Security, terrorism, conflict, and peace: you won’t find any of these words in the landmark agreement released on December 12 at the 2015 Paris Climate Conference (COP-21). It’s never been front-and-center on the agenda at previous Conference of Parties, from Copenhagen to Cancun. But in Paris, a city reeling from terrorist attacks, the specter of climate-related conflict haunted delegates and the potential of a climate-resilient peace inspired grassroots protests.

Climate change impacts, such as severe drought, sea-level rise, and shifting seasonal patterns, will affect people everywhere. So it’s fitting that the new Paris Agreement places unprecedented importance on actions needed – both nationally and globally – to help people adapt, and solidifies expectations that all countries will do their part to promote greater climate resilience. It also recognizes that even the greatest resilience may not completely prevent harm to life and property, and that the global community must find ways to address “loss and damage” in cases where impacts are beyond the limits of adaptation.

The good news out of Paris is that the world is finally getting serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Here are a few reasons to cheer and one quibble.

As the United States, Russia, and others step up attacks on the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), there is concern over their direct and long-term environmental and public health impacts. Many air strikes have targeted lucrative oil installations under the control of ISIS, and these could have severe detrimental effects for Syria’s future, both environmentally and socio-economically. Questions around the effectiveness of these strikes, both from a military and political perspective, seem to be missing in the wider debate.

The agreement coming out of the COP-21 negotiations gave breakthrough recognition to the concept of “loss and damage,” sorting through thorny discussions and politically charged negotiating positions. These positions revolved around liability and compensation, which developing countries called for but developed countries were unwilling to have included in the agreement.

The effect of climate change on the emergence of violent conflict has become one of the more lively academic debates and is even bleeding over into the mainstream. Despite a substantial number of studies, results are contradictory and somewhat inconclusive.

One of the hidden costs of climate change is the displacement of millions of people in some of the poorest regions of the globe. The existing international refugee regime is ill-suited to cope with those seeking refuge from environmental disasters. Countries must get serious about developing coordinated plans to address the issue, lest they be caught by surprise when another humanitarian crisis hits.

Last month, for the first time, 195 countries formally agreed to take steps to slow and eventually reduce carbon emissions. “This is potentially one of the most important things that’s ever been done for your children, your grandchildren…and their welfare in the future,” said Andrew Light, professor of public philosophy at George Mason University. [Video Below]