The concept of 'environmental migration' has gained significant traction in recent decades, yet its definition remains contested. While some scholars argue that environmental factors are rarely the sole cause of displacement, instead acting as a 'threat multiplier' that exacerbates existing social, economic, and political vulnerabilities, others contend that acute events such as floods or droughts can directly trigger mass movement. A key challenge lies in distinguishing between voluntary migration driven by economic opportunity and forced displacement resulting from environmental degradation. Moreover, the term 'climate refugee' is legally imprecise, as the 1951 Refugee Convention does not recognize environmental factors as grounds for asylum. This ambiguity complicates policy responses, leading to calls for a more nuanced framework that acknowledges the complex interplay of drivers behind human mobility.