Yup, that’s about right, Jonah. Before the introduction of the Chevy Tahoe SUV, Darfur was apparently flowing with milk and honey. “Until the rains began to fail,” the Atlantic article tells us, “the sheikh’s people lived amicably with the settled farmers. The nomads were welcome passers-through, grazing their camels on the rocky hillsides that separated the fertile plots. The farmers would share their wells, and the herders would feed their stock on the leavings from the harvest.” I imagine they would occasionally take a break from their busy days of sharing and stand hand-in-hand for a moment appreciating the majesty of the permanent rainbow that graced the skies back then.
It’s not crazy to argue that a drought had something to do with unleashing long suppressed tensions, of course. But the notion that “global warming” is “primarily to blame” for the violence in Darfur is beyond risible. You’ll be glad to know the article does note that “the extent to which those changes can be blamed on human activities remains an open question,” but it ends by arguing that “if the region’s collapse was in some part caused by the emissions from our factories, power plants, and automobiles, we bear some responsibility for the dying.” Only some?