“What’s become clear to me on population is that it’s really a local issue,” said Andrew Revkin in an interview at the Wilson Center. “You get the impression, ‘Oh didn’t we solve that problem?’” And to some extent, demographic shifts around the world are largely heading in the direction people anticipated, with a leveling off mid-century. But “no one really knows what happens then,” he said. “All it takes is a tiny diversion of fertility rates and things could really grow or shrink.”

Family planning, which saw a relative decline in financial support from the international development community over the last two decades, is now back in vogue, thanks in large part to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. After spearheading the London Summit on Family Planning in 2012 alongside many governments, the foundation’s recently released 2014 Annual Letter sets out to dispel three “myths” about development, one of which is “saving lives leads to overpopulation.”

The original version of this article, by A. Tianna Scozzaro, appeared on Population Action International’s All Access blog.

For the past 11 months, a group of United Nations member states has been holding meetings seeking input on future goals for sustainable development once the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) expire in 2015. Led by co-chair ambassadors from Hungary and Kenya, this Open Working Group of 69 countries has delved into topics ranging from governance to health and everything in between.

Next year, the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), adopted by the United Nations after the Millennium Declaration, are set to expire. As they wind down, the global development community is taking stock. While there have been great strides toward accomplishing many of the goals set forth in 2000, there has been little headway in ensuring environmental sustainability, said Melinda Kimble, senior vice president of the United Nations Foundation. Which raises the question: What should change for the next set of global development goals, which are supposed to be even more environmentally focused – the “Sustainable Development Goals?”

In 2008 and 2010, the price of many basic food stuffs soared, sparking a series of riots and food crises around the world. People in the poorest countries – those living with the smallest margins – were most affected, while the economies of developed nations were able to absorb the price changes. According to Notre Dame’s Global Adaptation Index, how climate change will impact different countries depends not only on their vulnerability to physical changes, but also their ability to absorb these impacts. [Video Below]

In many parts of the world, climate change exacerbates existing inequalities – between men and women, rich and poor, landed and landless. Climate change responses, therefore, should carefully address these forms of vulnerability.

We hear this often, but in practice, it can be difficult to do.

Factories in China’s Pearl River Delta tick-tock around the clock, rapidly churning out gadgets from iPhones and Barbie dolls to forks and light bulbs, shipped off to village shops in Uganda and super Walmarts in America’s sprawling suburbs. But far from the global consumer’s view, manufacturing and rapid development are placing unrelenting pressure on China’s environment.

Six years after beginning a marine conservation program focused on octopus fishery management in southwest Madagascar, “we can proudly say that we have made a real impact as an organization providing health care,” said Dr. Vik Mohan, medical director of Blue Ventures and a practicing doctor in the United Kingdom.