2 ms·
But that hasn't happened. These people did not lose land from "extreme meteorological events". They simply exhausted the stored fertility in the soil, and it
by deialtrous 8y ago
But that hasn't happened. These people did not lose land from "extreme meteorological events". They simply exhausted the stored fertility in the soil, and it is cheaper to burn another chunk of forest than it is to purchase fertilizer. A hypothetical scenario that could happen in the future does not explain the actual scenario that the article we're discussing is about.
- kalenx 8y agoFalse dilemma. Of course over exploiting arable lands contribute to this problem. But it does not mean it is the only cause. You'll have a hard time in this world if you believe that every problem has a single source...
- deialtrous 8y agoIt isn't a false dilemma. You are proposing that climate change is the cause. You provide no evidence, the article does not support your claim, I can find nothing that supports your claim, and the existing explanation fits the observations. You can't simply say "it isn't the accepted cause, it is actually climate change because I say so, and if you don't prove it is 100% not climate change then it is climate change". That's just silly. You have to prove it is climate change.