Our present ecocrisis drives human insecurity. Single weather events killed hundreds in 2024, even in wealthy countries such as the United States or Spain. And beyond that staggering toll in human lives lurk staggering amounts of money required to repair and rebuild. In the United States alone, inflation-adjusted disaster-attributable costs have reached on average $153 billion each year. These factors and others make global environmental change a severe risk to human security.

“I think we need to approach climate security completely differently,” said Sharon Burke, Founder and President of Ecospherics and Wilson Center Global Fellow, at the recent 2024 Montreal Climate Security Summit. “It’s not just that climate change is an opportunity cost in combat power, or that it’s effecting our bases and operating environment, or that it is an accelerant to instability. It is itself the threat.”

We are undoubtedly at the 11th hour for biodiversity. The World Wildlife Foundation recently reported that Earth saw a 70% drop in species populations over the last fifty years.

As global leaders convened at COP16 in Cali, Colombia in late October and early November, many of the most pressing threats to biodiversity and pathways to improving governance effectiveness were on the agenda. This year’s conference theme—“Peace with Nature”—offered an impetus for a deeper dialogue on the conflict-biodiversity nexus, which included the work of “Peace@CBD”: a community of NGOs, institutions, and individuals that promotes relationships between nature, peace, and conflict.

When the White House released the US Framework for Climate Resilience and Security in September 2024, it was an important opportunity to highlight the significant impacts of climate change on US national security, economic, and strategic interests. The Framework also emphasized the need for tailored approaches in fragile, conflict-affected, and vulnerable (FCV) contexts, particularly in managing and allocating resources, as well as ensuring that climate finance addresses conflict drivers.

One of academia’s latest buzz phrases is “the planetary.” While it may seem on the surface to lack a clear connection with climate security, a closer inspection suggests that this term does have significant relevance to discussions about this key concept.

Use of “the planetary” is an attempt to compel people to think much more carefully about the current human condition. The climate crisis—as well as the extinction event we are living through—are challenging contemporary notions that humans are somehow separate from nature. In short, a relatively stable world in which our infrastructure, economies, and modes of thinking remain rooted is no longer a useful construct.

A new United Nations report calls upon countries to deliver drastically stronger action on climate change. “Emissions Gap Report 2024: No more hot air…please!” is intended to raise the alarm at a significant moment: less than a month before nations head to Azerbaijan for COP29, and just a few months before the preparation and submission of new nationally determined contributions (NDCs) next February ahead of COP30 in Brazil.