Will Climate Change Lead to Genocide?

[OldLeatherneck]

The Next Genocide
by: By TIMOTHY SNYDER, New York Times Sunday Review, SEPT. 12, 2015

LINK to full article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/13/opinion/sunday/the-next-genocide.html?_r=0

Selected quotes: - My Highlights

Today we think of the Nazi Final Solution as some dark apex of high technology. It was in fact the killing of human beings at close range during a war for resources.....................

The Holocaust may seem a distant horror whose lessons have already been learned. But sadly, the anxieties of our own era could once again give rise to scapegoats and imagined enemies, while contemporary environmental stresses could encourage new variations on Hitler’s ideas,...............

The quest for German domination was premised on the denial of science. Hitler’s alternative to science was the idea of Lebensraum. Germany needed an Eastern European empire because only conquest, and not agricultural technology, offered the hope of feeding the German people. ..........

The pursuit of peace and plenty through science, he claimed in “Mein Kampf,” was a Jewish plot to distract Germans from the necessity of war......................................

As exotic as it sounds, the concept of Lebensraum is less distant from our own ways of thinking than we believe. Germany was blockaded during World War I, dependent on imports of agricultural commodities and faced real uncertainties about its food supply. Hitler transformed these fears into a vision of absolute conquest for total security. Lebensraum linked a war of extermination to the improvement of lifestyle. The chief Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, could therefore define the purpose of a war of extermination as “a big breakfast, a big lunch and a big dinner.” He conflated lifestyle with life.

....................................................................

Climate change threatens to provoke a new ecological panic. So far, poor people in Africa and the Middle East have borne the brunt of the suffering.

The mass murder of at least 500,000 Rwandans in 1994 followed a decline in agricultural production for several years before. Hutus killed Tutsis not only out of ethnic hatred, but to take their land, as many genocidaires later admitted.

In Sudan, drought drove Arabs into the lands of African pastoralists in 2003. The Sudanese government sided with the Arabs and pursued a policy of eliminating the Zaghawa, Masalit and Fur peoples in Darfur and surrounding regions.

Climate change has also brought uncertainties about food supply back to the center of great power politics. China today, like Germany before the war, is an industrial power incapable of feeding its population from its own territory, and is thus dependent on unpredictable international markets.

............................................................

How might such a scenario unfold? China is already leasing a tenth of Ukraine’s arable soil, and buying up food whenever global supplies tighten. During the drought of 2010, Chinese panic buying helped bring bread riots and revolution to the Middle East. The Chinese leadership already regards Africa as a long-term source of food. Although many Africans themselves still go hungry, their continent holds about half of the world’s untilled arable land. Like China, the United Arab Emirates and South Korea are interested in Sudan’s fertile regions — and they have been joined by Japan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in efforts to buy or lease land throughout Africa.

Nations in need of land would likely begin with tactfully negotiated leases or purchases; but under conditions of stress or acute need, such agrarian export zones could become fortified colonies, requiring or attracting violence.

Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science — an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.

.................................

The full consequences of climate change may reach America only decades after warming wreaks havoc in other regions. And by then it will be too late for climate science and energy technology to make any difference. Indeed, by the time the door is open to the demagogy of ecological panic in the United States, Americans will have spent years spreading climate disaster around the world.

THE European Union, by contrast, takes global warming very seriously, but its existence is under threat. As Africa and the Middle East continue to warm and wars rage, economic migrants and war refugees are making perilous journeys to flee to Europe. In response, European populists have called for the strict enforcement of national borders and the end of the union. Many of these populist parties are supported by Russia, which is openly pursuing a divide-and-conquer policy with the aim of bringing about European disintegration.

Russia’s 2014 intervention in Ukraine has already shattered the peaceful order that Europeans had come to take for granted. The Kremlin, which is economically dependent on the export of hydrocarbons to Europe, is now seeking to make gas deals with individual European states one by one in order to weaken European unity and expand its own influence. Meanwhile, President Vladimir V. Putin waxes nostalgic for the 1930s, while Russian nationalists blame gays, cosmopolitans and Jews for antiwar sentiment. None of this bodes well for Europe’s future — or Russia’s.

When mass killing is on the way, it won’t announce itself in the language we are familiar with. The Nazi scenario of 1941 will not reappear in precisely the same form, but several of its causal elements have already begun to assemble.

It is not difficult to imagine ethnic mass murder in Africa, which has already happened; or the triumph of a violent totalitarian strain of Islamism in the parched Middle East; or a Chinese play for resources in Africa or Russia or Eastern Europe that involves removing the people already living there; or a growing global ecological panic if America abandons climate science or the European Union falls apart.

Today we confront the same crucial choice between science and ideology that Germans once faced. Will we accept empirical evidence and support new energy technologies, or allow a wave of ecological panic to spread across the world?

Denying science imperils the future by summoning the ghosts of the past.

In Bangladesh, millions of people have been displaced by floods and the rising sea level.
Credit Kadir van Lohuizen/NOOR, for The New York Times



In Sudan, drought led to conflict and the displacement of many civilians.
Credit Lynsey Addario for The New York Times

I found this article to be very informative in that it shows an eery parallel between the lead up to the Holocaust and current conditions in many regions of the world today.  As others have expressed in other threads, the earth can not provide a sustainable standard of living for the current population, even without the threat of AGW/CC.
 
At this time climate change is a threat multiplier which only exacerbates the problems in nations that are currently in a failing or failed state.  As time progresses, climate change will be the direct cause of many deaths.

Most of us who are aware and concerned about climate change or have previously been involved in movements to protect the environment or wildlife are also the type of individuals who have humanitarian instincts.  It is very difficult to imagine how many 100s of thousands even millions will die this century by mean other than natural causes.  It is even more painful to accept that many of those deaths will be at the hands of brutal tyrants and armed thugs.

I don't believe that any social structure is immune from being co-opted by "patriotic zealots" who will demand that anyone who does not follow their ideology will either be expelled or murdered.

[Theta]

Excellent thread and from reading the article and when thinking about different organisations seeking to dominate the main populace, I think of the Islamic State which is a group that is hell-bent on dominating the world and killing anyone who opposes it, which has led me to become worried about the possibility of the group rapidly expanding throughout Europe, especially since I live in Ireland which is neutral and has a low population density making it rather weak, and basically enacting a series of killings, destabilising Europe sufficiently to allow for it to expand its caliphate throughout Europe.

That in mind, it seems that the Global superpowers are doing the same and, with the present migrant crisis, we seem to be entering a kind of scenario where we enter the Dark Ages as Europe tries to initiate border controls to keep migrants out, sort of like Rome trying to keep the "barbarians" out with their walls.

I fear that one day, these problems will encapsulate the world in an instant, thus allowing for a mass global genocide. I don't think Climate Change will be the main driver behind the possibility of genocide, but rather, this problem that we have with the economy will certainly cause problems, especially since we are about to crash one day, maybe tomorrow, maybe next week or a year or two, it's hard to say and that's the worst part which makes it impossible for one to even contemplate the current situation.

[Milret2]

Theta states "I don't think Climate Change will be the main driver behind the possibility of genocide, but rather, this problem that we have with the economy will certainly cause problems, especially since we are about to crash one day, maybe tomorrow, maybe next week or a year or two, it's hard to say and that's the worst part which makes it impossible for one to even contemplate the current situation. "

My own opinion is that food insecurity is what will drive many societies over the edge to totalitarian or fascist regimes and I also feel that such happenings could be nearly instantaneous secondary to massive crop failures on a global scale from rapid climate change as well as a population in the west that would react quite poorly to rationing, shortages, and suffering. Less well developed countries will also be placed in tragic situations but may be more hardy then those of us in so called first world societies.

[Theta]

Theta states "I don't think Climate Change will be the main driver behind the possibility of genocide, but rather, this problem that we have with the economy will certainly cause problems, especially since we are about to crash one day, maybe tomorrow, maybe next week or a year or two, it's hard to say and that's the worst part which makes it impossible for one to even contemplate the current situation. "

My own opinion is that food insecurity is what will drive many societies over the edge to totalitarian or fascist regimes and I also feel that such happenings could be nearly instantaneous secondary to massive crop failures on a global scale from rapid climate change as well as a population in the west that would react quite poorly to rationing, shortages, and suffering. Less well developed countries will also be placed in tragic situations but may be more hardy then those of us in so called first world societies.

I was thinking more along the lines of food production collapsing before Climate Change even becomes a problem as predicted by Gail Tverberg in her blog, "Our Finite World", where we face near-term deflationary collapse where everything falls apart early, so we could be experiencing collapses overnight already, even before Climate Change comes into play.

[OldLeatherneck]

Excellent thread and from reading the article and when thinking about different organisations seeking to dominate the main populace, I think of the Islamic State which is a group that is hell-bent on dominating the world and killing anyone who opposes it.....................................

Theta,

I wouldn't obsess too much about ISIS.  While their killings are brutal and certainly qualify as crimes against humanity, in geopolitical terms they are no threat to the stability of any of the world's major powers.  Yes, they may launch isolated attacks in western nations and even kill hundreds or thousands, but they have no means, leadership, logistics, troops or finances, to march armies across Europe, let alone North America.

Case in point: Before my retirement, in the  US Defense Industry, I was responsible for planning and conducting workshops to develop competitive strategies.  During the course of those workshops, I had the opportunity to meet dozens of retired Generals and Admirals whom we had hired as consultants.  A few short years after 9/11, I was having a beer with  a retired Admiral after one of our workshops.  The conversation led to a discussion about the threat of Al-Queda.  The Admiral looked at me and said "Al-Queda is nothing more than a bunch  of "ankle-biters".  While President Obama made a horrendous political mistake when he called ISIS the "junior varsity", he was correct in not deeming a serious threat to the stability and economy of the US.

My biggest fear is that nationalist movements in the developed world will demand a government based on closed borders and a fascist-like demand for ideological purity, based on religion, race, ethnic origin or political philosophy. 

[Theta]

Excellent thread and from reading the article and when thinking about different organisations seeking to dominate the main populace, I think of the Islamic State which is a group that is hell-bent on dominating the world and killing anyone who opposes it.....................................

Theta,

I wouldn't obsess too much about ISIS.  While their killings are brutal and certainly qualify as crimes against humanity, in geopolitical terms they are no threat to the stability of any of the world's major powers.  Yes, they may launch isolated attacks in western nations and even kill hundreds or thousands, but they have no means, leadership, logistics, troops or finances, to march armies across Europe, let alone North America.

Case in point: Before my retirement, in the  US Defense Industry, I was responsible for planning and conducting workshops to develop competitive strategies.  During the course of those workshops, I had the opportunity to meet dozens of retired Generals and Admirals whom we had hired as consultants.  A few short years after 9/11, I was having a beer with  a retired Admiral after one of our workshops.  The conversation led to a discussion about the threat of Al-Queda.  The Admiral looked at me and said "Al-Queda is nothing more than a bunch  of "ankle-biters".  While President Obama made a horrendous political mistake when he called ISIS the "junior varsity", he was correct in not deeming a serious threat to the stability and economy of the US.

My biggest fear is that nationalist movements in the developed world will demand a government based on closed borders and a fascist-like demand for ideological purity, based on religion, race, ethnic origin or political philosophy.

Thanks, I agree with the majority of the points that you made and I agree largely with your fear, which matches mine exactly. What makes me feel even more worried is how close we are to this becoming an actual reality. I mean, I used to think that this fear could be pushed off for a number of years, but it seems that we could be going to this type of world in the next day or two.

[jai mitchell]

currently, the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) targets submitted to the UN COP21 project a level of global annual emission of 57-59 billion tons of CO2 equivalent GHGs by 2030.  This is far short of the IPCC stated target of 36 billion tons required to produce a 50-66% chance of remaining below 2°C of warming.

if we DO limit warming to 2C this will mean 3 to 3.5C of regional warming in Africa.  http://www.climatechangeresponses.com/content/2/1/3

you do the math.

[ritter]

My biggest fear is that nationalist movements in the developed world will demand a government based on closed borders and a fascist-like demand for ideological purity, based on religion, race, ethnic origin or political philosophy.

You mean like Trump? 

I fear we are heading that direction.

[OldLeatherneck]

My biggest fear is that nationalist movements in the developed world will demand a government based on closed borders and a fascist-like demand for ideological purity, based on religion, race, ethnic origin or political philosophy.

You mean like Trump? 

I fear we are heading that direction.

Exactly!

There is growing element of the right wing base of the GOP that is very opposed to any immigration reform and is the most anti-science element of the party.

[Anne]

I fear more the fear of food insecurity than the insecurity itself. I fear the way governments position themselves in readiness.

[skanky]

Snyder has a book out on this subject, called "Black Earth".
I've linked to the US Amazon page as there's an interesting interview with him on there, as well as a potted biography and other useful links, etc.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Earth-Holocaust-History-Warning/dp/1101903457/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1442590436&sr=8-2&keywords=snyder

[gideonlow]

My biggest fear is that nationalist movements in the developed world will demand a government based on closed borders and a fascist-like demand for ideological purity, based on religion, race, ethnic origin or political philosophy.

You mean like Trump? 

I fear we are heading that direction.

Exactly!

There is growing element of the right wing base of the GOP that is very opposed to any immigration reform and is the most anti-science element of the party.

The GOP presidential candidates must already deny myriad scientific facts as a litmus test, otherwise they have zero chance. Most of their candidates have more extreme views than Trump across the board, but are clever enough not to voice them in public directly. Not a single #GOPClownCar candidate is even remotely compatible with progressive, reasoned, scientific ways of thinking.

Scary indeed.

[Theta]

Recently I was listening to a podcast on the current disintegration of society (http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/2015/09/17/the-end-of-more-norman-pagett-part-4/) and when one of the speakers of the podcast mentioned war, I thought about this thread and wondered about the possibility of different European Countries fighting one-another for dominance of natural resources, this was also in the case of Gail Tverberg's near-term (around the end of 2016) collapse from my opinion of a war.

There was also a thread started up about the possibility of war in the future on the Collapse Subreddit and I think with resource constraints caused by Climate Change, I don't think it's a bad thread to mention here as it has the interesting view that countries in Europe will not fight each other overall, although there were some outliers that stated that countries have always been preparing for a final battle of sorts (this is in the case of some European countries being nuclear powers) and at first, the war will be through Cyber-Terror, but eventually it will turn into what we usually think with bombings and large numbers of people being slaughtered. (https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/3lhiqg/collapse_and_war/).

So I thought I would pose a question, would European Countries start to fight one-another (like France fighting Britain or Germany facing off against other European countries) in terms of genocide, or would this not be notable until much later when Climate Change becomes really powerful.

[wili]

There is certainly a long history of European countries going at each other over the centuries. The hope of many was the the EU would essentially put an end to that. That promise may be collapsing before our eyes, not just from Greece (and a number of others not far behind), but now from the mounting pressures of refugees.

On that last point, I wounder if someone with some math skills could help me assess the following article: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241.abstract

(Unfortunately, the main article is behind a paywall, so you'd have to be able to get access through a University or something.)

The main claim of the paper is that GW enhanced the likelihood that Syria would get the devastating drought that helped destabilize the whole situation. A friend of mine with a math background looked it over and determined that they were playing rather fast and loose with their 'p values'--basically they were claiming that correlations had statistical significance that really didn't.

If anyone with the necessary chops (and access) could look it over for a second opinion, I'd be mightily grateful.

[S.Pansa]

Hi Wili,

as my math skills are even worse than my language skills, I can't help you with the numbers.
But I can at least give you the link to a free copy of the paper by Kelley via Resarchgate.

The supplement material is freely available here.

And now I hand over to the math wizards on the board ...

Cheers

[wili]

Thanks, Pansa.

[sidd]

Thanks for the references. I think there is a similar paper by Rupp on 2011 drought in Texas attribution (doi: 10.1002/2014GL062683) and Seneviratne and Muller have some related work also. As to te subject paper o Syria and eastern Med, i think there is something there, but they ought to look at paleoproxy data from further in the past, to make a more solid case.

sidd

[Martin Gisser]

No math needed. Just like with the "warming hiatus" thing, eyeballs suffice:
For me Fig. 1 in the paper is telling enough. Then read about water management malpractice. Let me add desertification by overgrazing (I've seen a very telling photo from before the drought: Happy shepherd with way too many goats/sheep. Those also killed the Chinese Loess plateau). Multiply this with the population bomb atop of more than 1 million Iraqi refugees, and that whole state just had to fail ("almost surely" as the probability theorists say) one day. (The Rwanda massacre tells that the population bomb and criminal politicians alone are already sufficient risk.) Multiple risks conspiring with malpractice and bad government. A paradigmatic reckless genosuicide.  Will Homo S Sapiens learn a lesson?

[wili]

Thanks, sidd.

Martin, eyeballs rarely suffice, and from what I saw, the 'hiatus' issue was a case in point for that.

There are pretty much always going to be multiple causes of any disaster, but the fact that those exist does not mean by itself that GW was a contributing factor.

Probably more study is needed to show this conclusively in this case, but 'eyeballing' it is rarely the best method for establishing certainty.

[Martin Gisser]

Martin, eyeballs rarely suffice, and from what I saw, the 'hiatus' issue was a case in point for that.

OK, for the untrained eye you need to print out the temp graph: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ and then take a transparent ruler and draw the linear trend line since 1970. (perhaps repeat with a second print turned upside down to check for visual bias.) This renders any formal statistical analysis to debunk the "hiatus" a purely academic exercise, if not mathturbation (as a mathematician I am allowed to use that wörd :-). ((Yes, IMHO it's as ridicu-lousy as it sounds. The "hiatus" is a shameful episode in the history of science. Maybe even comparable to the Lysenko episode in Soviet biology: Scientists bullied into plain obvious nonsense.))

There are pretty much always going to be multiple causes of any disaster, but the fact that those exist does not mean by itself that GW was a contributing factor.

It's a statistical tangle. You can never know for sure. There is no either-or certainty here, it is shades of grey. The first figure in the article tells enough to render GW as ccontributing factor plausible: Less rainfall multiplied with higher temperature (both significantly enough in the last 20-something years). The rest is paleoclimatology.

[wili]

Depends on what you mean by 'for sure.' In some cases you can get quite a bit of certainty. Because something is complex and difficult doesn't automatically mean that it's impossible.

But it certainly does make things much more complex when you add in political and economic dimensions rather than just the (already enormously complex) climate and weather aspects.

Unfortunately, the denialists have and likely will forever continue to latch on to any complexity and uncertainty to say that we can't say anything about anything, so let's just go on polluting the planet like there's now tomorrow--a self-fulfilling prophecy if there ever was one.

[Martin Gisser]

Actually I have argued that man-made climate change was not that important in Syria:
 Given the growing fragility due to multiple risks and mismanagement (i.e. risk denial), it looks to me that Syria would have collapsed anyhow even with natural climate fluctuations. It would have taken just a few decades longer, and then a major blame could be laid on Peak Oil and/or the Population Bomb. I.e. less oil exports to feed growing population with rising unemployment and deteriorating farm land. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Syria  Watch Egypt for that scenario. (Heck, climate change would be such a great excuse/evasion for population bomb deniers...)

Quoth paper:

The result is that, when combined, natural variability and CO2 forcing are 2 to 3 times more likely to produce the most severe 3-year droughts than natural variability alone.

[Martin Gisser]

Meanwhile I no longer regard climate change as amoung the root causes. But it undoubtedly was an accelerant. The straw that broke a dying camel's back that had been mistreated since decades. The suigenocidal stupidity is breathtaking.

The FAO has been warning of desertification by overgrazing since long: http://www.fao.org/News/1998/syria-e.htm

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2871076/overgrazing_and_desertification_in_the_syrian_steppe_are_the_root_causes_of_war.html

(...)
The beginning of the ecological degradation and destruction came with the modern state, so keen to uncritically import ideas of maximization of agricultural yields from the Soviet Union: in particular the central government decided to nationalize the steppe in 1958, establishing de facto an open access system - a well known recipe for ecological disaster.
(...)
A major role in this unfolding disaster was played by affluent urban investors who threw thousands of livestock into the steppe turning the grazing into a large-scale, totally unsustainable, industrial practice.
(...)
The alternation of wet and dry periods (sometimes lasting up to 5-7 years) is a key structural and natural feature of this kind of environment. The relentless ecological degradation of this semi-arid fragile ecosystem produced a gradual and steady decrease of its resilience in the face of cycles of droughts made increasingly more severe and frequent by a long-term regional drying pattern linked to the greenhouse effects.
(...)
The same sort of conclusions were reached in analysing the triggers of the Darfur war that that took place from 2003 to 2010 not far from Syria. Darfur suffered from precisely the same sort of over-exploited semi-arid ecosystem, (...)
(...)

Darfur: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/jun/23/sudan.climatechange

[jai mitchell]

Martin

The u.s. pentagon regards climate change as a "threat multiplier" force.   Meaning that in regions that have patterns of social unrest or conflict, the impacts of climate change on available resources will likely drive those locations over the edge and into full-scale conflict.  Also migratory patterns arising from climate stressors work to impact regions not being directly hit by climate change,  this is why climate change is recognized as a national security threat.

There is significant indication that climate drivers are becoming stronger forces that drive increased migration from south asia, africa and the middle east.  This will continue.  There is also some indication that it may be a factor in the increased migration from central america and if the drought continues during el nino, from southern america (brazil and chile too).

[Theta]

Martin

The u.s. pentagon regards climate change as a "threat multiplier" force.   Meaning that in regions that have patterns of social unrest or conflict, the impacts of climate change on available resources will likely drive those locations over the edge and into full-scale conflict.  Also migratory patterns arising from climate stressors work to impact regions not being directly hit by climate change,  this is why climate change is recognized as a national security threat.

There is significant indication that climate drivers are becoming stronger forces that drive increased migration from south asia, africa and the middle east.  This will continue.  There is also some indication that it may be a factor in the increased migration from central america and if the drought continues during el nino, from southern america (brazil and chile too).

I can certainly see El Nino conditions leading to migrations within America along with worsening the already bad conditions in places like the Middle East and the influx of refugees will probably be a tipping point in Europe where things become much more violent.

I don't mean to repeat myself again, but recent Reddit discussions on the issue of European Cultura Identity being threatened by the the refugee crisis has spurred a question on how difficulties in Europe would allow for Jihads to become a primary force and destabilise Europe enough to gain control as that is how they work, they go in, cause civil war, take over as the main power and kill everyone who is not them.

[ritter]

I don't mean to repeat myself again, but recent Reddit discussions on the issue of European Cultura Identity being threatened by the the refugee crisis has spurred a question on how difficulties in Europe would allow for Jihads to become a primary force and destabilise Europe enough to gain control as that is how they work, they go in, cause civil war, take over as the main power and kill everyone who is not them.

While ISIS is certainly a destabilizing force, conditions is Europe have not degenerated to the degree that ISIS will get any significant foothold. There aren't enough disenfranchised young males there (yet) for such a movement to really take off. Just like in the US. Dissatisfied? Sure. But still pretty comfortable with too much to lose. At least in my hopeful opinion.