For decades, western multinational companies have been profiting by exploiting plant, animal, or microbial genetic resources obtained from less developed countries. Take the neem tree, for example. Since the 1990s, international companies have registered more than 70 patents on products derived from India’s “tree of life.” Yet these patents have prohibited local people from using these trees (as they had for centuries) to make cosmetics, fertilizers, and medicines.

International companies have now turned their eyes to the high seas in a new hunt for genetic resources. Concerned they will be left out of the potentially profitable patents once again, developing nations are demanding equitable use and benefit sharing of genetic resources in ongoing global ocean treaty negotiations.

Last September, Secretary-General António Guterres outlined the United Nation’s Our Common Agenda in a speech to the General Assembly. His remarks focused on the future of global cooperation for the next 25 years. It was imperative, he messaged, to recognize that our accelerated interconnectedness, and the formidable challenges we all face, can only be addressed through a reinvigorated multilateralism, with the United Nations at the core of collective member efforts. We must think big, act swiftly, and work effectively, he said, to reshape how we move forward today to achieve the goals of the UN declaration commemorating the 75th anniversary of the United Nations.

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.

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.  

The United States and Europe are beginning to deploy naming and shaming tactics to increase compliance with global environmental norms.  

It’s telling that one of the first actions that Russian forces took in their invasion of Ukraine was to blow up a dam on the North Crimean Canal (NCC), allowing water to flow back into Crimea. The current war being waged by Russia in Ukraine has its origins in fractured and contested political history, but there are also key natural resource security questions which often go overlooked. While there are established debates about the extent to which natural resources contribute to conflict, the current conflagration exemplifies a rare use of water as a means of direct leverage in a military standoff. Regardless of the outcome of the conflict, the tensions between Russia and Ukraine over the NCC illustrate the need to consider the role of natural resources—and access to them—in broader diplomatic efforts.