Venezuela seems suspended at a critical juncture. Following national elections in December, the opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable was set to occupy two thirds of the 167-seat National Assembly, an upset that would reduce the late Hugo Chávez’s United Socialist Party to a distant second place for the first time and given opposition legislators the power to enact sweeping political changes.

An article in the Annual Review of Sociology reviews much of the research on the relationship between environmental factors and migration, providing a timely overview of a complex field. “Migration is often a household strategy to diversify risk,” write Lori Hunter et al., but can be influenced by any number of determinants, including at the macro level (e.g., environmental, social, cultural, economic, and political dynamics), the meso level (e.g., intervening obstacles and facilitators), as well as the micro level (e.g., personal and household characteristics).

As a young and promising marine biologist, Camilo Mora led a team of 55 scientists assessing the rapid decline of fish on the world’s coral reefs. It was a global enterprise with broad implications. Hundreds of millions of people rely on reef fish for their primary source of animal protein. Healthy reefs protect coastal communities from devastating storms and provide a multitude of livelihoods, including jobs in the fast-growing tourism industry.

Ask Agnes Namukasa about sustainably managing fisheries in Kachanga, the lakeshore landing site she calls home in Uganda’s Masaka District, and you will soon learn about toilets. From her perspective, community members won’t address conflict between government enforcers and fishers, competition among neighboring villages, or pollution threatening aquatic ecosystems until they can first organize to address their most pressing daily needs. And in Kachanga, where chronic childhood diarrhea and a host of other illnesses stem from poor sanitation, those essentials include public latrines.

Security, terrorism, conflict, and peace: you won’t find any of these words in the landmark agreement released on December 12 at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP-21). It’s never been front-and-center on the agenda at previous Conference of Parties, from Copenhagen to Cancun. But in Paris, a city reeling from terrorist attacks, the specter of climate-related conflict haunted delegates and the potential of a climate-resilient peace inspired grassroots protests.

Climate change impacts, such as severe drought, sea-level rise, and shifting seasonal patterns, will affect people everywhere. So it’s fitting that the new Paris Agreement places unprecedented importance on actions needed – both nationally and globally – to help people adapt, and solidifies expectations that all countries will do their part to promote greater climate resilience. It also recognizes that even the greatest resilience may not completely prevent harm to life and property, and that the global community must find ways to address “loss and damage” in cases where impacts are beyond the limits of adaptation.

The good news out of Paris is that the world is finally getting serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Here are a few reasons to cheer and one quibble.

As the United States, Russia, and others step up attacks on the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), there is concern over their direct and long-term environmental and public health impacts. Many air strikes have targeted lucrative oil installations under the control of ISIS, and these could have severe detrimental effects for Syria’s future, both environmentally and socio-economically. Questions around the effectiveness of these strikes, both from a military and political perspective, seem to be missing in the wider debate.