Countries such as Britain which are destroying the environment of poorer nations by contributing to global warming and using tropical hardwoods should be prepared to take a fair share of the refugees they have created, says a think tank report today.
The New Economics Foundation says the idea of being responsible for environmental refugees is an extension of the ”polluter pays” principle. ”People whose environment is being damaged and destroyed, and who are losing their lives and their livelihoods, should be recompensed and protected by those responsible,” the report says.
It suggests that the Geneva convention should be expanded to include those displaced by environmental degradation.
Whole countries such as Tuvalu in the south Pacific will be drowned and large areas made too barren for crops, but the people displaced have nowhere to go. The freedom to pollute and consume should have a price tag.
Among the polluting states this is not likely to be a popular notion because there is widespread denial of the link between consumption patterns and the global environmental crisis. But, far from being a ”soft touch” for refugees, the UK is failing to take a fair share of the displaced people it is responsible for.
The foundation argues that harm is intentional when policies are pursued in full knowledge of their damaging consequences.
”The causes and consequences of climate change — who is responsible and who gets hurt — are now sufficiently understood.”
To disregard that knowledge must be classed as intentional behaviour, the report says.
America’s energy plans will increase global warming and result in refugees — something that could be classed as environmental persecution.
The Geneva convention defines a refugee as someone forced to flee because of a well-founded fear of persecution, be it religious, political or ”other”.
”A well-founded fear of starvation or drowning is a compelling reason to escape,” the report says.
Environmental refugees outnumber those fleeing from war, political or religious persecution and could reach 20-million people a year.
The report targets George Bush’s America in particular for being responsible for the largest share of global warming, but includes ”Fortress Europe”, which is attempting to keep out refugees.
Many of these so-called economic migrants, heavily attacked by politicians and press, are people who can no longer make a living in their home country because of environmental changes caused by the policies of the rich countries.
Since the UK is responsible for 3% of the world’s global warming through carbon emissions, and global warming is likely to create 20-million environmental refugees a year, this country should in equity offer 300 000 displaced persons a year a home, Andrew Simms, one of the authors of the report said yesterday.
The report says it is both a moral and an economic case. Fossil fuels, coal, gas and oil drive the global economy, and allow the wealthier nations to enjoy a lavish lifestyle compared with the developing world.
Rich countries spend £50-billion a year subsidising fossil fuel industries, but around £300 000 a year helping poor countries manage their emissions and adapt to climate change.
”Is it unreasonable to expect the wealthier members of the international community to pay for their profligate enjoyment of the earth’s finite fossil fuel supply?
”We believe not. Only by creating new legal responsibilities towards environmental refugees will the international community — and especially industrialised countries — accept their obligations.”
More people are on the move around the world than at any time in history.
By 2050, 150-million people may be displaced by the impacts of global warming.
Doing nothing to address the problem will create problems for the world community.
Millions of refugees moving across borders will be a major cause of global instability, a fertile breeding ground for bitterness and resentment, and a recruiting ground for terrorism, the report says. – Guardian Unlimited Â