Imagine no “climate refugees.” Contrary to John Lennon, it is hard to do. Specifically, imagine if the concept of “climate refugees” did not exist. What would it be like to not pair the climate adjective with the refugee noun?
It is highly unlikely that this concept will go away. For nearly four decades the notion of “environmental refugees” has been used by scholars, environmentalists, security and defense intellectuals, policymakers, artists, and writers. And since the 1990s the ostensibly more specific category of “climate refugees” has been used to convey displacement by anthropogenic climate change (ACC).
There are many problems with the concept of “climate refugees.” It is vague and often ahistorical. It amalgamates coastal inundations, submerging islands, desertification, and “natural” disasters into one category. It highlights one forcer of displacement, thereby underplaying what may be more proximate causes—such as repressive governments, poor policies, failing economies, complicated colonial and cold war...