As the national security ramifications of climate change grow more pronounced, climate manipulation technologies, known as geoengineering, will become more attractive as a method of staving off climate-related security emergencies.  However, geoengineering technologies could disrupt the global ecological status quo, and could pose a potentially coercive (and very serious) threat to peace. Is it possible to obtain the potential benefits of these game-changing technologies, while avoiding spurring violence and conflict?  In a recent article in Strategic Studies Quarterly, we argue that just war theory—which defines the concepts of “right” and “wrong” in warfare—could provide ethical standards for security decision-makers as they consider whether or how geoengineering should be used to address the climate challenge.

Conservationists and development practitioners may not have always seen eye to eye, but a new partnership between a cheetah conservation charity and a network of reproductive health NGOs is making the case for why these groups need to work more closely together.

Today, African leaders agree that Africa has a great opportunity to reap economic benefits from strategic investments made in the continent’s current large youthful population. The “demographic dividend” is the accelerated economic growth that can result from improved reproductive health, a rapid decline in fertility, and the subsequent shift in population age structure. With more people in the labor force and fewer children to support, a country has a window of opportunity—but only if the right social and economic investments and policies are made in health, education, governance, and the economy. 

Food has long been used by countries to wage both war and peace, and the post-war era of American food dominance is no exception. Bryan McDonald, a professor at Pennsylvania State University, traces the United States’ “Food For Peace” strategy in his recent book, Food Power: The Rise and Fall of the Postwar American Food System, arguing that “food was central to national security” during this period.

As the Climate Conference of Parties (COP-23) wraps up in Bonn, Germany, the prime minister of the tiny Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, which is sinking a few millimeters every year, made an impassioned call for transparency in the Paris Agreement “rule book” and for ratcheting up worldwide ambitions to reduce climate change.  While informal texts were drafted to guide implementation of the historic 2015 Paris Agreement, formal adoption of these rules will have to wait until COP-24, to be held in Poland next year.

Despite sharing a common element—water—the freshwater community and the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) community have traditionally worked independently of each other, said Jimmiel Mandima, director of U.S. government relations at the African Wildlife Foundation during a recent webinar organized by USAID-supported Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group (ABCG). However, that is starting to change: “Integration will bring value addition and synergy,” he said.

“The United States should maintain a unique leadership role in global food security,” said former Senator Richard Lugar at a recent Center for International & Strategic Studies event, “The U.S. Global Food Security Strategy: Progress, Setbacks, and Forward Momentum,” which marked the one-year anniversary of the passage of the Global Food Security Act. Signed into law on July 20, 2016, the act required the interagency Feed the Future initiative to develop the first-ever U.S. Global Food Security Strategy.

Earlier this month 46 House Republicans voted with Democrats to protect an amendment in the current National Defense Authorization Act that acknowledges that “climate change is a direct threat to the national security of the United States” and requires the secretary of defense to provide “a report on the vulnerability to military installations and combatant command requirements resulting from climate change over the next 20 years.”