Streets in the district of Satkhira, in southern Bangladesh, are flooded after months of heavy rain – people travel by boat to reach the local shop.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine displaced over 1.5 million people in ten days – a record number, per the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Recent refugee crises from Ukraine and Afghanistan have highlighted the strains of globalization and the political challenges that arise from a massive involuntary migration. Even though we do not yet know how the Ukrainian crisis will resolve, or where the next war will occur, there is another massive migration looming on the horizon. The cause? Climate change.

The sixth iteration of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment was released, coincidentally, within a week of the invasion of Ukraine. The IPCC reports highlight risks of climate change and areas where climate action is most critical. A crucial point of these assessments is the fact that while everyone on Earth will be affected by climate change in some way, not everyone is affected evenly, or at the same time. Per the latest IPCC report, “approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change.” Vulnerability extends far beyond geography – warmer climate, coastal, and island nations will feel the effects of climate change first and worst – but also includes adaptability. Wealthier nations have more resources to adapt to the effects of climate change, whereas developing, less-wealthy nations do not. Add into the mix that many wealthy countries heavily relied upon fossil fuels to achieve prosperity, and many developing countries are most vulnerable are contributing the least to climate change. Climate governance now becomes an extremely difficult problem to solve.

One of the many global policy challenges presented by climate change comes from the treatment of what have been termed “climate refugees.” Yet while the name includes “refugees,” climate refugees differ from our traditional understanding of a refugee – and our governmental system’s protocols for refugees. Storm surges, sea level rise, and water shortages are projected to displace hundreds of millions of people in the coming decades. Where those who we usually call refugees are those who flee their countries following emergencies, war, or persecution, climate refugees will be migrating gradually, are unlikely to ever be able to return to their homes, and will likely be large groups of people, such as entire cities or states. Additionally, climate refugees may be moving within the borders of their own country, not traveling internationally. Because of these critical distinctions, as outlined by Frank Biermann & Ingrid Boas in their essay “Protecting Climate Refugees: The Case for a Global Protocol,” current international structures to address refugees are simply not equipped for the coming climate refugee crisis. 

However, the term “climate refugees” is contentious. Many of those who are most vulnerable are those in the Global South, so national security rhetoric surrounding climate refugees, much like traditional refugees, can take on xenophobic and racist tones. Other arguments against the term argue against its depersonalization and how it could silence the voices of those most affected by climate change. Some criticism is murkier, such as the notion that “climate refugees” depoliticizes climate change. It is true that climate change is inherently political, and strong climate policy is essential to avert the worst consequences of climate change. Politics have allowed fossil fuel companies and other polluters to go unchecked, and politics has stymied meaningful climate mitigation and adaptation measures.

Yet at this stage, climate change is apolitical as well. As mentioned previously, policy will avert the “worst consequences,” but policy has passed the point of halting anthropogenic climate change entirely. Climate change is now inevitable; it is merely a question of how harmful it will be, and for whom. Paradoxically, it is this very political nature of climate change that has allowed climate change to become apolitical, as powerful nations’ inactions have cemented that climate change is not a matter of if, but when and who and how much. Arguments that “climate refugee” is a depoliticized term have merit, but climate change itself is already depoliticized to some extent. This is not to say that political actions are pointless – quite the contrary – but there is a limit to what can be done.

In the meantime, how can we act? First is to continue to fight hard for significant climate mitigation and adaptation policy, especially for those most at risk. This requires local, state, and national governance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fund adaptive projects, but also considering climate change as a global, and vastly unequal, issue. Within this is revisiting current structures for refugees and migrations and recognizing where climate-induced migrations fit, or if there are new resources that must be created. To reframe the discourse around climate refugees, and all other types of refugees, it is also essential to empower vulnerable communities and emphasize human rights, not just national security, when creating policy. The climate crisis requires us to prepare for these migrations, but it should also serve as a time to reexamine our views and treatments of refugees everywhere.