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

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?

	▲	paganel 3 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> But they can decide to fund water projects instead of bombs. And become again a client state of the West, you forgot that part.

▲

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 37 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 26 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 31 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.