More about climate migrants from a Pacific islands perspective. many don’t want to see the term “refugee” expanded to include populations displaced by climate change, fearing the risk of lessening the severity and urgency associated with the word. I-Kiribati and other populations don’t like the term “refugee” either. “[P]eople in affected Pacific nations do not consider themselves as future refugees and their leaders desire better answers to their concerns than traditional refugee solutions,” says Glendenning. “The people of Kiribati reject the idea of becoming ‘climate change refugees’ because they believe that, with the right forms of international support, they have time to find better answers.” However, strict immigration policies in both New Zealand and Australia are a major obstacle for the i-Kiribati and others with uncertain futures.
It's a thought-provoking article, which raises more questions than answers.
The article mentions a UNHCR estimate that there will be some 250 million climate-induced displaced peoples globally by 2050. It's not entirely clear how that figure is arrived at. Some will be internally displaced, some will cross borders.
UNHCR discourages the expression "climate refugee" because "refugee" has a specific UN legal status, which excludes people displaced by environmental difficulties and disasters. UNHCR prefers the term "environmentally displaced person", which of course includes those displaced by natural or industrial disaster as well as those displaced by climate change.
This
ACUNS paper on Climate Refugees in the 21st century (pdf) has a discussion about the status of EDPs and uses two case studies, the Horn of Africa and Tuvalu, to illustrate the different challenges.
With regard to internally displaced migrants, this Brookings-Bern study of the threat to small settlements of native Alaskans provides a microcosm of the problems even within states, and possible solutions. It is not clear how, if at all, such assistance could be scaled up:
Climate-Induced Displacement of Alaska Native Communities (Bronen, Robin, Alaska Institute for Justice University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Jan 2013)
Flooding and erosion threaten the habitability of a significant number of Alaska Native communities. Community relocation may be the only adaptation strategy that can protect community residents. The 2009 GAO report recognized that no government agency has the authority to relocate communities, no governmental organization exists that can address the strategic planning needs of relocation, and no funding is specifically designated for relocation (GAO 2009, 24-27). Even with their survival in imminent danger, none of the villages identified in the 2009 GAO report has yet been able to relocate, owing to governance issues that must first be overcome.
They can't get help to repair damaged infrastructure, and they can't get help to build new settlements.
The creation of an adaptive governance framework, which can dynamically respond to the needs of communities as climate change impacts habitability and the safety of residents, is critical. Congress should amend disaster relief legislation so that communities are able to use existing funding mechanisms to construct infrastructure at relocation sites that are not within the disaster
area. Congress should also enact legislation to provide a relocation governance framework so that communities have the ability to relocate when the traditional erosion and flood control devices can no longer protect residents in place. In this way, the United States can create a model adaptation strategy that facilitates an effective transition from protection in place to community relocation that can serve as a model for governments throughout the world.
wikipedia entry on environmental migration is worth reading (with the usual caveats).
(Previous discussion on climate migrants earlier in the thread, starting
here