Almost at its adoption, the Paris Agreement has been criticized for failing to go far enough in ambitious commitments. Now it seems clear many countries are not on track to meet even the modest targets set in 2015. Combined with the damaging withdrawal of the US, and the message it sent about national populism over international cooperation, there are lingering concerns about global climate cooperation. 

One bright spot has been the willingness of cities across the globe, including in otherwise hesitant countries, to take the lead on climate action and various related issues such as migration. In a way, this is not surprising. Many regions in the world are facing increased numbers of both internally and internationally displaced people due to a variety of drivers. Evaluating 10 years of internal displacement data from 2009 to 2019, UNHCR noted that 2 out of 3 internally displaced persons they encountered were in urban or semi-urban areas.

If climate impacts persist with less than ideal adaptive capacity, it is likely that cities, with the promise of job opportunities, education and greater health care access, will be the preferred destination of many migrants. Though climate change is not the only driver of such migration, it is clear that it is playing an increasingly significant role. 

The challenges facing cities as a result of climate migration are daunting and numerous, including the need for significant infrastructure investment and the potential for exacerbation of existing urban poverty and other precarious living conditions. It is therefore unsurprising that a growing number of municipalities, both in the developed and developing world, are coming together to discuss and share innovative solutions. 

For example, the C40 cities initiative is a global coalition of nearly 100 mayors representing over 700 million people, with the goal of advancing a Global Green New Deal. At the more micro level, cities and towns of all sizes are taking steps to reduce emissions, diversify their economies, expand green space, improve air quality, and address the threat of sea level rise. While such progress stands to benefit large swaths of urban dwellers, it is particularly important for low-income and newly arrived migrants, whether from elsewhere in the country or from further afield. In some cases, these urban solutions are actually being implemented by migrants themselves. For example, migrants have played a major role in rebuilding after major hurricanes in the US, even as many of them suffer from precarious legal status and a history of discriminatory environmental policies.

Beyond this particular example, precisely who benefits from municipal climate policy is a major issue that will require greater attention from urban planners, council members, and financiers moving forward. A failure to do so will result in continued inequality and unnecessary suffering. 

One major issue that cities face in designing and implementing climate policy is what has come to be known as climate gentrification. Popularized by research out of Harvard, the term refers to the process by which, as climate change makes some areas of cities more desirable than others, those with the luxury of choice will tend to move to higher ground or otherwise less vulnerable areas. This contributes to raised housing prices and costs of living that could lead to displacement of existing residents. We discussed this issue in the context of Miami in the below SPOTLIGHT piece earlier this year. In that particular situation, a redevelopment project in the Little Haiti neighborhood meant to draw tourism and investment raised fears of rising rents for the already struggling poor and working class residents, many of whom are already immigrants and refugees.

If left unchecked, how wealthy, privileged, and well-connected residents of a city respond to climate change has the potential to create what human rights and international law scholar Philip Alston has called a ‘climate apartheid’ scenario: the rich escape the negative impacts of climate change - from severe heat to food insecurity and conflict - with poor and minority communities left to suffer.

It is clear that solutions are needed to combat climate gentrification and other threats to equity, especially as climate change continues at an alarming pace. Given cities’ role at the forefront of climate policy, it makes sense to focus on municipal and other local-level tools. City planners and government officials must consider climate gentrification when developing all new policy, from master plans and zoning ordinances to how waste is handled, in order to ensure that low-income and working class residents have safe places to live, work, and recreate, no matter what happens in the future. 

There are a few key strategies cities should employ in order to limit climate gentrification and promote equity. For one, more and better data is needed. Studies must measure the impacts of climate gentrification on neighborhoods to better inform policy. Another major component is perhaps the most obvious one: significant investment in housing and other areas. What is less talked about is how important it is that such investment does not burden the low-income communities that would be displaced by gentrification. For example, using tourism revenue or bonds to fund investment instead of tax revenue. 

Closely related to addressing climate gentrification and other climate-driven inequities is incorporating climate and environmental justice into municipal policy, ideally in a whole-of-government approach. Some cities have shown a willingness to do just that, such as Providence, Rhode Island’s recent resolution committing it to anti-racism, which we highlighted this summer in the below SPOTLIGHT. Importantly, the Providence resolution recognizes that climate change impacts marginalized communities disproportionately, an issue at the center of climate gentrification. More cities should follow Providence’s lead, though it is important to remember that resolutions must be just the first step.

With climate change already contributing to migration, often to cities, there is an urgent need to ensure that systems are in place now to allow for the movement of people with dignity and respect for human rights. In particular, treating severe weather events that displace people as simply episodic must give way to a more comprehensive understanding of climate migration to and within cities. Only through the latter approach, which includes addressing issues of inequity and gentrification, will policymakers have the chance to “keep cities and neighborhoods resilient for everyone.” (New Security Beat, The Guardian, Vox, National Geographic, Quartz)