Domestic Structures, Misalignment, and Defining the Climate Displacement Problem

This paper contrasts how climate reports describe displacement with how analyses of moving after disaster have described whether people move. The paper argues that domestic structures govern displacement, and are likely to continue to. Domestically, people have different legal statuses and access to resources, which shape the ability to move. Authoritative governance documents on climate change, including the United States National Climate Assessment, argue that climate change will lead to increasing numbers of displaced people. On the other hand, demographers and economists who study where people move to after disaster have argued that climate reports overstate the risk of mass displacement, based in what has happened after past disasters. Domestic governance processes influence resettlement, and they can change. Studies of whether people move after disaster do not take into account how changes in insurance rates or other rules shaping where people live could reshape resettlement. On the other hand, analyses of governing potential climate displacement draw on international agreements and documents. has often centered on islands advocates argue will disappear, not the changing habitability of places that also depends on the resources people have. The image of disappearing islands misdirects from the risks of climate displacement in wealthier countries, where some people have extensive resources and others do not. This paper argues that the risk of displacement requires turning to follow the domestic governance processes that shape people’s decisions now. This approach fits with calls to work from people’s claims up to governance processes, rather than from processes downward