While Syria is on the mind of most these days, “climate refugees” have more often been personified through the cases of small island states, most notably Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Carteret Islands. A year ago, The Washington Post asked “Has the Era of the Climate Refugee Begun?” when a Tuvaluan family received residency from New Zealand based on the threat of climate change. Mother Jones asked “What Happens When Your Country Drowns?” of the same country. Similarly, the Guardian published the headline “Pacific nations beg for help for islanders when 'calamity' of climate change hits.”

Past the buzzwords, lies a far more complex story. Scholars such as Carol Farbotko and Heather Lazrus argue that there is “a tendency to discount long histories of ordinary mobility among affected populations. The case of Tuvalu in the Pacific juxtaposes migration as everyday practice with climate refugee narratives.” Indeed, “sinking islands” stories only serve to dehumanize and strip the agency of Pacific islanders.

In reality, Pacific Islanders push back on and outright reject the label of “climate refugee.” They are, in fact, proactive and resilient peoples, searching for their own regional solutions while campaigning for strict mitigation measures. A case in point: “migration with dignity” is a key policy for Tuvalu. As President Anote Tong explained to the Australian Broadcasting Agency, the plan is “to train [migrants], to up-skill them, so that they can be worthwhile citizens when we relocate them as a community, not as refugees.”

Consequently, the term “climate refugee” is far more often used by Western politicians to grab public attention for climate by appealing to the deep-seated fear of mass migration to the North. A recent striking example is that of German Minister for Environment Barbara Hendriks’ comments before leaving for COP21 in Paris: she stated that “climate policy is refugee policy” and that Germany will face a massive refugee movement if climate mitigation is not addressed more actively. She also called for the acknowledgement of “climate refugees” by the UN.

While the intention of Hendriks and others addressing the cause of so-called climate refugees may sound noble, they are problematic. The problem of attribution of environmental causes to migration is ignored. The usage of the clearly defined category refugees under the Geneva Convention is imprecise. The fact is that even those theoretically protected under the current convention (without the broadening to include climate) are facing increasing difficulties to have their rights acknowledged.