We’ve already got climate refugees from countrys. Hell, a large part (probably not the only issue) of the Syrian civil war can be traced to water issues.
I would argue this is more because those places don’t have a stable, organized, and well-resourced efforts to adapt to the changes we’re experiencing.
A lot of this comes back to foreign military intervention, lack of democracy, and unequal distribution of resources more than which place is better or worse to live in a climatological sense.
California has also suffered from extreme drought in recent years, but this did not result in a refugee crisis because we have an extremely sophisticated water distribution system, we were able to effectively do rationing, and because we had the ability to import food as needed.
I think focusing on building institutions that can help communities adapt in place is going to be a way better strategy than identifying the one place on earth that is most suitable for human habitation and trying to have everyone move there. There may be some places that become truly uninhabitable, especially as things progress farther but we’re not there yet with maybe some very small exceptions—mainly coastal erosion and very low-lying islands.
A lot of this comes back to foreign military intervention, lack of democracy, and unequal distribution of resources more than which place is better or worse to live in a climatological sense.
The anger that is created when difficult decision of who gets to eat in a famine/drought situation is an opportunity for that “foreign military intervention” to target uncooperative/unsubordinated regimes. If US/Israel pays you to be an ISIS soldier, and there are no farming jobs, then a soldier you become.
Yes but I don’t think such an outcome is inevitable when faced with these climate challenges. I think it is possible to slow or stop military adventurism if we truly pursue a more democratic and pluralistic world.
Obviously this is a big challenge but it’s part of the task at hand to adapt to climate change. Pursuing peace is as important as pursuing fossil fuel reductions. Famines are actually quite easy to solve in the modern world during peacetime, and building up decentralized resiliency in these vulnerable places during more plentiful times can make a huge impact. Syria was vulnerable already before the famine because of its oppressive government and because of the actions and stances of world powers who wanted to use it as a proxy for their own conflicts.
I think it is possible to slow or stop military adventurism if we truly pursue a more democratic and pluralistic world.
Democracy, as approved by US, is easiest vector to install US puppet in a country. Everyone knows Crimea democratic referendum was invalid because CIA told you it was. All of the countries that the US celebrates as strong democracies are in favour of war on Russia, and future war on China. They celebrate the strengthening of democracy provided by Nordstream terrorist act.
Maybe, a more pluralist process in Syria would have resulted in a non ISIS/Al Quada US puppet ruler. But a US puppet would still have more corruption profit opportunities.
A more pluralist world starts with the US, and then an outdome where the US empire, does not oppress its population with its warmongering/militarism/Isreael genocide. Pluralism in general usually means freedom of women/sexuality. In Syria, Bashad provided this far more than expected Islamist rule will.
Pursuing peace is as important as pursuing fossil fuel reductions.
They go hand in hand. You cannot have influence over Russia’s climate cooperation if you are threatening to destroy/balkanize it. The massive diesel use, and terrorist strikes on its oil refineries, funds our own climate terrorist lobbyists to fund winning climate terrorist candidates. If war is necessary, then obviously nothing else matters relative to war.
Famines are actually quite easy to solve in the modern world during peacetime, and building up decentralized resiliency in these vulnerable places during more plentiful times can make a huge impac
An “arm of war” is sanctions. Venezuela and Syria sanctions fuel immigration which fuels right wing climate terrorist electioneering anger.
You seem to be arguing against a position I don’t hold. Neither the US not Russia nor their respective proxies have the type of democracy and local resiliency I’m advocating for. Deconstructing and perhaps, yes, even Balkanizing these imperial powers would be a step forward, though I think it will be best if this is done internally rather than by external powers. This too easily slides into factional conflict and imperialism rather than the far more winnable and liberatory conflict of people vs the elites.
Syria was a very complex situation but the best outcome I think would have been the success of the early revolutionary movement before it devolved into civil war. Perhaps there is a chance this can be revived if the new government is less repressive than Assad but I’m not too optimistic. Unfortunately, people there are tired of war and may choose the easiest path of hoping that the new government will treat people well without a need for organized resistance. But I do not think this is likely as it is the nature of states to consolidate power, and Syrian institutions that could resist this consolidation are currently weak. Once this consolidation is completed a new regime will be born and it will do as it pleases domestically just as all states that lack accountability to the people do.
Balkanizing these imperial powers would be a step forward, though I think it will be best if this is done internally rather than by external powers. This too easily slides into factional conflict and imperialism rather than the far more winnable and liberatory conflict of people vs the elites.
It is a nice sentiment, but Assad government, nevermind US government, has enough power to suppress organic wishes for liberalization, and Assad rulership had a lot of liberal pluses, despite not being pro Israel/US enough for US to tolerate his rule. There were no easy solutions to famine/drought.
We’ve already got climate refugees from countrys. Hell, a large part (probably not the only issue) of the Syrian civil war can be traced to water issues.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-water-to-blame-for-the-conflict-in-syria-72513729/
I would argue this is more because those places don’t have a stable, organized, and well-resourced efforts to adapt to the changes we’re experiencing.
A lot of this comes back to foreign military intervention, lack of democracy, and unequal distribution of resources more than which place is better or worse to live in a climatological sense.
California has also suffered from extreme drought in recent years, but this did not result in a refugee crisis because we have an extremely sophisticated water distribution system, we were able to effectively do rationing, and because we had the ability to import food as needed.
I think focusing on building institutions that can help communities adapt in place is going to be a way better strategy than identifying the one place on earth that is most suitable for human habitation and trying to have everyone move there. There may be some places that become truly uninhabitable, especially as things progress farther but we’re not there yet with maybe some very small exceptions—mainly coastal erosion and very low-lying islands.
The anger that is created when difficult decision of who gets to eat in a famine/drought situation is an opportunity for that “foreign military intervention” to target uncooperative/unsubordinated regimes. If US/Israel pays you to be an ISIS soldier, and there are no farming jobs, then a soldier you become.
Yes but I don’t think such an outcome is inevitable when faced with these climate challenges. I think it is possible to slow or stop military adventurism if we truly pursue a more democratic and pluralistic world.
Obviously this is a big challenge but it’s part of the task at hand to adapt to climate change. Pursuing peace is as important as pursuing fossil fuel reductions. Famines are actually quite easy to solve in the modern world during peacetime, and building up decentralized resiliency in these vulnerable places during more plentiful times can make a huge impact. Syria was vulnerable already before the famine because of its oppressive government and because of the actions and stances of world powers who wanted to use it as a proxy for their own conflicts.
Democracy, as approved by US, is easiest vector to install US puppet in a country. Everyone knows Crimea democratic referendum was invalid because CIA told you it was. All of the countries that the US celebrates as strong democracies are in favour of war on Russia, and future war on China. They celebrate the strengthening of democracy provided by Nordstream terrorist act.
Maybe, a more pluralist process in Syria would have resulted in a non ISIS/Al Quada US puppet ruler. But a US puppet would still have more corruption profit opportunities.
A more pluralist world starts with the US, and then an outdome where the US empire, does not oppress its population with its warmongering/militarism/Isreael genocide. Pluralism in general usually means freedom of women/sexuality. In Syria, Bashad provided this far more than expected Islamist rule will.
They go hand in hand. You cannot have influence over Russia’s climate cooperation if you are threatening to destroy/balkanize it. The massive diesel use, and terrorist strikes on its oil refineries, funds our own climate terrorist lobbyists to fund winning climate terrorist candidates. If war is necessary, then obviously nothing else matters relative to war.
An “arm of war” is sanctions. Venezuela and Syria sanctions fuel immigration which fuels right wing climate terrorist electioneering anger.
You seem to be arguing against a position I don’t hold. Neither the US not Russia nor their respective proxies have the type of democracy and local resiliency I’m advocating for. Deconstructing and perhaps, yes, even Balkanizing these imperial powers would be a step forward, though I think it will be best if this is done internally rather than by external powers. This too easily slides into factional conflict and imperialism rather than the far more winnable and liberatory conflict of people vs the elites.
Syria was a very complex situation but the best outcome I think would have been the success of the early revolutionary movement before it devolved into civil war. Perhaps there is a chance this can be revived if the new government is less repressive than Assad but I’m not too optimistic. Unfortunately, people there are tired of war and may choose the easiest path of hoping that the new government will treat people well without a need for organized resistance. But I do not think this is likely as it is the nature of states to consolidate power, and Syrian institutions that could resist this consolidation are currently weak. Once this consolidation is completed a new regime will be born and it will do as it pleases domestically just as all states that lack accountability to the people do.
It is a nice sentiment, but Assad government, nevermind US government, has enough power to suppress organic wishes for liberalization, and Assad rulership had a lot of liberal pluses, despite not being pro Israel/US enough for US to tolerate his rule. There were no easy solutions to famine/drought.
Your 2nd paragraph is spot on.