[baxtr]

Absolutely.

But the problems are on different time scales and spheres of influence.

Iran can’t do anything on their own against climate change. But they can decide to fund water projects instead of bombs.

It’s a bit like saying: I went to the beach for a day and got sunburned. It’s climate change!

Yes the sun got more intense because of climate change (maybe) but why didn’t you buy an umbrella or sun screen?

[Y-bar]

Over 50% of their economy is petroleum, managed by the Ministry of Petroleum government body.

They pump over 4 Million barrels per day (https://ycharts.com/indicators/iran_crude_oil_production).

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.

[baxtr]

Yes I agree. Still it isn’t either or. You can do both if you’re sensible.

One will help in the mid-term and the other in the long-term.

[Y-bar]

It's a clear case of sleeping in the bed you made yourself. Climate change has made droughts more common and more severe.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/warming-...

[withinboredom]

I mean. If they didn’t sell the oil, a man in orange shows up declaring the spice must flow. The best spice.

[paganel]

> But they can decide to fund water projects instead of bombs.

And become again a client state of the West, you forgot that part.

[baxtr]

Oh yes sorry. I forgot that it’s much better to let your people starve then to be a client state of the West. I think you have your trade-offs right.

[paganel]

> 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.

[baxtr]

Yes, it's always other people. It's never the actual leaders of a country who kill their own people.

[croes]

People in western client states still starve just with less of their countries resources.

[inglor_cz]

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.

[croes]

Client state doesn't mean westernized.

Just pick a random African country where the West helps.

[inglor_cz]

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.

[graemep]

> And become again a client state of the West, you forgot that part.

That matters if you live in a functioning democracy.

If you are being exploited and oppressed by your own ruling class rather than a foreign one it makes little difference. You might even be better off.