,
9 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
Economist *want* this to be true.
We know that economists want this to be true, because the claims are in fact contradicted by most of the studies reviewed by the IPCC. They want to assert the link between climate change and conflict so that it gains traction. 
The words "might" and "could" have to be included in the torrent of articles about climate and conflict because there is so little support for them. Meteorology does not explain war.
They must keep banging away at the same story, despite the fact that it contradicts the scientific consensus.
But nobody calls them deniers.
But nobody calls them deniers.
Only people who really want there to be a link between climate change and conflict would so consistently try to emphasise this link, so often, despite the much better accounts of the historical, social, economic and political antecedents of war.
They *want* to be able to say that, "look, there's conflict because it rains less now, therefore there could be war between other countries when climate change gets worse". Never mind the fact that (despite recent conflicts) there is less war now than in the past.
It's an argument for the radical mitigation of climate change. But it turns conflicts into puppet shows, in which the claim that small changes in meteorology can turn into massive social effects.
The most disgusting aspect of this instrumental use of other, mostly very poor, people is that it pretends that mitigating climate change by reducing emissions would make their lives better.
Whereas what would really make a difference would be large-scale irrigation projects, as Bjorn Lomborg discusses, for a fraction of the cost of mitigation.
For some reason, Economists prefer the idea that everyone becomes poorer.
For some reason, Economists prefer the idea that everyone becomes poorer.
