In late January 2020, the UN Human Rights Committee recognized the existence of “climate refugees” in a non-binding ruling, sparking a debate on the moral obligation of industrialized countries to grant asylum to people seeking refuge from life-threatening climate change. Research has shown the link between partisan opposition to diversity and a reluctance to accept responsibility towards refugees and immigrants, but none have tested the effect of framing climate displacement issues on public opinion. Moreover, the literature exploring the links between populism and climate change is in its relative infancy. The present research aims to question the public acceptability of the “climate refugee” label, and highlights the extent to which a public opinion backlash against refugees has rendered this form of asylum-seeking counterproductive. In what ways does labelling climate-displaced people affect support for this new class of refugees? To what extent does the word “refugee” prevent people from accepting climate displaced peoples in their country? This research is based on surveys conducted in Canada – a country known for its relative openness and acceptance of new immigrants – and finds a labelling effect on use of the phrase “climate refugee” as opposed to the less loaded language of “climate displaced peoples.” Overall, results suggest that this label deters public acceptability and is counterproductive for the protection of climate-vulnerable persons. This research contributes to discussions on the governance of “climate refugees” by showing a distinct labelling effect on their public acceptance in Canada, bridging the gap between literatures on public attitudes towards immigration, climate change, and debates on the juridical validity of this new form of asylum-seeking.

Contactez semra.sevi@umontreal.ca pour rejoindre l’atelier sur Zoom.

Organisé par la Chaire de recherche en études électorales et la Chaire de recherche du Canada en démocratie électorale.

DATE : mardi 28 avril, 12h-13h