Iran specifically had infrastructure in place to help manage the water for Tehran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qanat). The Ayatollahs not only _destroyed_ that infrastructure and the system of humans needed to maintain it, but they also encouraged pumping of water from local aquifers, among other obviously stupid water management techniques: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/khomeini...
So, you are right, but in Iran's case, the current regime pretty much did the opposite of anything you should have done, while also chopping of their hands to do anything more.
Climate change is actually a strong reason for better management. The same is true everywhere. More floods? You need to provide better drainage. Drier climate risking more forest fires? You need to manage forests better.
In many cases governments are cutting back on spending on dealing with these sorts of problems because they can avoid blame by saying it is a result of climate change and few people ask why they did not act to mitigate the effects.
What gets me is that the same politicians in the US sat things med to be managed better but also that we always need to be spending less. It’s basically “not my problem, someone else can take care of that.”
This equals about 1.7 Million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per day, which is an increase of 120% since year 2000 and corresponds to about 2% of the global CO2 emissions.
No nation on earth like Iran, save perhaps for China and Norway, is in such a unique position of power, both economically, socially, and with the engineering knowhow) and political ability to actually do something to prevent climate damage. Instead they are making the situation more difficult.
> I forgot that it’s much better to let your people starve
It's actually the US making the Iranian people starve on account of their (US's) economic war against Iran, and the same goes for Cuba and the Cubans living in Cuba. Saying that the Iranians should embrace with full arms the same Westerners that are making them starve right at this moment has to be a bit.
The closest semi-Westernized country to Iran in the same region is Turkey:
* Highly educated population.
* Remnant of an ancient non-Arab Islamic empire.
* Almost precisely the same population count.
And people don't starve in Turkey. Why would they starve in a Western-aligned Iran? The main problem in the richer half of the world is already obesity.
Iran is an ancient and developed civilization, though. One of the oldest in the world. There is no reason why it should develop into the next South Sudan.
And some African countries are, in fact, developing as well. I don't think that an average Kenyan starves either.
I agree with those causes. But climate change is also a cause. It magnifies the consequences of mismanagement, reducing the luxury incompetence margin that an equally incompetent theocrat/autocrat could have relied on 30 years ago.
As climate change gets worse in the future, the margin for error will keep shrinking. More countries will start to experience similar problems. Only the most competent will survive, but eventually regional instability will attack the foundations of that state capacity as a contagion byproduct, making it harder to be the competent outlier.
This all becomes a push driver for migration towards the colder north, as the equator becomes progressively destabilized and uninhabitable. Not only water shortages in dry climates but wet-bulb temperatures in temperate climates that make existing outdoors dangerous for periods of the year.
Yes I agree that climate change is a huge problem but it doesn’t release the leaders of a country of their responsibility to mitigate the effects wherever possible.
This argument is particularly pernicious as it can, in it's general form, always deflect from the issues of climate change and always focus on blaming local governments.
This is what will happen in the future btw - climate change will apply pressure via famine and droughts, but the fallout will always be attributed to the failure of local governments to correctly "manage the change".
We'll go from "climate change is a hoax" to "climate change is just a given and it's your duty to manage it".
I would say the climate change argument is particularly pernicious as its general form implies we all need to submit to more government control, we all need to feel guilt for being alive, and suffer higher prices or all sorts of market manipulation (EV rebates, "green programs", shuttering power plants) while the rich elite fly around on private jets burning hundreds of pounds of fuel per hour. While corporations simply outsource manufacturing to Asia, completely circumventing any environmental laws, cutting jobs, and burning bunker oil to move the product back here.
