One can see—and feel—tides shifting significantly on numerous fronts across the globe, especially in the area of climate security. Opportunities and challenges abound—especially for urban communities.

But are those who shape and carry out U.S. foreign policy ready for these extraordinary changes? And how can the growing movement to integrate diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) become vital in U.S. foreign affairs?

On July 28, 2022 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) voted—by a count of 161 in favor, with 8 abstentions — that living in a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is a human right. Building on the similar declaration by the UN Human Rights Council in October 2021, the UNGA has now reinforced the notion that the growing assaults on human health through environmental hazards are transgressions against the basic rights and freedoms of people.

The 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment marked a watershed in world environmental politics. Gathered in Stockholm, Sweden, the international community collectively recognized that the technologies and economic models that enable modern development were also driving unsustainable environmental degradation, compromising the vital natural systems on which human well-being depends.

“The food system is complex; it is not just about food production,” said Florence Odiwuor, a Kenyan Southern Voices for Peacebuilding Scholar, at a recent event on the role of food security systems in sustainable peacebuilding in Africa hosted by the Wilson Center’s Africa Program. As a lecturer at the School of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Environmental Studies at Rongo University, Odiwour observed that given the food system’s interconnectedness with issues like education, gender, finance, and labor, “disruptions or failures in the [food] system have caused a lot of conflict in [Kenya].”

The much-needed transition to a zero carbon, green economy offers opportunities to contribute to peace, but only if the conflict risks of transition are understood and managed to produce a just and peaceful transition. That means minimizing “backdraft”—the unintended negative impacts of transition that are a key obstacle to that goal.

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.

“Environmental peacemaking is inherently an optimistic kind of thing,” said Larry Swatuk, Professor at the University of Waterloo’s School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, during a breakout session of the 2nd International Conference on Environmental Peacebuilding. Yet “alternative dispute resolution, making nice, building trust—I just see those spaces closing off,” said Swatuk. “Where resources are concerned and sovereignty is an issue there is a lot of hardball going on that we ignore at our peril. I think we need to reconfigure the peacemaking approach in light of the unwillingness of states to depart from classic statecraft.”