8 ms·

My baseless prediction: A major conflict will be fought in the next 20 years over a direct "environmental pollution" disagreement. I used the word "direct" be

My baseless prediction: A major conflict will be fought in the next 20 years over a direct "environmental pollution" disagreement. I used the word "direct" because there have no doubt been many conflicts that involve environmental concerns, mainly about resource protection.

redis_mlc 6y ago
Try 5 years. The CCP is diverting the Himalayan headwaters to Xinjiang from several neighbors, including India and Pakistan. Half of their populations rely on that water.
- caymanjim 6y ago
  That's not environmental pollution, but you're not wrong about the potential for conflict. War could erupt between Egypt and Ethiopia at the drop of a hat over the GERD. Usually cooler heads prevail, but water is going to displace oil as the primary driver of resource wars. Arguably it already has, but we're simply in a resource war lull for the moment.
  - 0_____0 6y ago
    I had to look up GERD. This refers to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, an under-construction hydropower dam on the Nile that is controversial due to its potential negative effects on Egypt's water access.
    - Robotbeat 6y ago
      I mean ideally, the Nile would be made navigable all the way up there, allowing Egypt to benefit from Ethiopian trade (as Ethiopia is landlocked).
      - Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
        Ethiopia will boom in the next decade. It houses many institutions of the African Union and Addis Abbaba is the sister city of both Bejing and Washington.
    - ouid 6y ago
      I know it as gastro-esophageal reflux disease, so I'm glad you commented with this clarification
      - cperciva 6y ago
        The dam project is causing a lot of heartburn, so you weren't far off either...
  - rjsw 6y ago
    Turkey, Syria and Iraq are other candidates.
- peteretep 6y ago
  Or US bases start popping up all over ASEAN due to water rights on the mainland or fishing rights on the archipelago
Waterluvian 6y ago
I've always felt these things to be true, and understood the logic, but for some reason this is the immediate moment I had an emotional reaction to it and feel very anxious that indeed something needs to be done. Population is growing. There are limited resources. One day someone's going to dam up someone else's water and wars will be fought. I'm optimistic that technology AND population control can save us.
- mlyle 6y ago
  > One day someone's going to dam up someone else's water and wars will be fought. One day? Not a major conflict, but still... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_over_Water_(Jordan_river) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_over_Water_(Jordan_river)
- spawarotti 6y ago
  > After the Russian annexation of Crimea during the 2014 Crimean crisis, Ukrainian authorities greatly cut the volume of water flowing into Crimea via the canal, citing a huge outstanding debt on water supplies owed by the peninsula. When the Russian government offered to pay the debt, the Ukrainian government refused. This caused the peninsula's agricultural harvest which is heavily dependent on irrigation to fail in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#2014_Crimean_crisis_and_after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#2014_Crime... A video with some narrative around it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqq8clIceys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqq8clIceys
- kleton 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ethiopian_Renaissance_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ethiopian_Renaissance_Da...
- camgunz 6y ago
  Is there a population control policy that isn't just, terrifying or deeply harmful to lower income / poor people?
  - maxerickson 6y ago
tehchromic 6y ago
I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. These two can appear to be the same thing especially when it's impossible to separate the resource from the status it symbolizes in the conflicted parties. Add it's often the practical case, in which case war is inevitable. For this reason I like the project of ecological wealth-making as a planetary concern and a sort of pan-cultural tonic. I'm not sure it can apply in time to these particular cases - if someone takes your water, that's a fight. But I do think it's really the only global solution to resource wars. And it's a problem with both a technical and aesthetic solutions. Not gonna be easy tho.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  > I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. You're not exactly wrong about status and its perception, but it's more nuanced. Japan in WW2 wanted to colonize Asia for resources, but they were also not happy with their treatment by the Allies after WW1. And Germany in WW2 did invade Norway for iron ore, and wanted Alsace back. And then the Treaty of Versailles. But when somebody takes your water, that is mainly a resource issue. And dams are fragile.
  - tehchromic 6y ago
    Agreed. My point tho is not that mercenary interests are not willing to go to war to exploit resources, it's that the their interest in those resources has more to do with their persuit of status than with an underlying need for resources.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      That's not true in the cases I mentioned. Germany and Japan needed those resources, not status. In the case of the Himalayan headwaters, China and all of its neighbors need the same water.
- tshaddox 6y ago
  > I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. Couldn't it be that the wars are actually fought over resources, but are sold to the public of all involved countries (including the historians and philosophers) as being about status?
ISL 6y ago
I suspect that the conflicts will be mostly-economic. If enough countries can get together to form a carbon-taxation bloc, they can begin to impose duties upon countries and companies that don't participate. Barring a quantum leap in technology, it is a social innovation like that one that might allow us to successfully address the climate crisis. From a climate/environmental perspective, I believe one of the worst things that can happen is a global-scale war. When short-term survival is threatened, countries will think little of devastating natural reserves and cutting through environmental protections.
- hntrader 6y ago
  That's a very interesting resolution to the tragedy of the commons issue that heterogeneous state actors face. As long as you have a bloc sufficiently large enough that's willing to impose import duties on non-complying countries, then you've effectively brought everyone along for the ride.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The Transatlantic Slave Trade was shut down largely by the UK unilaterally declaring it illegal (although this was done in the context of the US planning on doing so as well), and then sending in its navy to force other countries to also agree to ban slave trading or seize ships that were violating it.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  > If enough countries can get together to form a carbon-taxation bloc, they can begin to impose duties upon countries and companies that don't participate. This is the only way humans will ever beat climate change. It'll work because as soon as that bloc is operational, the bloc can charge ultra high tariffs for importing carbon-including goods. Supposedly those will cover the fact the amount of embedded carbon is hard to measure, but actually because it benefits all the countries in the bloc to overestimate the carbon of imports to the detriment of countries outside the bloc. I predict that as soon as such a bloc is near to formation, politics will move super fast and within a few years dramatic economic changes will occur because no country wants to be last to get an invite to the bloc (and the more countries join, the more stringent joining requirements will become).
KirillPanov 6y ago
Indeed. There are a lot of countries, some with very large militaries, who will not hesitate to choose war over economic stagnation. The most vocal about climate change seem to think this isn't their problem.
ForHackernews 6y ago
Plenty of wars have been fought throughout history for stupider reasons.
jnurmine 6y ago
I'd predict a slightly different viewpoint, though also related to the environment. If the circular economy and recycling of expired electronic devices back into raw materials cannot be solved in a satisfactory way, the next wars will be fought over the control of the deposits of various strategic minerals like PGMs and rare earths. This will be even more important once nations and supranational entitites start increasing their strategic capability in e.g. chip fabrication. To be clear, I don't mean WWII firebombing of Dresden level of war-making. I mean war as in grayzone "separatist"/"freedom fighter" vibe with the eventual "topple the government" actions.
- Qwertious 6y ago
  >If the circular economy and recycling of expired electronic devices back into raw materials cannot be solved in a satisfactory way, the next wars will be fought over the control of the deposits of various strategic minerals like PGMs and rare earths. I don't think we're at risk of actually running out of the materials. At least, not overnight. If resources become scarcer then prices go up, which 1) makes recycling more viable as it makes more expensive operations more viable, and 2) encourages companies to more aggressively research alternatives or designs which simply do without the material. The real problem with expired electronic devices is externalities.
jariel 6y ago
Thankfully nobody will ever fight a war of pollution externalizations. Over resources, yes, pollution, no. Economic calamity if pollution directly affects some nation, possibly. Not even as part of an escalation. A war requires a lot of vested interests to 'care' add to that mechanisms for populism. 'ABC is polluting' is not enough of anything. Also, non-market forces that care the most about things like pollution, are the one's that are also least likely to want war, or to put those kinds of cards on the table.

redis_mlc 6y ago

Try 5 years. The CCP is diverting the Himalayan headwaters to Xinjiang from several neighbors, including India and Pakistan. Half of their populations rely on that water.

caymanjim 6y ago
That's not environmental pollution, but you're not wrong about the potential for conflict. War could erupt between Egypt and Ethiopia at the drop of a hat over the GERD. Usually cooler heads prevail, but water is going to displace oil as the primary driver of resource wars. Arguably it already has, but we're simply in a resource war lull for the moment.
- 0_____0 6y ago
  I had to look up GERD. This refers to the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam, an under-construction hydropower dam on the Nile that is controversial due to its potential negative effects on Egypt's water access.
  - Robotbeat 6y ago
    I mean ideally, the Nile would be made navigable all the way up there, allowing Egypt to benefit from Ethiopian trade (as Ethiopia is landlocked).
    - Jon_Lowtek 6y ago
      Ethiopia will boom in the next decade. It houses many institutions of the African Union and Addis Abbaba is the sister city of both Bejing and Washington.
  - ouid 6y ago
    I know it as gastro-esophageal reflux disease, so I'm glad you commented with this clarification
    - cperciva 6y ago
      The dam project is causing a lot of heartburn, so you weren't far off either...
- rjsw 6y ago
  Turkey, Syria and Iraq are other candidates.
peteretep 6y ago
Or US bases start popping up all over ASEAN due to water rights on the mainland or fishing rights on the archipelago

Waterluvian 6y ago

I've always felt these things to be true, and understood the logic, but for some reason this is the immediate moment I had an emotional reaction to it and feel very anxious that indeed something needs to be done. Population is growing. There are limited resources. One day someone's going to dam up someone else's water and wars will be fought. I'm optimistic that technology AND population control can save us.

mlyle 6y ago
> One day someone's going to dam up someone else's water and wars will be fought. One day? Not a major conflict, but still... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_over_Water_(Jordan_river) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_over_Water_(Jordan_river)
spawarotti 6y ago
> After the Russian annexation of Crimea during the 2014 Crimean crisis, Ukrainian authorities greatly cut the volume of water flowing into Crimea via the canal, citing a huge outstanding debt on water supplies owed by the peninsula. When the Russian government offered to pay the debt, the Ukrainian government refused. This caused the peninsula's agricultural harvest which is heavily dependent on irrigation to fail in 2014. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#2014_Crimean_crisis_and_after https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Crimean_Canal#2014_Crime... A video with some narrative around it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqq8clIceys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aqq8clIceys
kleton 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ethiopian_Renaissance_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ethiopian_Renaissance_Da...
camgunz 6y ago
Is there a population control policy that isn't just, terrifying or deeply harmful to lower income / poor people?
- maxerickson 6y ago

tehchromic 6y ago

I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. These two can appear to be the same thing especially when it's impossible to separate the resource from the status it symbolizes in the conflicted parties. Add it's often the practical case, in which case war is inevitable. For this reason I like the project of ecological wealth-making as a planetary concern and a sort of pan-cultural tonic. I'm not sure it can apply in time to these particular cases - if someone takes your water, that's a fight. But I do think it's really the only global solution to resource wars. And it's a problem with both a technical and aesthetic solutions. Not gonna be easy tho.

redis_mlc 6y ago
> I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. You're not exactly wrong about status and its perception, but it's more nuanced. Japan in WW2 wanted to colonize Asia for resources, but they were also not happy with their treatment by the Allies after WW1. And Germany in WW2 did invade Norway for iron ore, and wanted Alsace back. And then the Treaty of Versailles. But when somebody takes your water, that is mainly a resource issue. And dams are fragile.
- tehchromic 6y ago
  Agreed. My point tho is not that mercenary interests are not willing to go to war to exploit resources, it's that the their interest in those resources has more to do with their persuit of status than with an underlying need for resources.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    That's not true in the cases I mentioned. Germany and Japan needed those resources, not status. In the case of the Himalayan headwaters, China and all of its neighbors need the same water.
tshaddox 6y ago
> I like this topic especially with the theory that wars are never fought over resources, they are always fought over status. Couldn't it be that the wars are actually fought over resources, but are sold to the public of all involved countries (including the historians and philosophers) as being about status?

ISL 6y ago

I suspect that the conflicts will be mostly-economic. If enough countries can get together to form a carbon-taxation bloc, they can begin to impose duties upon countries and companies that don't participate. Barring a quantum leap in technology, it is a social innovation like that one that might allow us to successfully address the climate crisis. From a climate/environmental perspective, I believe one of the worst things that can happen is a global-scale war. When short-term survival is threatened, countries will think little of devastating natural reserves and cutting through environmental protections.

hntrader 6y ago
That's a very interesting resolution to the tragedy of the commons issue that heterogeneous state actors face. As long as you have a bloc sufficiently large enough that's willing to impose import duties on non-complying countries, then you've effectively brought everyone along for the ride.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  The Transatlantic Slave Trade was shut down largely by the UK unilaterally declaring it illegal (although this was done in the context of the US planning on doing so as well), and then sending in its navy to force other countries to also agree to ban slave trading or seize ships that were violating it.
londons_explore 6y ago
> If enough countries can get together to form a carbon-taxation bloc, they can begin to impose duties upon countries and companies that don't participate. This is the only way humans will ever beat climate change. It'll work because as soon as that bloc is operational, the bloc can charge ultra high tariffs for importing carbon-including goods. Supposedly those will cover the fact the amount of embedded carbon is hard to measure, but actually because it benefits all the countries in the bloc to overestimate the carbon of imports to the detriment of countries outside the bloc. I predict that as soon as such a bloc is near to formation, politics will move super fast and within a few years dramatic economic changes will occur because no country wants to be last to get an invite to the bloc (and the more countries join, the more stringent joining requirements will become).

KirillPanov 6y ago

Indeed. There are a lot of countries, some with very large militaries, who will not hesitate to choose war over economic stagnation. The most vocal about climate change seem to think this isn't their problem.

ForHackernews 6y ago

Plenty of wars have been fought throughout history for stupider reasons.

jnurmine 6y ago

I'd predict a slightly different viewpoint, though also related to the environment. If the circular economy and recycling of expired electronic devices back into raw materials cannot be solved in a satisfactory way, the next wars will be fought over the control of the deposits of various strategic minerals like PGMs and rare earths. This will be even more important once nations and supranational entitites start increasing their strategic capability in e.g. chip fabrication. To be clear, I don't mean WWII firebombing of Dresden level of war-making. I mean war as in grayzone "separatist"/"freedom fighter" vibe with the eventual "topple the government" actions.

Qwertious 6y ago
>If the circular economy and recycling of expired electronic devices back into raw materials cannot be solved in a satisfactory way, the next wars will be fought over the control of the deposits of various strategic minerals like PGMs and rare earths. I don't think we're at risk of actually running out of the materials. At least, not overnight. If resources become scarcer then prices go up, which 1) makes recycling more viable as it makes more expensive operations more viable, and 2) encourages companies to more aggressively research alternatives or designs which simply do without the material. The real problem with expired electronic devices is externalities.

jariel 6y ago

Thankfully nobody will ever fight a war of pollution externalizations. Over resources, yes, pollution, no. Economic calamity if pollution directly affects some nation, possibly. Not even as part of an escalation. A war requires a lot of vested interests to 'care' add to that mechanisms for populism. 'ABC is polluting' is not enough of anything. Also, non-market forces that care the most about things like pollution, are the one's that are also least likely to want war, or to put those kinds of cards on the table.