Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting. Mark Twain may or may not have said it, but it gets repeated because it rings true. Water is central to human wellbeing, from drinking water and hygiene to growing food, producing electricity, and supporting identity-defining landscapes.  

As Russia’s unprovoked assault on Ukraine continues, the world’s focus is rightfully on ending this conflict as soon as possible. But the global impact of a senseless war launched by a petro-dictator also calls for deeper reflection.  

The crisis in Ukraine is rightly at the center of U.S. foreign policy attention but, even in the midst of that justified focus, the latest IPCC report unflinchingly reminds us of another emergency: we are running out of time to avoid the most devastating effects of climate change, including the social, economic, environmental and security risks that can actually drive war.

China continues blazing a trail across the Wider Caribbean through large capital flows, loans, and investment. In the last two years alone, more than a dozen Caribbean nations have signed on to China’s Belt and Road Initiative—even as some still recognize Taiwan, perhaps the only remaining sticking point preventing further signatories. The deepening of relations did not happen overnight, but it is only recently that the Belt and Road Initiative has drawn attention to China’s strategic investments and growing political bonds with Caribbean island nations.

“One of the challenges of responding to climate risks is that climate’s impacts and how those impacts interact with existing systems on the ground are so varied and specific to a given place,” said Lauren Risi, Director of the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change & Security Program, at a recent PeaceCon conference panel on climate change, violence, and migration in Central America. “But there is also an opportunity in how we respond to develop more agile, just, and sustaining programs and policies that go beyond a singular focus on responding to climate change and instead build the overall resilience of communities.” 

New worldwide attention on methane has increased the potential for countries to implement methane policy in the energy sector. In November 2021, the countries gathered at COP 26 in Glasgow launched the Global Methane Pledge, an agreement that aims to reduce methane emissions at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030. If the 111 participating countries are successful, this endeavor could curb over 8 gigatons of carbon equivalent emissions and prevent more than 0.2 degrees Celsius in warming by 2050. 

In November, the world’s marquee climate conference will come to one of its fastest warming regions. Over roughly two weeks, global leaders, businesspeople, and, in theory, civil society organizations, will negotiate and schmooze along the shores of the Red Sea at Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. After a rather mixed outcome of last year’s COP 26 in Glasgow – and even more chilling IPCC report releases since then, global environmentalists are counting on this year’s COP 27 to produce the kinds of game-changing, emissions-cutting measures that climate risks so desperately demand.  

“There is a growing recognition that climate change is going to affect security and it’s increasingly shaping peoples’ decisions about where to move, where to live, and how to plan their futures, but how migration, climate, and insecurity connect and drive risks is not always as clear cut as the headlines would have us believe,” said Cynthia Brady, Global Fellow and Senior Advisor with the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program, at last month’s International Conference on Environmental Peacebuilding. The roundtable discussion, “Environmental Change, Migration, and Peace in Central America’s Northern Triangle” drew on the Wilson Center’s framework to improve predictive capabilities for security risks posed by a changing climate, developed in partnership with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Applying the framework to the Northern Triangle—Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador—panelists discussed complex challenges and proactive approaches for building climate resilience and adaptive capacity.