Climate change is the world’s greatest environmental threat. It is also increasingly understood as a threat to domestic and international peace and security – recognized by the Department of Defense as a “threat multiplier,” by Secretary of State John Kerry as “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” and by President Obama, in an address to graduates of the United States Military Academy, as “a creeping national security crisis.” The Supreme Court’s temporary blocking of the Clean Power Plan highlights the Federal-State divide over how to address climate change, but because of its national security dimension, climate change also raises unique separation of powers issues between the president and Congress with regard to how the military can respond.

Venezuela seems suspended at a critical juncture. Following national elections in December, the opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable was set to occupy two thirds of the 167-seat National Assembly, an upset that would reduce the late Hugo Chávez’s United Socialist Party to a distant second place for the first time and given opposition legislators the power to enact sweeping political changes.

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.

The fires that blazed in Indonesia’s rainforests in 1982 and 1983 came as a shock. The logging industry had embarked on a decades-long pillaging of the country’s woodlands, opening up the canopy and drying out the carbon-rich peat soils. Preceded by an unusually long El Niño-related dry season, the forest fires lasted for months, sending vast clouds of smoke across Southeast Asia.

From earthquakes to floods, when natural disasters strike, the military is often called on to bolster civilian responses. Policymakers throughout Latin America in particular are increasingly relying on the armed forces for emergency assistance.

Just a few years ago, progress on global family planning and reproductive health policy seemed to be stuck in a rut. “For 20 years, development money for health had been directed to fight HIV and poverty, and as a result, momentum, interest, and funding for family planning had dwindled,” said Susan Rich, vice president of global partnerships for the Population Reference Bureau (PRB), at the Wilson Center on July 15. “Unmet need for family planning was high all over the world, but especially in Africa.” [Video Below]

If you’re a government pondering the development of newly discovered natural resources, how do you avoid the so-called “resource curse” – the tendency of high value extractive resources, like oil, gas, or minerals, to, instead of prosperity, bring corruption, entrenched poverty, and even violence?