Tavish wrote:Omaha Red Sox wrote:It's pretty far fetched to tie a climate change to the cause of conflict like Darfur. Sure, it escalated the tensions that already existed, but we're really reaching if we're going to assume it would have been drastically different had Al Gore been doing what he's doing 50 years ago.
It's not far fetched at all. It is actually a widely accepted fact. It is not the sole cause for the conflict, but there is never a single cause for any extended conflict. Helping people adapt to the change in climate is probably the most important step to resolving the conflict.
You both are saying the same thing. Global warming exacerbated a tense situation. Even the first article above agrees with you guys that global warming basically brought years of government neglect to a boiling point:
Chalking the Darfur conflict up to climate change alone would be an oversimplification, argues Eric Reeves, a leading advocate and a professor of English literature at Smith College. "The greater cause, by far, lies in the policies of the current National Islamic Front regime," he said. Marc Lavergne, a researcher with the French National Center for Scientific Research and former head of the Centre D'Etudes et de Documentation Universitaire Scientifique et Technique at the University of Khartoum, agrees. "The problem is not water shortage as such, and water shortages don't necessarily lead to war. The real problem is the lack of agricultural and other development policies to make the best use of available water resources since colonial times."