Final answer:
Hartmann argues that the terms 'environmental refugees' and 'climate refugees' lack legal recognition and depoliticize displacement by framing it as a natural consequence, ignoring the political and economic contributions to the issue.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to Hartmann, the shortcomings of the terms "environmental refugees" and "climate refugees" include their lack of legal recognition and the inherent issues with these definitions. Hartmann suggests that calling individuals 'environmental refugees' or 'climate refugees' can depoliticize the complex reasons behind their displacement. These terms frame the displacement primarily as a natural outcome rather than a consequence of political and economic decisions. By doing so, it omits important socio-economic factors and the role of policy in fostering or mitigating such crises.
This framing can mask the contributions of politically driven factors such as these countries' historical greenhouse gas emissions, unsustainable consumption patterns, and inadequate responses to climate change threats. Instead, applying these labels can improperly simplify the issue to an environmental problem, thus ignoring the responsibility of wealthier nations whose policies and economic activities have significantly contributed to the environmental conditions driving such displacement.
Moreover, focusing merely on the environmental factors without addressing the global inequality, environmental racism, and the unequal impacts of climate change can fail to hold responsible parties accountable. As such, the language around refugees requires careful consideration to ensure that it captures the multi-faceted nature of their plight and does not inadvertently reinforce a narrow, depoliticized understanding of displacement.