One of the biggest concerns surrounding climate change is its impact on people, with the World Bank estimating that 216 million people could be displaced by 2050. These concerns are concentrated in the poorer areas of the world, with Sub-Saharan Africa seeing 86 million climate migrants, East Asia and the Pacific 49 million, and South Asia 40 million.
“The Groundswell report is a stark reminder of the human toll of climate change, particularly on the world’s poorest—those who are contributing the least to its causes. It also clearly lays out a path for countries to address some of the key factors that are causing climate-driven migration,” said Juergen Voegele, Vice President of Sustainable Development, World Bank. “All these issues are fundamentally connected which is why our support to countries is positioned to deliver on climate and development objectives together while building a more sustainable, safe and resilient future.”
Migration information
According to a recent study conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan, reading about the phenomenon of climate-induced immigration has had an unexpected consequence: it has fueled negative and nativist attitudes among individuals toward the migrants affected by these circumstances. This unintended and paradoxical effect highlights the need for caution among reporters, advocates, and other communicators when addressing the issue of forced migration resulting from global climate change.
“Our studies uncovered a conundrum: People who already knew about how climate change may spur migration tended to want to take actions to help immigrants and help slow climate change. But telling people about the connection between climate and migration had the opposite effect,” the researchers explain.
The study marks one of the initial experimental attempts to examine how messaging concerning the impacts of climate-induced immigration influences public opinions on climate change and immigration. The results shed light on the potential repercussions that can arise from the delivery of such messages.
A timely warning
These findings serve as a timely warning for those involved in the dissemination of information, urging them to carefully consider the manner in which they discuss and frame the topic of climate-induced migration. It is crucial to recognize the unintended consequences that may emerge from these conversations and to approach the subject with a mindful and nuanced approach.
As the discourse surrounding climate change and its multifaceted ramifications continues to evolve, it is increasingly important to comprehend the complexities involved in discussing issues like forced migration. By heeding the lessons learned from this study, communicators can strive to foster a more informed and empathetic public discourse while navigating the intricate intersection of climate change, immigration, and public opinion.
The research encompassed two distinct investigations: a preliminary correlational pilot study involving 350 individuals, and a subsequent experimental messaging study encompassing over 1,000 participants.
The initial findings of the pilot study presented promising results. Participants who displayed awareness of the link between climate change and immigration demonstrated heightened concerns about climate issues, expressed greater support for climate-related policies, exhibited more positive attitudes towards immigration, and displayed increased support for immigrants.
Lack of prosocial response
Nevertheless, the results of the main study provided preliminary evidence that exposing participants to information specifically related to climate-induced immigration, as opposed to focusing solely on climate change or immigration, did not generate a proportionate increase in prosocial responses concerning climate change or immigration. Unexpectedly, it even elicited more negative attitudes toward immigrants.
Furthermore, the researchers were surprised to discover that this counterproductive effect was observed across the political spectrum, affecting both Republicans and Democrats, although to a lesser extent among the latter group.
The authors suggest that the revelation of climate-induced immigration may initially trigger a defensive response, which could potentially lead to a subsequent shift in attitudes towards a more prosocial direction. Further investigations are necessary to comprehend the circumstances that can promote empathetic responses as opposed to nativist reactions.
Addressing this disconnect promptly is of utmost importance, particularly as global climate change increasingly triggers significant forced migration to countries in the Global North, such as the United States. By acknowledging and grappling with the complex implications of climate-induced immigration, societies can endeavor to foster more inclusive and constructive approaches to address the challenges posed by this growing phenomenon.
“One thing that we hope reporters take away is that stories about climate migration may not have their likely intended effect of increasing public concern about climate change and empathy toward migrants,” the researchers conclude. “Instead, they may invoke a nativist response, making people view migrants more negatively and possibly less human.”
