Ever since the CNA’s Military Advisory Board—composed of former U.S. military personnel—named climate change as a “threat multiplier” in a 2007 report, the term has gained widespread currency both in environmental and national security circles. It also has propelled the need to assess and address climate-related security risks higher up overall policy agendas.

Earlier this year, the IPPC published yet another report underscoring the fact that rapid climate action is needed to limit global warming and avoid further irreversible, devasting environmental impacts. Over the next decade, the report calls for urgent, unprecedented social and economic transitions to reduce emissions and enable climate resilient development for vulnerable people.

In February 2022, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced its plans to shutter its online archive—a key resource on the work of the agency that is relied upon by researchers, legislators, policymakers, and citizens for work on everything “from historical research to democratic oversight.” Pulling the plug would instantly have made public access to a vast array of fact sheets, environmental reports, policy changes, and regulatory actions significantly more difficult.

From climate change to COVID-19 and the war in Ukraine, the world is a landscape of increasing instability. Book-ending the Top 5 posts of June are two articles that explore different aspects of these converging risks. In the top post for June, Steven Gale and Mat Burrows write that globally, younger generations are becoming increasingly disengaged and discontent with their democratic governments, civil society, and institutions. Youth disillusionment is not a result of ignorance to current affairs, but rather a lack of faith in democratic institutions to address today’s most pressing global issues. Tackling youth disillusionment, suggest Gale and Burrows, begins with examining youth engagement trends and placing it at the top of the agenda.

A key pillar of the UNFCCC was a commitment by industrialized nations to cover the incremental cost of climate change mitigation for developing countries. As part of this pledge, they agreed to mobilize $100 billion a year in climate finance by 2020 and maintain that level of funding up to 2025. While there are questions on whether this target has been met, climate finance has undeniably become one of the largest channels of wealth redistribution from developed to developing countries.

As climate change worsens, the once-unimaginable power to use technology to cool the planet—a method known as “solar geoengineering”—has quietly entered the realm of possibility. Yet the prospect of developing such planet-altering technologies has launched an intense debate: Can this be achieved responsibly? Should it be attempted at all?

In April 2021, the Biden administration announced a new greenhouse gas emissions reduction target for the United States. In the accompanying “nationally determined contribution” submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the administration highlighted the interplay between national and subnational policy in driving climate progress. The document promised that federal action will “[build] upon and [benefit] from a long history of leadership on climate ambition and innovation from state, local, and tribal governments.”