Are there "upsides" to climate migration?

This is worth a read from the economist. It explores what it calls the “upsides” of migration driven by climate change. I’ve often argued that embracing migration as a climate adaptation strategy is a good idea. But it also has problems - which this article hasn’t looked at.

Firstly, I think migration as a form of climate adaptation is a good idea - in some cases. People are already using migration as a coping strategy in the face of climate change. Whether or not it’s a “good thing” - it’s happening.

Migration as climate adaptation also flips the usual narrative around. Most coverage of the issue paints migrants and refugees as a looming future threat. Often these stories use migrants as objects of fear.

This Economist article points to many of the upsides of migrating as a way of coping with climate change. People move out of dangerous areas. Very often people find better paying work. Often people find it easier to access health and education.

All of this is true. But there are important critiques of the idea of migration as climate adaptation. Primarily that it leaves the survival of vulnerable populations to the (often fickle) economy.?

Migration as climate adaptation usually means migration away from climate impacts *to find work* in a new location. The ability to deploy this adaptive strategy is therefore completely dependent on the economy and labour market.

People who are vulnerable to climate impacts and are lucky enough to be able to migrate and access those labour markets might be ok. But what about the people who can’t? What happens to people who can’t move? Or people who can’t move to places where work is available?

This is the neoliberalisation of climate change adaptation. As a policy it bears the hallmarks of neoliberalism. The role of the state is minimal. The role of markets is central. People are individually responsible for their own adaptation.

The Economist (unsurprisingly!) has not drawn on these critiques in its exploration of migration as a form of climate change adaptation. They’ve vital critiques for anyone who is interested in just and equitable solutions to this issue.

My take is that some versions of migration as adaptation are worth fighting for. But others represent the worst kind of unjust solutions.?

We can imagine versions of this policy idea in which people are assisted to move based on need, rather than their ability to plug in to a nearby labour market. High emitting countries would finance community driven relocation projects.?

We can also picture dystopian versions of this policy where unscrupulous businesses exploit the fact that people will need to flee climate impacts and use this to create an easily exploitable pool of cheap labour.?

This is why it’s important to fight for the versions of this policy that are fair and just and not neoliberal.