A look at recent conflicts will support the claim that conflicts arise for two main reasons: revolution and/or resources. In the post WWII era the world has been witness to countless armed conflicts on nearly every continent. Within the last twenty years, to provide scope of argument, the following conflicts existed:
1. Gulf War - Iraq invades Kuwait for fuel resources. Significant US resource impact - US leads war to retake Kuwait.There are many other conflicts not listed for reasons of brevity, but the consistent cause of conflict remains true: resource or revolution. If the Senator from California is attempting to conclude that Global Warming/Climate Change is going to cause a shortage of resources, thus be the cause of violence, I would argue that constant variation in weather patterns has been cause for population movement and/or adaptation to meet the living needs, and is no new concept. To make the claim that climate, not overpopulation in limited resource regions, is a leading factor is simply propaganda.
2. Congo Wars - US pulls support for Zaire dictator (put in place to combat communism in Africa) and revolution commenced. US not involved in conflict.
3. Chechen Wars - After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the break up of satellite states in Eastern Europe, traditional Russian territories declared independence and revolution commenced. Russia fought for resources against a revolutionary population, claiming Chechens had no legitimate claim to the territory independent from Russia.
4. Kargil War - India and Pakistan fight for land resources for strategic advantages in the Kashmir region. No US involvement.
5. Kosovo and Yugoslov Wars - a series of conflicts of revolution in a post Soviet bloc country. US NATO involvement.
6. Civil wars in Rwanda, Algeria, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, East Timor, Czechoslovakia, Chad, Nepal, Liberia
7. Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan for resources/political reason by the US
8. Israel-Palestinian conflicts - including Lebanon attacks, Intifada, Gaza conflicts, etc for Land resources and revolution by the Palestinians
9. Russian invasion of Georgia - civil conflict turned international for land resource reasons by Russia
10. Genocide in Sudan - race war between Black Africans and Arabs for land resources
Furthermore, I would conclude that the greatest struggle in the next twenty years is NOT going to be caused by climate change, rather by revolution due to failed world economic and police state ventures. Economic power shifts will shun failing economic giants and favor those industrial giants rising to power. The power shift will weaken influences over certain regions and lead to shifting borders and alliances. As the Untied States loses the ability to defend allies, new alliances will have to be formed around the world in order for other countries and regions to best defend their interests and resources. The climate plays no role in these most likely scenarios.
Resources will continue to be scarce in regions with little to begin with - North Africa and regions within the middle east. Wars in these regions, however, are likely to be religious and race based rather than resource based. Such revolutionary class wars/conflicts, I predict, will lend to one of two conclusions: a strong Middle East with greater world influence under a United banner (The Islamic Union), or a perpetually war torn region of political conflict and eventual nuclear war.
In all cases, climate change is of least concern over the next twenty years as the leading cause of international conflict. Be not fooled by the death throws of the Nanny State liberals desperately attempting to ram propaganda and their unconstitutional agenda down the throat of America (and the world). Simple observation and trend analysis, as well as a little logic and reason are useful in annihilating their fanciful theories and leftist agenda.