Climate Change Sensationalism

My previous posts may have given off the impression that Tuvalu is an island that is beyond saving, however, the importance of not buying into this sensationalist view has been highlighted to me by a paper by Mortreux and Barnett (2009) and I think it is important I share their important paper with you.

This sensationalised view of Tuvalu is something that has been spread widely by the media. Even The Inconvenient Truth contained images of flooding in Tuvalu accompanied by words exclaiming that such floods are the reason the population have had to evacuate from the island. However, such large scale evacuation is not the case and it is important that we do not commit Tuvalu to the history books just to publicise the negative impacts associated with climate change and thus gain public awareness.

Of 28 Tuvaluans questioned for this paper only 9 were expecting to move away from the island and of these nine only one gave climate change as the reason for migration with the others citing socio-economic reasons as the rationale to make such a move. This evidences well the fact that the situation is not perceived by the islanders of Tuvalu with the same negative attitude as is often reported by the media.

While I believe it is correct that the imminent threats posed by climate change to small island nations should be publicised, the take home message from this should not be that due to climate change destruction of these societies is assured. Instead the message I would promote is that yes, climate change does pose a serious threat to such nations, but, if action is taken now, then these societies can be saved. This sentiment is well expressed by Mortreux and Barnett (2009):

“...there is nothing inevitable about climate induced catastrophe in Tuvalu; deep cuts in emissions such that the rate of change is slowed, coupled with a systematic and well resourced suite of adaptation strategies can together enable island social-ecological systems to adapt such that negative demographic outcomes can be avoided.”

Some may question what the importance of the correct message is, as either way the issue of climate change and the devastation it can bring is publicised. However, publicising a message of guaranteed catastrophe can be dangerous on a number of levels. Mortreux and Barnett explain that this negative message and the associated discussion of inevitable displacement that it brings, acts to impede constructive discussion about the exact timing and magnitude of the negative impacts that are expected. As well as this, it also distracts from the formation of effective plans to adapt to and overcome the impacts of climate change. In addition, embellishing the extent of the crisis may cause investors and aid donors to alter the calculations of their expected returns and thus cause such activities to be reduced. Furthermore, this paper suggests that there is a danger that such a negative message may be taken on board by the island's inhabitants and may therefore lead to an increased feeling of vulnerability.

In conclusion I feel it is highly important, that while continuing to publicise the plight of Tuvalu the focus should be moved away from the negative discussions of migration and towards those more positive discussions of adaptation.