What Do You Do When Your Country Disappears?


The pacific island nation of Kiribati is well aware of the looming threats that climate change poses to the small atoll. Increased flooding from storms and rising seas are already problematic for the 100,00 citizens of the nation, or i-Kiribati as they call themselves. A sea-wall improvement project for the country recently cost $2 million, President Anote Tong said at the Cancun climate summit this week.

The nation’s GDP is just $152 million a year—meaning the investment in sea walls is significant for the country. “If we had to cover the whole country, we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars,” said Tong. The republic is made up of 32 atolls and one island, spread over 1.3 million square miles—roughly the size of the United States. Tong has said previously that the government is already considering evacuation plans as another way to deal with the rising seas, which would also come at great cost.

Tong and other island nations, organized within the UN as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and other vulnerable countries have argued for the inclusion of a loss-and-damage plan in the context of an agreement here, one that would cover effects linked to climate change that were not prevented or could not be adapted to. The Cook Islands, on behalf of AOSIS, submitted a proposal that would create an international mechanism to deal with loss and damage, in addition to funding programs for adaptation and mitigation efforts. The provision also calls for assistance in improving risk-reduction assessment and management, and planning for the likely impacts.

The point of the provision is, of course, that even if countries set and follow through on their pledges to cut emissions, the world is still on a path to substantial warming. And that warming is going to have significant effects—sea level rise, loss of glaciers, diminished biodiversity, ocean acidification, and decline of forests. Many of those will have very real economic costs for countries. And that’s before you even get to more dramatic costs like relocating an entire population or rebuilding a village destroyed by a cyclone—or the cost if an island community is someday completely submerged by the sea.

As they note, many of these countries have trouble getting insured for losses, Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa Lupesoliai Sailele Maliegaoi, tells Mother Jones, further increasing the need for an alternative way to deal with potential losses. The country suffered a tsunami in September 2009, which he said caused an estimated $300 million in damage—to a country with an annual GDP of just $567 million. Of course, the tsunami was not caused by climate change, but the island has also faced more frequent cyclones as well. But the events have made insurance premiums exceptionally high for the country, he said. “It is almost impossible even for government to insure its own properties, let alone the damage sustained by a cyclone or by a tsunami,” he said.

The countries at least want the provision included, so that parties can begin assessing what such a mechanism would look like, as well as answer crucial questions like how to determine the extent to which changes or events are directly caused by climate change. Their proposal would start the process of setting up that program, ideally by the next major climate summit in 2011. It’s among their top negotiating priorities—an element they see as critical given the slow movement on plans to cut planet-warming emissions. The proposal could also build some trust that developed countries recognize the situation of the most vulnerable countries, say observers. “Vulnerable countries have been betrayed multiple times, so this is an opportunity for them to get something from the international process in their favor,” says Sandeep Rai, adaptation policy coordinator for the World Wildlife Fund.

The current draft of the agreement includes less firm commitments on the issue than the proposed text AOSIS put forward, noting that the parties should begin engaging stakeholders on the subject, identifying and estimating risk factors, and providing recommendations about how to proceed; it would not necessarily mean that the program would actually be created to start compensating for losses and damages. Developed countries have argued that they should do the assessment before agreeing to set up an actual mechanism, which the text currently reflects.

At this point, though, it does not look likely that a stronger provision will make it into the text here in Cancun. “The science is saying there is an urgency, but it’s hard to move the process in this forum,” said Rai.

Island states argue, though, that assurances that the damage they sustain will be covered is the least developed countries can do. “It’s not about whether it’s convenient to you, it’s about survival,” said Tong. “Here we are trying to survive.”

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate