Climate Refugees, Defense Industry, and Ecology Policy Debate

What Is at Stake in the Climate Change Debate

The problem of rising sea levels and the displacement of vulnerable populations is one that scholars and researchers have addressed from many different perspectives. However, a key challenge in this debate is understanding whether the viewpoints provided by researchers adequately address the problem at hand. This paper synthesizes the ideas of several authors to show that, even though climate change is an issue nations can address in various ways and to varying degrees, it is also an issue that can be exploited by the military defense industry — a dynamic that represents a threat to the application of sound climate policy overall.

What is at stake in the issue of climate change is the well-being of ecologically vulnerable countries, whose populations could be displaced as a result of rising sea levels. Many scholars agree that climate change is a serious problem, but the central question remains: how best should it be addressed? One thing that some may not realize is that climate policy is capable of being corrupted by third-party groups that have their own agendas, distinct from addressing climate change itself. The defense industry is one such group that can influence this debate for its own benefit. Nations must be careful about accepting policies shaped by the defense industry, while also recognizing that not all nations can address climate policy in the same ways or to the same extent. Every country can play a part in addressing this issue, but all must be on guard against wolves in sheep's clothing. For that reason, it is important to examine the various scholarly perspectives on this matter. When taken individually, each represents only one view; but when synthesized and analyzed together, they offer a much richer understanding of the actual nature of this problem.

Evidence from Scholars on Climate Displacement

Jolie argues that climate change is already displacing millions of people in ecologically vulnerable regions. She cites a study by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found that Bangladesh alone could lose 17.5% of its land mass due to rising sea levels. Jolie further argues that this is an issue demanding international cooperation, and points to progress already underway: "The new Global Compact on Refugees, adopted this year by the U.N. General Assembly, puts forward new international arrangements for sharing responsibility for refugees" (4). Bayes Ahmed goes one step further, arguing that based on the amount of pollution each country produces, nations should accept a proportional percentage of climate refugees: "Australia and the USA each should take responsibility of 10 per cent each of the overall global share of climate refugees, followed by Canada and Saudi Arabia (9 per cent each), South Korea (7 per cent) and Russia, Germany and Japan (6 per cent each)" (1). This approach is somewhat similar to that offered by Eckersley; however, Eckersley argues that refugees should have the right to choose their own host countries.

Hartmann urges caution on this matter. She points to conflicts in states like Darfur as examples of how the defense industry can reframe a power struggle as a climate change issue: "The construction of Darfur as a climate conflict should serve as a canary in the coal mine that something is amiss when environmental determinism overrides serious analysis of power relations" (237). She also notes that studies conducted in Kenya and Senegal showed that climate change actually produced positive outcomes in terms of the development of better resource management strategies. She references numerous studies indicating that "there is a rich body of empirical case studies of African agriculture, pastoralism and forestry that challenges conventional neo-Malthusian narratives about population, scarcity and conflict" (237). She further cites scholars who have shown that "migration is too complex a process to label simply as environmental or climate-induced" (238). The danger of approaching this issue simplistically, Hartmann argues, is that it enables the application of policies that are little more than power-plays for the defense industry. Hingley sides with Hartmann in lamenting the use of the term "climate refugees," which she describes as "detrimental at both the conceptual and experiential level, making its deconstruction a complex but necessary task" (158).

Kabisch et al. note that while there are many ways to think about climate responsibility, one frequently overlooked area is the positive impact that nature-based solutions can have. The authors explain that simply by creating urban green parks in areas where urbanization has depleted green space, high temperatures can be reduced; green roofs can help bring down urban temperatures and thereby reduce the energy consumption — and associated pollution — required to keep cities cool.

Analysis of the Scholarly Perspectives

Beginning with the evidence provided by Jolie, one can see that climate change is a serious threat: the displacement of millions of people is at stake. However, when one broadens the analysis to include the studies performed by Hartmann and Hingley, the issue appears significantly more complex than Jolie's framing suggests. People become refugees for many different reasons — not always, or even primarily, because of climate change. Both Hartmann and Hingley provide compelling evidence that using the term "climate refugees" oversimplifies a genuinely complex problem. This simplistic framing creates an opening for other groups, such as the defense industry, to step in with their own proposals for controlling the issue, which typically results in smaller states and populations losing their sovereignty through the imperialistic operations of larger states with substantial military budgets.

Ahmed attempts to situate the issue within a framework of responsibility, demonstrating how certain developed nations pollute the most and should therefore bear the majority of responsibility for caring for refugees. However, Ahmed does not adequately address the complexity of the situation to the extent that Hartmann and Hingley do. Eckersley argues on behalf of refugees, contending that they should be allowed to choose where they go rather than having other states decide their fate. This is a reasonable and fair argument, but it also sidesteps the complexities highlighted by Hartmann and Hingley, which significantly alter how one must view this issue.

Kabisch et al. help to demonstrate that states can take a non-interventionist approach to combating climate change by addressing matters domestically — that is, by implementing green solutions in urban areas to reduce energy consumption and pollution. This is another reasonable argument, and while it too avoids the complexities raised by Hartmann and Hingley, it does not necessarily need to engage with them because its focus is on domestic action rather than international policy. If each state takes measures to curb its own contribution to pollution, as Kabisch et al. rightly reason, the broader issue of climate change can be curtailed — which would help reduce the risk of ecological disaster in vulnerable countries in the first place.

Conclusion

It is therefore preferable to implement strategies like those proposed by Kabisch et al. and to exercise caution in how climate change and the refugee problem are framed, as Hartmann and Hingley advocate. The alarmism expressed by Jolie, Ahmed, and Eckersley may be justified on the basis of future projections, but it does not necessarily reflect the reality of the situation as it stands today. It is better for nations to do what they can to reduce pollution on their own terms than to open the door for third parties to exploit a situation that has been inadequately defined by some scholars.

Works Cited

Ahmed, Bayes. "Who Takes Responsibility for the Climate Refugees?" International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management (2018).

Eckersley, Robyn. "The Common but Differentiated Responsibilities of States to Assist and Receive 'Climate Refugees'." European Journal of Political Theory 14.4 (2015): 481–500.

Hartmann, Betsy. "Rethinking Climate Refugees and Climate Conflict: Rhetoric, Reality and the Politics of Policy Discourse." Journal of International Development: The Journal of the Development Studies Association 22.2 (2010): 233–246.

Hingley, Rebecca. "'Climate Refugees': An Oceanic Perspective." Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies 4.1 (2017): 158–165.

Jolie, Angelina. "Climate Change Is Already Displacing Millions of People. It's Our Responsibility to Help Them." Time. https://time.com/5669024/angelina-jolie-climate-refugees/

Kabisch, Nadja, et al. "Nature-Based Solutions to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Urban Areas: Perspectives on Indicators, Knowledge Gaps, Barriers, and Opportunities for Action." Ecology and Society 21.2 (2016).