Traditionally, wandering pastoralists in the Darfur region moved freely within that region of the Sudan. They moved from place to place taking their possessions and livestock with them, sometimes they would be on the move for months at a time, at other times they would settle for a while before moving on. This had been their way of life for as long as anyone can determine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomadic_pas...
Then, as climate change began to take hold, from about 1980 onwards, the rains failed and they kept failing year after year, decade after decade. Much of the once fertile land in Darfur is now desert and wholly incapable of sustaining plant or animal life.
http://practicalaction.org/s4_too_little
Desperately in need of land, the Pastoralists moved into areas of settled farmland, in doing so they took over lands that belonged to other people and this led to conflict.
However, into the mix you need to add the long-standing tribal and religious rivalries that had been simmering just below the surface. Desertification may have been the spark that ignited the conflict but it’s not the only reason for the fighting, and it is likely that conflict would have arisen in any event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Darf...
One thing that’s interesting to note is that conflicts in Africa are closely correlated with temperature increases. A team from the University of California (Berkeley) headed by Marshall Burke analysed African conflicts since 1980 and noted that in hot years there was a 50% increase in the likelihood of a conflict breaking out.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/49/20670...
Given the sample size it’s unlikely that this is a statistical anomaly, in any event, we know that people become more aggressive as the temperatures rise – it’s one of the reasons why you tend to get riots and other violent disorder when the weather is hot.
If the Burke study is correct, then it doesn’t bode well for Africa in the future. With predictions of a 1°C rise in temperatures by 2030 then Africa could see an additional 400,000 conflict deaths.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...
Historically, many of the ongoing tensions were centred around tribalism, race and religion and sporadic conflict flared up from time to time. Today, these same groups are increasingly finding themselves in conflict over diminishing land and water resources.
Climate change is undoubtedly a factor in Darfur, but that could also be said of many of the African conflicts in recent decades. As such, Darfur could be one of many conflicts that have been exacerbated by climate change.
I’m not convinced that you could realistically claim the Darfur conflict to be the “first climate change war”. Would the conflict have happened without climate change? Probably. Would it have been as bad as it is? Probably not. Is it the first conflict where the consequences of climate change have been a factor? Far from it.
No.
The climate must have changed in the past making resources scarce, leading to conflict between different groups of people.
No. The only feature of Climate Change that has been clearly defined is that natural conditions last for thirty years. That war is only ten years old.
And no. If you study the aspects of the war, that is due mainly because of a drought, and some people want to take over a better land. That has been happening for centuries. In the US the American Indians did the same thing.
Well although global climate change may be at work in the region, what you need to do is read up on this so you can do your own work. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/20...
I need to write an essay for next week and would love it if you could share your answers with me. I need to write a balanced argument, using PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explanation and Link)
Thanks
