Framing climate-influenced migration as a threat is dangerous and counterproductive is author Gregory White
Around the time of the Copenhagen Summit in 2009, there was a sense that climate change was finally transitioning from something which only concerned hippy do-gooders to an issue that affected the entire international community. Everywhere you looked people were talking about climate change.
There was campaign after campaign, there were art exhibitions, documentaries, theatre productions and it felt like we may have been on the cusp of change (hindsight sadly tells us that we were not).
Another field where climate change was finally grabbing people’s attention was around security. The notion of water wars as well as climate-related migration was entering the public consciousness. This however, was not strictly ‘A Good Thing’.
As Gregory White states in his book Climate change and migration: security and borders in a warming world, ‘securitizating’ climate-induced migration (CIM) is counter-productive as it helps justify more unnecessary migration controls. It also encourages rich nations to abandon any sense of ethical responsibility to those on the receiving end of their emissions: “As industrialized countries contribute the most to climate change through consumption and emissions, CIM [Climate-induced migration] constitutes an ethical dilemma that will require them to reconsider and revise the existing dialogue concerning migration.”



An archaic Saudia Arabian practice of trapping parrot fish in the Red Sea has to stop.



The last international climate change negotiation





