We need to stop "myth busting" on climate - linked migration. You know the stuff I mean. Twitter threads and articles that innumerate the reasons that climate change isn't a driver of migration [Thread 1/ ]
Before you jump all over me, I've probably done more of this myth busting than many, so this is as much self criticism as it is criticism of anyone else.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I think there *are* going to be 9 billion "climate refugees" or whatever this week's figure is. I'm getting at something a little more subtle...
I'm not saying the myths aren't dangerous. But I am saying that there is a better way of improving the accuracy and quality of the public debate. Hear me out...
So here's my logic. Yes, there are myths about climate linked migration. Yeah, there are headlines which are inaccurate. But actually myths about climate linked migration are not that prominent
Media coverage and general conversation about climate-linked migration isn't that prominent. It's just not a very big media story. Not compared to Brexit or Trump or whether the Game of Thrones finale was a massive let down or not (which it was)
Sure, sometimes it gets a few days of headlines. But then mostly the whole issue disappears back under the radar again.
Mostly, when I speak to people outside our niche about this they're like "oh, - well I hadn't even thought about that before". This issue is just not a big part of public debate.
Even in circles you might expect, it isn't a prominent issue. Think about it: the vast vast majority of climate change reporting and journalism contains no mention at all of migration...
... Similarly the vast vast majority of reporting on migration contains no mention of climate change. They're just not issues that the media instinctively connect
Further, I'm not convinced that the climate NGO / activist world is really "pushing" these myths. The accusation is often that green campaigners create fear stories about climate driven migration to create support for their emissions reduction campaigns
Yes, this does happen. And no, it isn't ok. I've spent a lot of time pulling up green / climate campaigners when they do promote these fear driven narratives about migration. (Some activists have been open to discussing this. Others just tell me to get stuffed)
But actually it has proved a real struggle to get most green organisations to even think about this issue at all (Believe me, I've been trying for a decade).
In general the reaction is "well that sounds controversial and complicated, we'd prefer to stick to talking about decarbonisation, renewables and fossil fuel investments" Which kind of makes sense. Those are campaign-ready, winnable issues.
Most mainstream climate and environment organisations do not have a major campaign on climate-linked migration. Yes, a few do. And some do it well. But mostly it's not a prominent campaign topic
So, yes there have been blunders when climate campaigners engage with this topic. But actually very little has been said about climate-linked migration by climate campaigners. (If you're reading this and feel I'm being unfair, then I probably don't mean you!)
So, all this raises the question - what purpose does "myth busting" serve in this context, and why do we do it?
Again, before anyone jumps on me I’m not suggesting that as an expert community we simply duck out and stop saying anything. Stick with to the end of the thread and I propose something I think might be more constructive in improving the quality of the public debate
My contention is that it myth busting actually isn't very useful, because the myths that are being busted are actually not myths that many people have even heard of.
Our myth busting actually may be working against us. When I wrote at Myth Buster doc a few years back it mostly just got retweeted by hard core climate change deniers
My feeling was that having written the myth buster doc, it was really just providing fodder for climate sceptics. And I'm not sure that it did much to shift the debate and make it more accurate
So what do we do? I think it is far more useful to explore the situations and contexts in which climate and migration *are* connected - than to endlessly explain the contexts in which they are not
Because there are lots of situations in which there are important links between climate and migration / displacement - and these situations deserve examination and attention
So our response to apocalyptic headlines should not be "Here are all the reasons why this headlines is wrong".
We should see this coverage as a way to start a conversation. This is a chance to say "Ok, now you're all listening and interested here is the real as story. Here are the situations we really need to be thinking about"
Because we *should* be talking about the links between sudden onset disasters and internal displacement. There is an important connection there.
And we should be talking about the links between drought, livelihoods and internal migration. There are important climate dimensions to people's movement in that context too
The starting point for the conversation (imo) should be this: over the next century we're going to change the temperature of the entire planet, and in the process most of the ecosystems on earth...
... as a result our economies will completely change. Either because of the impacts of climate change. Or because we'll transform our economies to try and mitigate climate change...
... it seems unlikely that these planet-scale change will take place, but existing patters of migration and displacement will somehow remain unchanged. So we have to start talking about what those changes will be.
This is the kind of engagement that actually improves the the public and media conversation about this issue.
