Imagine receiving news that everything you know and love will forcibly be taken away from you. Or imagine not receiving any news and have no choice but to pick up what you can and move to a foreign location, forever. What do you do if your home is in danger of sinking or if fresh water becomes a scarcity? The earth’s climate is shifting due to global warming and as stated in the United Nations High Commissioner of Refugees website, an estimated “250 million people will be displaced by the middle of this century as a result of extreme weather conditions, dwindling water reserves and a degradation of agricultural land.” The deputy of High Commissioner of Refugees, Johnstone stressed the issue in a two-week UN Climate Change Conference in 2008 stating, “The most important issue is mitigation by reducing greenhouse gases. The second line of action is adaptation to climate change, as promoted by development agencies”. To this he added, “But if these fail, we need to anticipate the humanitarian response. And this is still missing in the debate.” That is to say, a debate which will properly frame the problem and as a result provide concrete forms of action.
The term “environmental refugee” was first used by an environmental analyst Lester Brown in 1976 and then by Essam El- Hinnawi from the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) in 1982. The expression has been used to describe the inevitable and concerning dilemma of forced migration due to environmental change. Other names include: “climate refugees, environmentally displaced person, disaster refugee, and environmental migrant.” According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), whose main focus is to assist and promote safe and humane resettlement of refugees on an international scale since WWII, the definition of “environmental migrant” is the following: “Environmental migrants are persons or groups of persons who, for compelling reasons of sudden or progressive changes in the environment that adversely affect their lives or living conditions, are obliged to leave their habitual homes, or choose to do so, either temporarily or permanently, and who move either within their country or abroad.” This working definition embodies people who are displaced by natural catastrophes such as tornados, tsunamis, and earthquakes, as well as those who choose to move from their location because of diminishing atmospheric conditions such as water droughts. This definition is used when negotiating new spaces for resettlement and policymaking on a governmental level.
With natural events happening in the United States and globally almost daily, it is no wonder that this concept is being put into practice and new assessments are being made to adapt and lessen the affects of global warming. As a result, the UNEP and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) developed an international body for climate assessment called The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which released a report in 2007 offering strategies to manage and prevent the impacts of weather and climate based events. One example I found to be simple, effective, and important was in the water sector. With fresh water taking up a total of 2.5 % on a global scale, there is no question as to why this is an important conversation to have. IPCC planned adaptations include expanding rainwater harvesting: “water storage and conservation techniques; water re-use; desalination; water-use and irrigation efficiency by creating an integration system.” Moreover, with the recent discussions on California’s water drought, there is no reason not to collectively work towards water management. This is just one aspect of issues concerning global warming. Water, of course, is vital to our existence and is equally important as food production, another sector of great value mentioned in the report, i.e. the agriculture.
With corporations globally capitalizing on food production, land use and food growth has become standardized for quantitative value. Standardization of any kind is an extremely problematic discourse that highlights how negatively society views “the other” and how language, policy, and decision makers gleam little light on the complexities of human existence different than their own. Instead of just food policies, a reflexive approach to food justice would involve long-term structure (i.e. intelligent community driven food design) which could link multi-dimensions of hierarchy, place making, communities and corporations together and as a result end the asymmetrical and misguided food distribution. Hence, developing a thorough agenda that is local, regional, cultural and global is essential. On the one hand, the monarchial corporate food regime is one-sighted, especially in public global policy initiatives. This is a macro level problem, which involves large sums of money and few competitors. On the other hand, the cultural and social implications of the food distribution cause more harm then good. In other words, the commonly used quick fix approach to hunger often leaves those suffering with even more hunger. Creating adjustments for crops, land management, erosion control and soil protection, away from the neoliberal private sector, could therefore lead to longer growing seasons.
So, what have we learned? If we save rainwater and plant and grow locally, in an ecological way, the UN might consider us humanitarian? Well, not really. This could be a great start but the issue is bigger than that and perhaps if we play our part in the western world, developing countries will not have to suffer as much in face of natural disasters. Because in the end, as far as environment is concerned, there is no west and east, north and south. There is only one globe, and therefore there should be global solutions that apply to everyone.