Experts say the first wars over climate are already starting to happen

[Uncle Joe]

Climate-driven warfare isn’t as far off as some may think, and military strategists say battles have already begun.

Defense advisors and strategists have identified new climate-related wars that could erupt in Asia, Africa, or even the Arctic, The Daily Beast reported.

Conflict between Russia and China is likely on the horizon as both nations look to utilize new shipping routes through previously frozen waters around Greenland, Iceland and the Arctic Circle, according to a March report from the Atlantic Council. The U.S. and Britain have preemptively reinforced their military and naval presence in the area.

Others say that because both China and Russia are in possession of nuclear weapons, they’re unlikely to fight a long, costly war over the Arctic, and more serious climate battles are more likely to break out in hotter, less stable places like Syria or Somalia.

(snip)

https://thehill.com/changing-america/sustainability/climate-change/579902-experts-say-the-first-wars-over-climate-are

How does war contribute to climate change?

Many of the environmental and societal changes that occur in conflicts can create new and significant sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. At the same time, the collapse of environmental governance associated with conflicts can create or sustain the conditions that allow polluting practices to flourish, and constrain efforts to address them. Some of these problems extend into the post-conflict period, a time when weak institutions and ungoverned spaces can allow unsustainable activities to proliferate. Yet conflicts can also create opportunities for economic or societal change that can contribute towards future emissions reductions.

In this post, we examine some of the direct and indirect sources of emissions during and after conflicts, before exploring how their scale could be better characterised. We deliberately exclude the direct emissions from military operations, which are dealt with in a separate post. Because much of the research around climate change and conflicts focuses on climatic risks to peace and security, rather than how conflicts influence emissions, this post also calls for more research into the relationship between conflicts and emissions.

(snip)

Direct emissions

Oil production, storage or transportation infrastructure is often a target of fighting, as has been the case in Colombia, Libya, Syria and Iraq. Fires and spills generate emissions, and at times oil infrastructure is actively weaponised. It has been estimated that the 1991 Gulf War’s oil fires contributed more than 2% of global fossil fuel CO2 emissions that year,1 with distant and long-lasting consequences. This includes pollution from the fires contributing to the accelerated melting of Tibetan glaciers due to the soot deposited on the ice.

(snip)

Indirect emissions

The indirect emissions from active conflicts are the hardest to quantify, but perhaps the most significant given that they extend across many sectors, and into the future. In the early phases of fighting, the main emissions will arise from damaged infrastructure, the loss of vegetation, and delivering humanitarian aid. Monitoring indirect emissions first requires that we understand the relationship between societal change and the environment as many of these changes relate to the coping strategies employed by the civilian population.

(snip)

https://ceobs.org/how-does-war-contribute-to-climate-change/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_war

If humanity doesn't get its' act together in regards to climate change fast, then it will all become one vicious, ever growing self perpetuating circle in some ways similar to a flushing toilet.

Climate change feeds war and war feeds climate change.

[2naSalit]

1. Isn't that what actually started...

The Syrian war? Drought in the farming regions and Assad would do nothing to help the farmers so they went to the capitol to protest and he went ballistic instead.

[Hortensis]

5. I remember reading that, at least a big destabilizing factor. It's even more

terrible now, of course worse by the year and now with the last couple of years of especially bad drought. The Euphrates is drying up, and Turkey, Syria, and Iraq all need its water.

[SWBTATTReg]

2. Haven't water rights in the Western USA been kind of this way, no wars of course, but water...

rights in the drought ridden Western USA has long been an issue unfortunately in the West. Fortunately, most states are in various compacts / agreements with other states on how water is distributed. Kind of like the Missouri River agreement w/ a few of the central US states, the latest one being North Dakota water rights (Aug. 28, 21 was last notice I found on this thus far)...

--snip--
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — A federal judge has rejected a lawsuit by the state of Missouri seeking to stop a project that would supply Missouri River water to central North Dakota.
...
--snip--

These suits seem to occur on a rather regular basis, as there seems to be all kinds of water diversion proposals floating around (with regards to the Missouri and Missiissippi rivers.

The last proposal I heard was rather 'Wow!' in its scope, to divert the waters of the Mississippi directly towards the western USA, which I guess if they can safely do this, and not damage the environment doing this, allows further use of this water before it just flows into the Gulf of Mexico. But I hasten to mention that Louisiana would have something to say about this (probably definitely oppose it, among others too). And gosh, this would be a giant giant project in scope, isn't it even feasible, let alone all of the other issues that would arise?

[2naSalit]

6. The idea is just...

Too narrow in scope. Rather than, once again, try to control nature it might be a good idea to look at a much bigger picture of these hydro-systems. We have never given much thought as to the origins of the systems and how they are affected, not only locally but everything downstream. The hydro-electric system in the west is a great example but there are many wrong systems in the east too.

Electricity is power and those who develop and control it are usually looking at the profits without respecting the the "resource" itself. We just take then build bigger machines and devices to take even more but never give even a fraction back. Progress and growth are what it's all about, baby, more more more!

The water source for the Missouri River is only a few miles from the source of the Snake River which greatly enhances the Columbia River. The source of the Colorado River is only a couple hundred miles in the other direction. The majority of the western states' water comes from the north central and (US) northern Rockies. And the area is in a long drought.

So many people think it's a great idea to migrate to that area to get away from everybody else. The problem is that they are all going to the very place they should stay out of in order to avoid further degradation of a fragile ecosystem that supports the majority of life in the west. Just because a place is not swarmed by humans does not mean it is worthless. But it also doesn't mean it has to turn a dollar into someone's pocket for it to have value. That concept seems to get lost in the stampede of capitalist greed.

I see that as one of the top three adjustments we humans need to make, accepting that we need to stop inhabiting every place. We have a pretty bad track record there.

[NickB79]

3. Pakistan and India are going to battle over water resources

It's virtually inevitable.

And they both have nukes galore.

[marie999]

4. If a nuclear war ever starts, I think it would be between India and Pakistan.