One step forward, two steps back? The fading contours of (in)justice in competing discourses on climate migration

Abstract

In recent debates on climate change and migration, the focus on the figure of ‘climate refugees’ (tainted by environmental determinism and a crude understanding of human mobility) has given ground to a broader conception of the climate–migration nexus. In particular, the idea that migration can represent a legitimate adaptation strategy has emerged strongly. This appears to be a positive development, marked by softer tones that de‐securitise climate migration. However, political and normative implications of this evolution are still understudied. This article contributes to filling the gap by turning to both the ‘climate refugees’ and ‘migration as adaptation’ narratives, interrogating how and whether those competing narratives pose the question of (in)justice. Our analysis shows that the highly problematic ‘climate refugees’ narrative did (at least) channel justice claims and yielded the (illusory) possibility of identifying concrete rights claims and responsibilities. Read in relation to the growing mantra of resilience in climate policy and politics, the more recent narrative on ‘migration as adaptation’ appears to displace justice claims and inherent rights in favour of a depoliticised idea of adaptation that relies on the individual migrant's ability to compete in and benefit from labour markets. We warn that the removal of structural inequalities from the way in which the climate–migration nexus is understood can be seen as symptomatic of a shrinking of the conditions to posing the question of climate justice.

A mobilities perspective on migration in the context of environmental change

“…The dominant academic, political, and policy debates about the connection between environmental change and human migration have long focused on migration drivers and outcomes, rather than on the diverse practices and meanings attached to such movements. As demonstrated in previous review studies (see Bettini, ; Bettini & Gioli, ; Bettini, Nash, & Gioli, ), the focus of the debate has been characterized by a discursive divide between the so‐called “alarmist”/pessimistic positions predicting masses of “climate refugees” uprooted by environmental changes in the future, posing risks to the security and stability of the international community (e.g., Myers, ; for a critique see Hartmann, ), versus more “optimistic” voices that consider local and regional migrations an important strategy to adapt to environmental changes (Foresight, ; R. McLeman & Smit, ). These debates are based on different presumptions as to who moves, from where people move, the numbers of migrations, the direction of movement, and the distances migrants cover.…”

“…We acknowledge there are different categorizations of the discourses used in the debate (e.g., Ransan‐Cooper, Farbotko, McNamara, Thornton, & Chevalier, ), yet we described the “climate refugee” versus “migration‐as‐adaptation” archetypes as the most common characterizations (Bettini et al, ; Klepp, ). We also acknowledge that several of the aforementioned publications contain more nuances than these archetypes, some of which will pick up in the remainder of this article.…”

Where Next? Climate Change, Migration, and the (Bio)politics of Adaptation

“…At a closer look, the ‘new’ idea of migration as adaptation also raises concerns (e.g. Baldwin, ; Bettini, ; Bettini et al., ; Felli, ; Felli and Castree, ; Methmann and Oels, ; Turhan et al., ). To begin with, largely reproducing the optimistic position in the debates on ‘migration and development’ (Bettini and Gioli, ), the idea of migration as adaptation has nothing to do with a ‘no borders’ agenda.…”

Australia's national climate: learning to adapt?

“…In a famous exchange in the 1890s, for example, poet Henry Lawson used his poem "The City Bushman" to implicitly critique his contemporary Banjo Patterson as an inauthentic bushman who 'sought the greener patches' and 'travelled like a gent' (Lawson, 1896). Today, mobilitybased approaches to adapting to place-based climatic problems are increasingly lauded as innovative (Bettini, Nash & Gioli, 2016), building on the way those in some regions have long tried to attract restless settlers by emphasising the relative merits of their climate (as Pulford's tweet above indicates). This lesson has perhaps most forcefully been directed at farmers, long criticised for managing the land 'like Brits, not Australians'.…”