arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2510.02650

Attributing excess conflict risk in Syria to anthropogenic climate change

Abstract

Some analyses suggest that drought in Syria during 2007-10 may have contributed to the 2011 onset of its civil war and that anthropogenic climate change had a detectable impact on the severity of that drought. Yet these qualitative statements alone do not allow us to estimate {how much} anthropogenic climate change amplified the risk of civil war in Syria. Climate policy is increasingly relying on global-scale cost-benefit analyses to inform major decisions, and any excess conflict risk imposed on future populations should be considered in this accounting because of its substantial human and economic impact. In order for this excess conflict risk to be accounted for, it must be quantified and its uncertainty characterized. Here we build on multiple recent findings in the literature to construct a best estimate for the excess conflict risk borne by Syria in 2010 that was attributable to anthropogenic climate change. We estimate that the baseline risk of conflict in Syria, which was likely already high, was amplified roughly 3.6% (90% confidence interval: 1.1-7.3%) due to the anthropogenic component of the drought. The effect of climate change was thus discernible but unlikely responsible for the bulk of Syrian conflict risk. Nevertheless, the magnitude of similar excess risk around the globe is expected to grow as climate change progresses, and its human cost could be large because most populations will face positive excess risk. Our approach to quantifying this risk is applicable to these other settings.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Solomon Hsiang, Marshall Burke. 2025-10-03. Attributing excess conflict risk in Syria to anthropogenic climate change. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.02650

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN

Bricks or Cash? Externalities of Housing Upgrading in High-density Cities

We estimate housing externalities in a high-density city, exploiting the staggered rollout of Singapore's nationwide Main Upgrading Programme for public housing. Controlling for nonrandom neighborhood exposure, we find that upgrading raises treated buildings' prices by 11.5% upon completion and neighboring buildings' resale prices by about 2% within 500 meters, decaying to zero beyond. A model with distance-decaying externalities shows that in dense settings spillovers justify the distortions of in-kind provision; this advantage diminishes and reverses at lower densities. Administrative data on over 2 million residents show that upgrading disproportionately retains older incumbents, suggesting age-specific amenities as an underexplored externality channel.

econ.GN

The Joneses Visit an Economics Lab

Existing literature offers persuasive evidence that individuals care about how their consumption compares to that of peers, and proposes a large variety of explanatory models. The present paper proposes a common framework for many of those models, and compares their ability to predict behavior in a laboratory experiment. We find evidence of Keeping up with the Joneses motivations but also find that conspicuous consumption is enhanced by Veblen motivations arising from peers' ability to observe one's own choice. Among the seven quasi-linear preference models we compare, our data are best explained by a model that contrasts envy and pride (upward vs downward comparisons) using a value function borrowed from Prospect Theory.

econ.GN