Climate-Related Migration, Mobility, and Movement Flashcards
What 3 things do McAdam and Felli agree on regarding language and climate-related migration?
- The language used for climate-related movement (CRM) is not fixed or apolitical, but is meant to highly different aspects and normative values, and suggest different political responses
- CRM is highly complex and must be understood in relation to other causal factors, esp. economic ones (poverty, labor, opportunities)
- How we conceptualize CRM affects who we think is responsible for responding to climate change
What does McAdam and Felli disagree on regarding CRM and language?
McAdam worries more about language robbing those affected by CRM of agency
Whereas Felli worries about through language making those affected by CRM responsible for managing the impact of climate change on their own
McAdam highlights 2 limits to knowledge regarding CRM
- Difficult to disentangle climatic drivers of migration from other drivers, as climate change acts as a “threat multiplier” that exacerbates other factors
- Difficult to accurately quantify climate-related movement as a) CRM often bureaucratically uncounted as climate change is not a visa option, 2) CRM is often domestic, and c) hard to distinguish between voluntary and forced CRM (direct result or long-term effects of climate change)
How does McAdam propose we try to quantify CRM?
Via a minimalist/skeptical approach, as a maximalist/alarmist approach backfires when inaccurate (e.g. UN 2005 prediction of 50 million climate refugees by 2010) and can lead people to dismiss a real problem
Why must CRM be analyzed contextually?
Because climate factors interact with other, pre-existing patterns of movement
e.g. Kiribati and Tuvalu has long encouraged migration to address non-climatic challenges (overcrowding, economic opportunities), but framing it only as climate-driven had negative fallout (withdrawal of foreign aid, sense migration is only option)
According to McAdam, what does CRM literature tend to omit?
Countries with robust pathways of migration, where people still lose their home, human rights, quality of life etc.
Definition: refugee
Someone who “owning to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it”
According to McAdam, why is it difficult to apply the concept of refugee to CRM? 2 points
- Applicable only to those who have crossed a border, but CRM is often domestic
- Applicable only to those who’ve been persecuted (e.g. discriminated against because of personal attribute), but CRM leaves it unclear who the persecutor is and whether discrimination is at play at all
McAdam argues that the concept of refugee
Does not apply to CRM and is thus not appropriate to deal with CRM
Climate refugee paradigm (2 points)
Highlights impact of climate change on people, framed as victims of phenomenon they didn’t create
Drew attention to failure of climate mitigation and emphasized importance of protecting human rights
When and why was the climate refugee paradigm replaced by the climate migrant paradigm?
Mid-2000s, as climate negotiations stall and aims shifted downward from mitigation to adaptation
Climate migrant paradigm (McAdam)
Presents CRM not as failure to redress climate change but as a productive strategy for adapting to it
What does Felli think about the climate refugee and climate migrant paradigm
Favors climate refugee paradigm, because it positions movers as victims of an injustice who are owed a debt (reparative justice)
In contrast, climate migrant paradigm positions movers as entrepreneurs who are individually responsible for themselves
What, according to Felli, does each paradigm imply for justice?
Climate refugee paradigm suggests states have obligations to protect movers
Climate migrant paradigm suggests states must merely manage how migrants take responsibility for themselves, locating them in deformalized governance norms and pratices (soft law)
Why is it bad, according to Felli, that the climate migrant paradigm locates migrants in deformalized governance structures? - 4 reasons
- Does not have to be responsible to voters or citizens since it’s based on informal norms and international agreements
- Can make it hard for people to react and give feedback
- No recognition of people as political actors who bear rights
- It shifts focus from justice to economic development, focus on managing economic impact of migrants rather than protecting their human rights
