New evidence supports not being a massive jerk when talking about climate-driven migration
Scaremongering about future episodes of mass cross-border climate migration won't make people back better climate policies. It will probably just make people more fearful of migration in general.
Over the years, we've promoted several ways of discussing climate-driven migration, often boiling down to "don't be a massive jerk when you open your mouth."
As a rule, I've always argued against exaggerating the extent of large-scale, cross-border climate-driven migration.
Fear-based narratives about mass climate migration are often used to shock the public and policymakers into action on climate change. The hope is that the prospect of hundreds of millions of climate refugees will jumpstart decarbonization policies, or that the fear of millions of newly arrived climate migrants will shock the public into demanding action.
This has led to many news stories and campaigns portraying migrants and refugees as a threat. Over the years, we've consistently challenged these narratives and encouraged communicators to find more positive ways of discussing climate-driven migration.
The idea of not being a huge idiot is now also supported by some very compelling experimental data.
A group of researchers asked thousands of U.S. citizens to read news stories about climate-driven migration. Some read stories about cross-border climate-driven migration, while others read about internal climate migration within the U.S. Other experimental groups read texts containing personal stories of migration and displacement, presented in the form of a podcast rather than written text. After reading and listening to the stories, participants were asked questions about their support for climate change policies and their feelings about migration.
The findings are important. Exposure to news stories about cross-border climate-driven migration did not change people's support for climate change policies. However, exposure to stories about internal climate migration in the U.S. did make people more supportive of these policies.
Exposure to stories about cross-border climate migration did change how people feel about migration. Exposure to stories about cross-border climate-driven migration led to greater "risk perception" compared to stories about internal migration.
Take-home message: Scaremongering about future episodes of mass cross-border climate migration won't make people back better climate policies. It will probably just make people more fearful of migration in general. Communicating about internal climate-driven migration closer to home might move the needle.
The results tell us that overblown statistics and apocalyptic stories aren't going to lead to big shifts in public opinion on climate policies. The only result is likely to be more opposition to migration. Depressingly, it also reveals that U.S. citizens are more sympathetic to other U.S. citizens moving internally than they are to people moving to the U.S. from other countries, and that people still fear migrants from other countries.
Other results from the study are important too. The researchers found that political affiliation played a huge role in support for climate policies and levels of risk perception about migration. It's true that exposure to different news stories changed how people felt. But whether someone identified as a Republican or a Democrat had a much bigger impact.
I don't think any of this means we should stop talking about cross-border climate-driven migration. But it does mean we need to do it carefully and accurately. There are still important stories and data about the future of climate-driven migration that need to be shared.