Following a series of recent devastating extreme weather events – mudslides in Sierra Leone, flooding in south Asia, and severe storms hitting the Philippines and the Gulf of Mexico, many have called attention to the role of climate change in these disasters. The string of Atlantic hurricanes that has devastated the Caribbean has prompted fresh calls to make nations and communities more resilient to the effects of climate change, and especially to address “loss and damage” in island nations.

“This is not an island issue, this is not a Caribbean issue, this is an issue that is [also] critical for us,” says Roger-Mark De Souza, the Wilson Center’s director of population, environmental security, and resilience in a recent video interview. “For us in the United States we have to continue to recognize that we ourselves are also vulnerable.” De Souza remains hopeful about the possibility of rebuilding and rebounding in the face of devastation, but also presses the importance of generating response mechanisms which address environmental hazards before they manifest into disasters. “That means planning, it means investing in community mobilization mechanisms, it means thinking about ways we provide humanitarian assistance.”

The United States currently faces an infrastructure crisis, as well as a growing climate crisis. Taking a sustainable approach to infrastructure could help address both problems, argued participants in a recent webinar conducted by the National Council for Science and the Environment, in partnership with the Security & Sustainability Forum. 

One fear of climate change is that more variable weather conditions will lead to violence and chaos in some places. But looking at it methodically, do erratic weather conditions actually lead to violent conflict and political instability? Not necessarily.

Investigative journalists reported earlier this month that top appointees at Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection and other state agencies ordered employees not to use the terms “climate change” or “global warming” in official communications. Politically coded euphemisms such as “climate drivers” and “climate variability” were to be used instead. “Sea-level rise” was to be replaced with “nuisance flooding.” The news swiftly went viral, with commentators noting the irony of such censorship occurring in Florida – essentially ground zero for climate change in the Global North.

Until two years ago, when the National Wildlife Federation pointed out their presence, the 61-year-old steel oil pipelines running beneath the fast-flowing Mackinac Straits between Lake Michigan and Lake Huron were like nearly every other piece of North America’s energy transport network: out of sight and out of mind.

A series of executive orders signed by President Obama since his first year in office requires all federal agencies to begin planning for climate change and produce an updated adaptation plan by May of this year. The Pentagon is a little late, but today they released their second-ever climate roadmap.

“I think it’s appropriate to think about [climate change] adaptation or investments in adaptation as investments to open up the range of choices available to people to deal with an uncertain future,” said Jon Barnett, associate professor of geography at the University of Melbourne, in an interview with ECSP. “In some circumstances it might be appropriate to build infrastructure and hard options where we’re very certain about the nature of the risk…but in other cases, expanding the range of choices and freedoms and opportunities that people have to deal with climate change in the future is perhaps the better strategy.”