachel Aronoff recently graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a degree in English, and a specialization in Literature and the Environment. She is also certified in health and wellness coaching, personal training, and in the process of becoming a yoga instructor.
References
1 Nilsen, Thomas. (2015). Arctic Russia is warming 2.5 times faster than rest of the globe. The Barents Observer. Retrieved June 18, 2021. https://thebarentsobserver.com/ru/node/158
The advent of the Fifth Generation (5G) networking system can be seen as a progressive step in our fast-growing world. However, one important aspect which should concern both governments and service providers is the effect of the 5G networking system on the right to a healthy environment.
In 2020, the issue was raised by scientists and doctors from 36 countries in an appeal to the European Union. The concerns were encompassed by numerous issues that have a direct link to the right to a healthy environment.
Escalations in Energy Consumption
There will be a massive escalation in energy consumption as large volumes of new components will be manufactured to enable the initiation of the 5G networking system. Such an enormous increase in energy consumption will directly affect and play a key role in climate change, as referred to in the IEA’s 2010 Report. Notably, approximately 4% of global electricity consumption and 1.4% of global carbon emissions are linked to telecommunication. The Ericsson Mobility Report projects that by the year 2025, 5G could have an estimated number of 2.6 billion users, and that the total number of global mobile subscribers could reach 5.8 billion.
As a result of these projections, it is believed that information technology could account for one-fifth of total global electricity consumption. By the year 2040, information technology could account for around 14% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In this way, the 5G system lacks energy efficiency and is not sustainable.
Increase in E-Waste
E-waste is made up of numerous components, the majority of which are hazardous. When these components are dismantled and inappropriately processed, they contribute to water, soil, and air contamination, and pose a serious risk to the right to a healthy environment. The Basel Convention was the first treaty that endeavored to safeguard human health – as well as the environment – against the detriment that has continually persisted through generations, management of businesses and corporations, transboundary movements, and the disposal of hazardous waste.
Notably, following the Fourth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, E-waste was added to Annex VIII of the Convention. In 2011, the Mobile Phone Partnership Initiative (MPPI) was formally adopted at the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Basel Convention in Columbia. Its purpose was to encourage environmentally-friendly consumer behavior, and to advance a better alternative for reuse and material recycling. However, the effectiveness of the initiative is yet to be evaluated.
In 2015, an outline for the Agenda for Sustainable Development 2030 was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, encompassing the 17 integrated Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). E-waste is specifically linked to many of these targets, and the increase in worldwide levels of E-waste poses a threat to the achievement of the SDGs.
The production of new devices incorporating the latest 5G network would accelerate the demand for this technology in replacement of older versions, which would in turn increase E-waste levels. The Global E-waste Monitor reports that global E-waste is estimated to reach about 74 megatonnes by the year 2030. This is about double the 2014 figures, and would further fuel higher rates of electricity consumption and the use of electronics with a much shorter lifecycle and fewer repair alternatives. In order for countries to manage and minimize E-waste in an efficacious and sustainable manner, coordinated action is required.
Threats to the Ecosystem
A survey by Ericcson indicates that in order to establish effective 5G networks, 70 million towers would have to be installed across the world by the year 2025. Such extensive installations would increase harmful emissions of 5G technology radio frequency waves. The known effects of towers and radio frequency waves on the ecosystem are multifaceted in that they affect human beings, birds, and insects.
Humans
According to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2011 report, radio frequency waves pose a potential threat of cancer in humans. In the same year, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe released Resolution 1815 on the Potential Dangers of Electromagnetic Fields and their Consequences on the Environment. It called upon European governments to take all reasonable steps that required to mitigate exposure to electromagnetic fields, especially to children and young people who are potentially more vulnerable to developing head tumors.
In 2020, the Health Council of the Netherlands provided a detailed report evaluating the effect of 5G technology on the health of humans. The Council advised avoiding using higher frequency bands, since the risk associated with such higher frequency has not yet been declared. In light of this, the Council appealed to the European Union and requested a moratorium on the roll out of 5G technology until further research has been conducted to trace any potential health risks.
Birds and insects
The impact of cellphone towers and radio frequency waves on birds has been established in various research studies. In 2012, the Indian Environment Ministry published a report acknowledging the negative impact of the effect of cellphone towers on birds and bees. In a similar research study conducted in Spain, it was found that the radiation from these towers negatively affects the reproduction of birds. Further research has shown that insects – including honeybees – absorb a significant amount of radiation from the 5G spectrum. This causes alterations in both the function and behavior of insects.
Conclusion
This new and advanced technology is spreading rapidly across the globe, in spite of the serious threats it poses.
The developers of 5G are attempting to establish a network with a less harmful effect on the environment, but the results of this are yet to be ascertained. It should have been imperative that the implications of 5G networking were considered prior to its roll out, and governmental and international organizations still have not taken a hands-on approach. Efforts are allegedly being made to nullify the threats posed by 5G, but the authenticity of these reports is questionable.
The right to a healthy environment is crucially already under threat, and this should guide developers to consider the potential dangers posed by new technologies. Prevention lies in abiding by existing environmental policies, so that technological advancement is on par with the right to a healthy environment.
Earth Refuge Newsletter
Sign up to our Earth Refuge newsletter for the latest updates on climate change, environmental justice and migration!
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkPrivacy policy
