It won’t be long before climate change starts causing mass migrations and the associated conflicts. With the current unstable world order we could really do without another massive problem.

▲

grumbelbart2 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Some say it was a factor in Syria as well:

https://www.dw.com/en/how-climate-change-paved-the-way-to-wa...

▲

jmward01 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Arguably Iran is seeing turmoil, at least partially, due to drought.

https://www.npr.org/2025/08/17/nx-s1-5500318/iranian-officia...

▲

baxtr 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But the drought was not caused by climate change, but by mismanagement ie complete neglect of the problem.

▲

pmezard an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Is not climate change mismanagement or complete neglect of the problem?

	▲	schainks an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Iran specifically had infrastructure in place to help manage the water for Tehran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat). The Ayatollahs not only _destroyed_ that infrastructure and the system of humans needed to maintain it, but they also encouraged pumping of water from local aquifers, among other obviously stupid water management techniques: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/khomeini... So, you are right, but in Iran's case, the current regime pretty much did the opposite of anything you should have done, while also chopping of their hands to do anything more.
	▲	baxtr an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Absolutely. But the problems are on different time scales and spheres of influence. Iran can’t do anything on their own against climate change. But they can decide to fund water projects instead of bombs. It’s a bit like saying: I went to the beach for a day and got sunburned. It’s climate change! Yes the sun got more intense because of climate change (maybe) but why didn’t you buy an umbrella or sun screen?

▲

energy123 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Monocausality is quite the assertion.

▲

baxtr an hour ago | parent [-]

First of all, usually "and" denotes at least two separate things.

Second mismanagement is a super broad term showing failure on all levels of the state.

It’s definitely not monocausal but the effect many years of utter betrayal of their own people.

▲

energy123 an hour ago | parent [-]

I agree with those causes. But climate change is also a cause. It magnifies the consequences of mismanagement, reducing the luxury incompetence margin that an equally incompetent theocrat/autocrat could have relied on 30 years ago.

As climate change gets worse in the future, the margin for error will keep shrinking. More countries will start to experience similar problems. Only the most competent will survive, but eventually regional instability will attack the foundations of that state capacity as a contagion byproduct, making it harder to be the competent outlier.

This all becomes a push driver for migration towards the colder north, as the equator becomes progressively destabilized and uninhabitable. Not only water shortages in dry climates but wet-bulb temperatures in temperate climates that make existing outdoors dangerous for periods of the year.

▲

baxtr an hour ago | parent [-]

Yes I agree that climate change is a huge problem but it doesn’t release the leaders of a country of their responsibility to mitigate the effects wherever possible.

▲

maest 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

This argument is particularly pernicious as it can, in it's general form, always deflect from the issues of climate change and always focus on blaming local governments.

This is what will happen in the future btw - climate change will apply pressure via famine and droughts, but the fallout will always be attributed to the failure of local governments to correctly "manage the change".

We'll go from "climate change is a hoax" to "climate change is just a given and it's your duty to manage it".

	▲	baxtr 21 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I don’t man. It sounds as if you don’t want to answer a simple question and instead like to wander into theoretical thought experiments. The case here is very simple: invest in infrastructure for your people or invest in bombs to attack foreign states. And you’re saying it’s climate change? I’d like to live in your world.
	▲	sieabahlpark 25 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

Y-bar an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Arguably the climate change we see today (and will see in the future) is also largely caused by mismanagement and complete neglect of the problem.

▲

magicalhippo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I recall reading about a paper in SciAm or American Scientist a couple of decades ago, where they had trained a ML model to predict regional conflicts or civil wars. The main input was scarcity of food, mainly through price IIRC.

They trained it on historical data up to the 90s or so, and had it predict the "future" up to the time of the article. And as I recall it did very well. They even included some actual near-future predictions as well which also turned out pretty accurately as I recall.

Which I suppose isn't a huge surprise after all. People don't like to starve.

▲

schainks an hour ago | parent [-]

Link?

	▲	zweifuss 37 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		https://homerdixon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Environmen...
	▲	magicalhippo 36 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		My memory isn't good enough to recall the name of the paper, however doing some searching I see the field has not stood still. Here[1] is an example of a more recent paper where they've included more variables. A quote from the conclusions: The closest natural resource–society interaction to predict conflict risk according to our models was food production within its economic and demographic context, e.g., with GDP per capita, unemployment, infant mortality and youth bulge. [1]: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/16/6574

▲

chii 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

while the drought was the last straw, i think the mismanagement of their water resources by the regime (for embezzlement of public funds, direct or indirect, into insider pockets etc) is the true root cause. There's "enough" water to last thru the current drought, if it was better utilized in the past.

▲

rob74 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That, plus decades of mismanagement and corruption...

▲

_ink_ 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am really puzzled that this topic is not present in the public discourse.

▲

mvdwoord 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

Not sure, but I have heard that more than plenty in public discourse (NL / W-Eur) and even the repeated blatant lies about the 2015 wave of migration to be due to climate change.

	▲	grumbelbart2 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Climate change was likely a factor in 2015. https://www.dw.com/en/how-climate-change-paved-the-way-to-wa... > even the repeated blatant lies It is difficult to have a reasonable discourse when starting with such overkill positions. The topic is way too nuanced. The civil war in Syria had many reasons, political, economic, religious, but also environmental. Climate change massively increases the risk on water supply and harvesting yields, and if that risk manifests in a situation where people are already unhappy due to other reasons, it can be the trigger for large-scale reactions. With all that having many factors, you'll rarely be able to point to one thing as "the" cause. That does not make it less relevant, though.

▲

netsharc 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Are you writing from e.g. 2008? In 2010 Russian forest fires caused grain shortages and the price to go up, creating the Arab Spring and including the start of the Syrian civil war. That caused a wave of refugees that peaked in 2015. That caused the rise of right wing racist populism in Europe...

	▲	fleroviumna an hour ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]