A Different Bomb — Climate Refugees
A child fascinated with random facts, when I discovered Newfoundland had a thirty minute difference as opposed to an hour, I was captivated. Enthralled further by what is now axiomatic, Newfoundland, New-found-land, was discovered after the invention of the 24-hour timezone. In my still-developing brain, the concept of humans not finding every inch on the planet seemed incomprehensible. After viewing Climate Refugees, directed by Michael P. Nash — I fear we may not have found enough.
Watching any documentary from a decade prior serves as an interesting inflection point. You look back and see what we knew then, and ask what we’re doing now. Reflection of yesterday with the consciousness of tomorrow. The incredibly well-researched documentary, with encompassing and wide-ranging interviews which included local leaders, refugees, Nobel laureates and NGO directors, posed many interesting questions but of these the most potent: why don’t we have a climate refugee designation; and where can we house the individuals of which countries refuse to take?
The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as:
“Someone 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.”
That includes those fleeing persecution from man made wars; but what of our war with nature? Hurricane Katrina killed approximately 1,200 people, and displaced 450,000 more from New Orleans, alone. How can such an event not be met with the same alarm, apprehension, and armory of a military conflict?
Why don’t we have a climate refugee designation; and where can we house the individuals countries refuse to take?
If any bomb created the same effect, the United Nations would immediately convene, Congress would be summoned, and every nation-state would prepare for war. Is climate change not as dire? When one-third of Bangladesh was under water from monsoon rains and hundreds of thousands fled for shelter, when more events of its kind become more frequent, why are we not convening to ensure these refugees are safe?
Unfortunately, many nations, specifically wealthier ones, will not take climate refugees. Some nations refuse to take refugees of armed-conflicts of which they engendered. Watching Climate Refugees, made in 2010 was extraordinary because it predicted what came to pass. Discussing the rising sea levels and drought, the scholars interviewed concluded that there would be a mass migration of refugees seeking asylum in Europe and the United States.
For a myriad of reasons, including two hurricanes in Honduras and Guatemala, the number of children from Central America hoping to enter the United States has increased ninefold. The European Migrant Crisis of 2015 onward is in-part was fueled by prolonged drought in Syria, compounded with issues of the Assad regime and the civil war. As is well-documented, migrants attempting to enter both regions have been met with dismay.
Unfortunately, many nations, specifically wealthier ones, will not take climate refugees.
The island-nation of Tuvalu, the fourth-smallest country in the world, is sinking. Considered to be on the precipice of the climate catastrophe, the archipelago’s 11,000 residents are considering a multitude of evacuation plans. The residents interviewed for the documentary made a painfully poignant note: they don’t qualify for refugee status, and for those who are older, they won’t be considered for immigrant visas. Unless there is collective action, as the island’s GDP is heavily reliant on donations from the UN and neighboring countries, the 26 sq km nation will cease to exist as will many of its inhabitants.
President Biden’s 2022 fiscal budget proposal requests $715 billion for the Pentagon and $14 billion to fight climate change. The juxtaposition speaks for itself. The United States continues to build up its war arsenal, in 2019 investing $89 billion on the research of new weapons. I do not propose that the United States never invest in new technology, as President Obama famously reminded Mitt Romney in the final 2012 U.S. Presidential Debate, our military has changed, and for the better. I request the war with mother nature, who strikes in hurricanes, floods, deadly earthquakes, and drought — more often than missiles, receive more than two percent of the defense budget. Unless drones can prevent hurricanes, we need an alternative.
In Climate Refugees, Peter Schwartz noted that climate change is not a new phenomenon, and has been an issue that affected the human species for thousands of years. What is a new invention, notwithstanding manmade climate change, is the concept of a nation-state. Borders didn’t exist as firmly as they now do, which prevents human beings from traveling as their survival requires. Mohamed Nasheed, former president of the Maldives once declared he was looking for a new home for his island to protect Maldivians from global warming. Thirteen years ago it seemed laughable, today it seems clairvoyant.
We shouldn’t need more land. We shouldn’t need more time zones. We should be fighting this war with the might garnered for every armed conflict. Gathering intelligence as we did in the Cold War. Investing in green energy as we do artillery. And our draft need not be of physically eligible men eighteen years of age, it should be of all humans, led by scientists, making sure our species survives. I hope the documentaries of 2021, seen in 2031, reflect as such. And in the interim, that we amend the refugee definition.
