5 ms·

I agree with you, but climate change isn't the casus belli here. It's more of the buildup of tinder that gets sparked by the proverbial assassination of an Arch

I agree with you, but climate change isn't the casus belli here. It's more of the buildup of tinder that gets sparked by the proverbial assassination of an Archduke. Examples of this recently are the Arab Spring and Syrian Civil War. The US didn't become involved in Syria because of climate change - rather climate change caused the conditions for the conflict to erupt, and at the time, it made sense for the US to deploy ground troops and get involved in that conflict as it aligned with foreign policy goals in the region. With Bangladesh, you essentially have (edit:) 160 million people in a country where a third of it floods each year. Tens of millions on floodplains at sea level. Their political, ethnic, and religious borders are historically tense. When sea levels rise it will displace many of those people into Northern India, and possibly southern China. The question to ask is what will the political response from the regional powers be when this happens? And how does it affect US goals in the region? What foreign policy tools will be available to realize those goals? This report points to the idea that the US military will not be one of them, which means if conflict erupts the US will be on the sidelines. Whether or not that's a good thing is impossible to predict.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> The US didn't become involved in Syria because of climate change - rather climate change caused the conditions for the conflict to erupt The Syrian conflict has nothing to do with climate change. There has been longstanding discontent among the Syrian population with the Assad family, namely 1) like his father, Bashar al-Assad is a dictator with a secret police that is quite nosy and bothersome in Syrians’ everyday lives, and 2) Assad comes from a minority sect of Islam that most Syrians are not sympathetic to (and he has given important positions and financial opportunities to other members of his minority sect). The country was already a powder keg of sorts, and gradual radicalization of the Muslim population and social media lit the match. Then, once the conflict broke out, the Syrian regime began forcibly conscripting Syrian young men to fight on the regime’s side. This was not an attractive prospect, to say the least, and so a lot of them began to flee the country, joining those who were forced out by the fighting itself, and some of them took up arms against the regime.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago

> The US didn't become involved in Syria because of climate change - rather climate change caused the conditions for the conflict to erupt The Syrian conflict has nothing to do with climate change. There has been longstanding discontent among the Syrian population with the Assad family, namely 1) like his father, Bashar al-Assad is a dictator with a secret police that is quite nosy and bothersome in Syrians’ everyday lives, and 2) Assad comes from a minority sect of Islam that most Syrians are not sympathetic to (and he has given important positions and financial opportunities to other members of his minority sect). The country was already a powder keg of sorts, and gradual radicalization of the Muslim population and social media lit the match. Then, once the conflict broke out, the Syrian regime began forcibly conscripting Syrian young men to fight on the regime’s side. This was not an attractive prospect, to say the least, and so a lot of them began to flee the country, joining those who were forced out by the fighting itself, and some of them took up arms against the regime.