The Amazon endured the most intense fire season in almost a decade in August 2019. On August 19, smoke from the faraway fires blackened the skies over Sao Paulo. By the next day, the hashtag “#PrayforAmazonia” was sweeping across Twitter. The social media outcry brought world attention to the already dire scientific warnings, and world leaders offered aid and pressured Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro to take action.

Early scholarship on environmental peacemaking recognized the important role that local civil-society can play in promoting regional cooperation while, at the same time, pressuring governments to protect the environment. For example, in the late 1980s/early 1990s, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), such as the Union for Defense of the Aral Sea and Amu Darya in Uzbekistan and the Dashowuz Ecological Club in Turkmenistan, were at the forefront of the fight to restore the Aral Sea and protect the region’s biodiversity.

“In 1959, he knew it was coming,” said Delbert Pungowiyi, a Yupik native of Savoonga, Alaska, on St. Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea in an interview at the Wilson Center’s 8th Syymposium on the Impacts of an Ice-Diminishing Arctic on Naval and Maritime Operations. “He prepared me my whole life for this. It is a crisis.”

In the Global South, natural resource conflict has largely been considered a consequence of poor governance and weak political institutions. The international community’s solution? Build “green” governance capacity as a way to mitigate violent conflict and improve environmental outcomes. For the international development community, this has meant introducing laws, policies, and practices based on international standards of best practice, and training local regulators to adhere to those standards.

As researchers investigate the connection between climate change and conflict, the relative power of communities and individuals attempting to cope with climate change has become a recurring theme. While climate change may not directly cause conflict, it may be inextricably woven into pre-existing conflicts of power, ethnicity, and economic interest.

While the U.S. has been fixated on President Trump’s contentious border wall project, another more ominous threat facing Guatemalans is building internally. In a swift reversal, many politicians and scholars who have previously argued for directing increased U.S. aid to communities in Central America’s Northern Triangle—Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras—as a humanitarian alternative to the border wall, are now calling on Congress to suspend some forms of aid to Guatemala, which they now see as the more humane option.