In the article Big polluters, small island states clash on climate change, the Voice of America (VOA) claimed that climate change threatens the survival of Pacific island nations due to sea-level rise and that they should be compensated by other countries who are said to be the major drivers of climate change, such as the United States. [emphasis, links added]
This claim is false and lacks any scientific support.
Data refutes any claims made by island nations that they are losing land to rising seas.
VOA notes:
Nearly 100 countries and more than a dozen intergovernmental organizations are set to give evidence across two weeks of legal proceedings that began on Monday and ends December 13. The judges are expected to give their legal opinion sometime next year.
…
The judges’ opinion is advisory and won’t be legally binding.
The recent proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have brought to the forefront claims by small island nations that rising sea levels, attributed to climate change, threaten their very existence.
These nations seek to hold major polluting countries legally accountable for the alleged damages. However, a closer examination of the scientific evidence and observable realities challenges the foundation of these claims.
Many Pacific islands are atolls—ring-shaped coral reefs encircling lagoons. Contrary to the narrative of inevitable submersion, atolls have demonstrated a remarkable ability to adapt to changing sea levels.
Research indicates that these landforms can grow and adjust in response to environmental changes. A study published in Nature Communications found that 88.6% of Tuvalu’s islands remained stable or increased in size over recent decades, despite rising sea levels.
The New York Times (NYT) recently posted an article, titled “A Surprising Climate Find,” which explains how island nations like Kiribati, Maldives, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu are not, in fact, in danger of sinking under the seas due to climate change.
This is true; a fact that Climate Realism has repeatedly discussed. Atolls in particular are known to grow with rising water levels, this has been known for years if not decades.
Climate at a Glance: Islands and Sea Level Rise also confirms the fact that Tuvalu in particular is often a poster child for islands supposedly threatened by sea-level rise, noting “eight of Tuvalu’s nine large coral atolls have grown in size during recent decades, and 75 percent of Tuvalu’s 101 smaller reef islands have increased as well.”
This expansion is due to natural processes where coral debris and sediment accumulate, enabling atolls to maintain their landmass. Put simply, the assertion that these islands are inevitably sinking lacks scientific support.
Another argument being made before the court is the concept of “climate refugees” from sinking islands, which is often cited in discussions about climate change impacts.
However, there is a notable absence of documented cases where populations have been displaced solely due to sea-level rise.
For instance, despite concerns, Tuvalu’s population has not been forced to evacuate en masse, rather it and other similarly situated island nations’ populations have grown. When migration from these islands occurs, it is driven by economic opportunities rather than environmental factors.
Contrary to the portrayal of Pacific island nations as being on the brink of disappearance, many are actively investing in infrastructure to boost tourism—a sector incompatible with the notion of imminent submersion.
The absence of climate refugees and the active expansion of tourism infrastructure further challenge the narrative of imminent existential threat.
Fiji, for example, has experienced a surge in tourism, leading to the development of new resorts and the expansion of existing ones. The InterContinental Hotels Group is expanding its presence in Fiji, with new projects in areas like Nadi, the islands, and Suva.
Similarly, other Pacific nations such as Kiribati, are enhancing their tourism infrastructure, such as building hotels and improving airports, indicating the confidence they have in their long-term viability.
This trend suggests that these countries do not perceive an existential threat from sea-level rise, as such investments would be imprudent if submersion by sea-level rise were imminent.
The push to hold so-called polluters legally accountable for the alleged impacts of climate change on small island nations is legally unsupportable. Climate change isn’t harming the islands, a necessary component of any legal claim.
In addition, the United States argued during the ICJ hearings that international human rights law does not obligate states to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions nor provides for a human right to a healthy environment.
This stance underscores the challenges in attributing specific environmental changes to the actions of individual nations, given the multifaceted nature of climate dynamics.
The concerns of small island nations regarding climate change seem to be more about extracting money from wealthier nations, as the scientific evidence suggests that many Pacific atolls are not only surviving but adapting and growing.
The absence of climate refugees and the active expansion of tourism infrastructure further challenge the narrative of imminent existential threat.
Therefore, the basis for legal action against developed countries appears tenuous, as the purported damages lack clear and direct causation linked to their actions.
In light of these facts, it appears that the lawsuits being pushed are little more than a legal shake-down by using the alarmist narratives about climate change-induced sea-level rise to win a case that actually has no basis in fact or law.
Even if the case should be ruled in favor of the island nations, they have no way to enforce the “advisory” ruling against other nations, rendering the outcome essentially toothless.
Top photo by Monika MG on Unsplash
Read more at Climate Realism
