These sources provided background and insights

Klimaflucht-Narrativ ist faktisch falsch

NZZ am Sonntag

by Manuel Stark on December 24, 2024

Let’s start with Freihardt’s four key points: 

• Most people stay put, even when conditions worsen. And when they do move, they usually stay close to home.

• Social ties and local identity are strong reasons to stay rooted.

• Long-distance migration (especially to the Global North) is out of financial reach for most. It’s simply too expensive. 

• What we often call “climate migration” is more accurately economic migration. It’s deepening inequality —not the climate event itself — that pushes people to leave.

Freihardt makes an uncomfortable but important point: if we want fewer people to migrate, we need to make staying a viable option. And that starts with reducing inequality. 

While reading, I couldn’t help but think of direct cash transfers. Social Income doesn’t exist to prevent migration — but it does exist to support people where they are, and that mission has ripple effects.

By putting money directly into the hands of those in vulnerable areas, we help stabilize lives before displacement becomes inevitable. Cash enables people to stay: not because they’re stuck, but because they have a real choice.

Direct cash transfers are more than poverty relief. They’re a climate adaptation tool. They help people rebuild after disasters, invest in resilience, or simply get by. And they reinforce Freihardt’s insight: people deeply want to stay connected to their communities — even in crisis. Often, they do stay. But only when they can.

Migration is complex. But at its core, it’s usually about one thing: the pursuit of a better life. If we’re serious about tackling the root causes of displacement, then direct cash transfers are one of the smartest, most humane strategies we’ve got. They let people act before they’re forced to move.

Wouldn’t you stay, too, if you had the means to rebuild?