Subject: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change and Its Effects
Assessment Date: April 25, 2026

SITUATION BRIEF
Human-caused climate change is no longer a forecast — it is an unfolding structural transformation of the Earth system, with measurable, accelerating, and in some cases irreversible physical consequences. The core analytical tension is not between the science and skepticism (that debate is empirically settled) but between the trajectory of warming now locked in, the adequacy of global political response, and the cascading second and third-order effects across geopolitics, economics, security, demography, and technology that most strategic analysis still treats as peripheral rather than central.

THE TWELVE-LENS READ
LENS 1 — INTELLIGENCE ANALYST
The physical science signal is high-confidence and convergent across independent measurement systems. Atmospheric CO₂ concentration reached 423.9 ppm in 2024, a 53% increase from the pre-industrial baseline of approximately 278 ppm, and the eleven years from 2015 to 2025 are the warmest on record in the instrumental era. Observations for 2025 were nearly identical to the central estimate of climate model projections in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report — meaning the models are performing, not failing. The key analytical gap is not in physical science but in political response modeling: the intelligence picture on whether pledged actions translate to actual emissions reductions is significantly weaker than the physical monitoring picture.

LENS 2 — HISTORIAN
Historical precedent offers two cautionary templates: the slow-moving catastrophe that outpaces institutional response (the Dust Bowl, which required a decade of agricultural collapse before New Deal soil conservation policy), and the threshold event that forces rapid systemic reorganization (the 1973 oil shock, which triggered permanent structural change in energy policy across multiple nations within months). Climate change structurally resembles the former — its timeline exceeds the attention span of electoral cycles — but contains within it discrete threshold events (a major AMOC disruption, a catastrophic harvest failure across multiple breadbaskets simultaneously) that could trigger the latter. The historical failure mode to watch is not denial but delay rationalized as precaution.

LENS 3 — DEMOGRAPHER
The demographic footprint of climate change is not uniform — it is a regressive force that concentrates impact on the populations least responsible for causing it. Drought, flooding, wildfires, and extreme weather events contribute to displacing people from agricultural areas and can amplify conflict, increasing food-insecure migrant populations and malnutrition, especially in children. Gendered gaps in food security and nutrition increased between 2023 and 2024, with women and other vulnerable populations bearing disproportionate impacts. The slow-moving demographic signal to watch is the combination of heat-zone expansion (areas becoming uninhabitable at wet-bulb temperatures) with coastal inundation: these two forces could displace hundreds of millions over the medium-to-long term, fundamentally redrawing population distribution maps that have been stable for centuries.

LENS 4 — BEHAVIORAL ECONOMIST
The dominant failure mode here is hyperbolic discounting at civilizational scale: present fossil fuel consumption generates concentrated, immediate, politically organized benefits; climate costs arrive in the future, are distributed globally, and are absorbed disproportionately by populations with limited political voice in emitting nations. This incentive structure is not an accident — it is the structural reason international climate governance has underdelivered for three decades. The modest good news: renewable energy economics have shifted the calculus in some sectors. Renewables surpassed coal as the world’s top energy source, suggesting that in energy generation, at least, the economic incentive structure is beginning to align with emissions reduction — not because of altruism but because solar and wind have become cheaper. The bad news: this market shift is not happening fast enough in hard-to-abate sectors (heavy industry, aviation, shipping, agriculture), where there is no equivalent price signal.

LENS 5 — MILITARY STRATEGIST
Climate change is a force multiplier for instability, not an independent cause of conflict — but it multiplies the severity of every other instability vector already in play. Climate risk has far-reaching impacts on national security and global stability, and reduced precipitation has led to water scarcity raising geopolitical tensions between countries such as Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The most strategically dangerous near-term scenario is simultaneous crop failure across multiple unconnected breadbasket regions — a “polycrisis” of the food supply that overwhelms international humanitarian systems and triggers cascading state instability. The military implication that most institutions are not modeling: climate-driven migration on the scale projected for 2°C+ warming would generate refugee flows that dwarf the 2015 Syrian crisis, which itself destabilized European politics and contributed to a decade of democratic backsliding.

LENS 6 — MACRO ECONOMIST / TRADE ANALYST
The IPCC finds that the global economic benefit of limiting warming to 2°C exceeds the cost of mitigation in most analyses — meaning the rational economic calculation favors aggressive mitigation, yet political systems are not producing it. The macro picture has a structurally important asymmetry: the costs of climate action are front-loaded (capital expenditure on new infrastructure, transition costs for fossil fuel-dependent communities), while the benefits are back-loaded and globally distributed. Current national climate pledges, under full implementation, point to 2.3°–2.5°C of warming, while current policies without additional ambition point to 2.8°C — both well above 1.5°C and above the threshold at which economic damage becomes non-linear. The economic risk that is consistently underpriced is the “locked in” damage: physical assets being built today (infrastructure, real estate, agriculture systems) whose planned operational lifetimes will extend well into climate conditions their designers did not account for.

LENS 7 — CLIMATE & RESOURCE ANALYST
This is the home lens, so the findings here are most granular and most alarming. Humanity has reached the first Earth system tipping point: the widespread death of warm-water coral reefs, marking the beginning of irreversible planetary shifts. Current global warming of approximately 1.4°C has already exceeded coral reefs’ estimated thermal tipping point of approximately 1.2°C. The Amazon Rainforest faces large-scale transformation into savanna between 1.5–2°C of warming, which could further accelerate global climate change. Sea level has already risen 8–9 inches since 1880; the rate of rise has more than doubled, from 0.06 inches per year through most of the 20th century to 0.14 inches per year from 2006–2015. The critical signal from this lens: the gap between “what we are seeing” and “what we modeled” has consistently moved in the direction of worse-than-projected. We are not outperforming the models. We are meeting or slightly underperforming them.

LENS 8 — POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGIST / LEADERSHIP ANALYST
The most analytically important actor in the current period is the Trump administration, whose documented behavioral profile on climate is characterized by: dismissal of scientific consensus as politically motivated (on record, repeatedly), preference for immediate economic extraction over long-term risk management (consistent pattern across energy, trade, and environmental regulation), and a decision-making style that prioritizes symbolic reversals of predecessor policy regardless of analytical merit. The Trump administration has erased scientific data and slashed billions in funding for climate research, firing tens of thousands of federal workers from agencies including the EPA, NOAA, and National Science Foundation, and did not send any representatives to the COP30 climate talks in Brazil. The behavioral pattern is consistent and predictable; it is not modifiable by presenting better evidence. The key leadership variable to watch is whether other major emitters — particularly China and India — read U.S. withdrawal as an opportunity to slow their own transitions (the defection risk) or as an opportunity to claim green leadership (the competitive framing).

LENS 9 — SIGNALS READER
(a) Absence Analysis: If the 2°C trajectory were politically manageable, we would expect to see concrete enforcement mechanisms in international agreements. We do not. The Paris Agreement has no binding enforcement. As of April 11, 2025, no other country had withdrawn from the Paris Agreement following U.S. withdrawal, but this absence of formal defection coexists with a persistent absence of sufficient ambition in the NDCs — these are not the same thing, and conflating them produces false comfort. (b) Timing Analysis: The U.S. withdrew from not just the Paris Agreement but also the UNFCCC and IPCC simultaneously — the sequencing suggests not merely policy disagreement but a deliberate attempt to degrade the scientific infrastructure of climate governance itself. That is a qualitatively different act than policy withdrawal. (c) Behavioral Arbitrage: Cross the renewable energy deployment data (accelerating globally) with the emissions data (still rising globally) and you get a critical joint signal: we are deploying more clean energy while simultaneously consuming more fossil fuels. The transition is adding to the energy system, not yet replacing it at scale. (d) Adversary Inference: A sophisticated adversarial analysis of the public record would conclude that U.S. internal political dysfunction on climate represents a strategic opportunity for China to claim global green leadership — a position China appears to be pursuing at COP30. (e) Emergence Analysis: The non-linear outcome none of the actors are modeling: a cascade across multiple tipping points simultaneously (AMOC + Amazon + Arctic) that compresses timelines from “decades” to “years” and overwhelms every existing adaptation and governance framework at once.

LENS 10 — INTERNATIONAL LAW / INSTITUTIONAL ARCHITECT
The International Court of Justice issued a landmark 2025 Advisory Opinion affirming that the U.S. still has legal obligations to protect humanity from climate change even after withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. This is legally significant but practically weak: advisory opinions are non-binding, and the U.S. has signaled indifference to international legal architecture. The structural insight from this lens is that the Paris Agreement was deliberately designed without binding enforcement to secure U.S. participation — a design choice that is now its primary vulnerability. The U.S. also declared withdrawal from the UNFCCC, IPCC, and Green Climate Fund, systematically dismantling its participation in every layer of the institutional climate architecture. The legal takeaway: the international climate regime has maximal breadth (195 parties) and minimal depth (near-zero enforcement). It is architecturally optimized for consensus, not compliance.

LENS 11 — INFORMATION ENVIRONMENT ANALYST
The climate information environment is not a debate between equal sides — the scientific consensus is overwhelming — but it functions politically as though it were, because the manufactured appearance of debate has been the strategic product of a decade-long information operation by fossil fuel interests. The current information terrain has bifurcated: in most of the world, climate urgency is the dominant narrative; in the U.S., the IPCC’s conservative language and its requirement for high scientific consensus before attributing causation to human influence have been systematically weaponized — bad-faith actors selectively cherry-pick uncertainty language to undermine consensus they know exists. The most important current information environment signal: at COP30, 194 countries declared in a single voice that the global transition is now irreversible and the Paris Agreement is working — a powerful counter-narrative that the U.S. absence makes more prominent, not less. The absence of the U.S. at COP30 is itself a legible message to every other participant.

LENS 12 — TECHNOLOGY & SYSTEMS ANALYST
Technology is a genuine source of cautious optimism on the mitigation side and a source of deep uncertainty on the adaptation side. Renewable deployment trajectories are real and accelerating; solar costs have fallen faster than any climate model projected. The structural problem is physical: energy systems have enormous inertia. Replacing the global fossil fuel infrastructure over decades, while demand continues to grow, is a systems engineering problem of historic complexity — not a political will problem alone. On the adaptation side, the key technology gap is early warning systems: early-warning systems and climate services have improved globally, but many regions still lack full coverage, leaving key vulnerabilities unaddressed. The most important emerging technology variable is AI — both as a tool for climate modeling (where it is already improving resolution and reducing compute costs) and as an energy consumer (data center energy demand is growing rapidly, creating a feedback tension between the AI transition and the energy transition).

LENS DIVERGENCE

Divergence 1 — Behavioral Economist (Lens 4) vs. Political Psychologist (Lens 8):
Lens 4 argues that shifting renewable economics are fundamentally changing the incentive landscape — that clean energy is now cheaper, and market forces will increasingly do the work that political will has failed to deliver. Lens 8 counters that the documented behavior of the Trump administration represents a leadership variable that can override market economics: deliberate rollback of regulatory infrastructure, defunding of scientific monitoring, and political organization around fossil fuel constituencies can retard the energy transition even when market signals favor it. This divergence matters because it determines whether the U.S. transition trajectory is primarily an economics story (optimistic) or a political economy story (pessimistic).

Divergence 2 — International Law (Lens 10) vs. Military Strategist (Lens 5):
Lens 10 identifies a meaningful ICJ advisory opinion and notes that the U.S. retains legal obligations even outside the Paris Agreement. Lens 5 observes that legal obligations without enforcement mechanisms are analytically irrelevant to security planning: no military planner is modeling climate governance compliance as a constraint on state behavior. The gap between what the legal architecture requires and what security structures actually enforce is precisely where the most dangerous second-order effects will unfold unchecked.

Divergence 3 — Technology (Lens 12) vs. Climate Resource (Lens 7):
Lens 12 is cautiously optimistic about renewable deployment trajectories and AI-enhanced climate modeling. Lens 7 notes that the physical tipping point for coral reefs has already been crossed — not as a future risk but as a present reality — and warns that the pace of technological deployment is not keeping up with the pace of physical system change. The two lenses agree that technology matters; they diverge sharply on whether the race between deployment speed and system change is currently being won or lost. The current physical evidence favors Lens 7’s pessimism.

Divergence 4 — Signals Reader (Lens 9) vs. Information Environment (Lens 11):
Lens 11 notes genuine and growing global climate consensus, embodied in the COP30 joint declaration. Lens 9’s Absence Analysis flags that this consensus coexists with continued global emissions growth — the gap between what nations declare and what emissions data shows is the actual signal. Declarations of irreversibility at COP30 do not constitute emissions reductions. The narrative is winning; the atmosphere is not, yet.

INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT

Think of the climate situation as a supertanker that has been pointed toward a reef for several decades. The good news: we have hands on the wheel, and the wheel is turning — renewable deployment is real, international consensus is broad, and the economics of clean energy have fundamentally shifted. The bad news: a supertanker does not turn quickly. The CO₂ already in the atmosphere will continue trapping heat regardless of what we do next; the world is on track to exceed 1.5°C of planetary warming by the early 2030s. Some collision with the reef is now locked in. The question is whether it’s a scrape or whether the hull is breached.

The physical science is the most analytically solid component of this assessment. The tipping point signal from Lens 7 and the converging measurement streams from Lenses 1 and 7 together establish that: warming is tracking model projections, physical system changes are accelerating, and the first tipping point (coral reefs) has been crossed.

What is genuinely uncertain is the cascade dynamics — whether the Amazon, the AMOC, and the ice sheets reach their own thresholds sequentially (giving time for response) or nearly simultaneously (producing a feedback cascade that overwhelms all existing adaptation frameworks). That uncertainty is not resolvable with current science.
The political response picture is where the most significant analytical uncertainty lives, and where Lens 8’s leadership analysis does the most critical work. The U.S. withdrawal from Paris, the UNFCCC, and the IPCC simultaneously represents a qualitative escalation beyond prior disengagement — it is an attack on the scientific infrastructure of climate governance, not merely a policy disagreement. The upcoming U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement cancels a projected 0.1°C of emissions reduction — modest in isolation but significant as a signal of intent and as a potential permission structure for other actors to reduce ambition. The counterweight is that required low-carbon technologies to deliver large emission cuts are available, and wind and solar development is booming, lowering deployment costs. The transition is underway; it is not yet adequate.

The strategic assessment must also account for what is hardest to model: the interaction between climate physical effects and the cascading geopolitical instability they generate. Geopolitical tensions and conflicts — with 59 active conflicts in 2023 — are accelerating alongside climate pressures, disrupting food production and trade. Food shocks in low-income and climate-vulnerable countries can fuel instability, conflict, and displacement, with downstream effects on European security through migration pressures and disrupted supply chains. This second-order cascade — from physical system change to food insecurity to conflict to migration to political instability in receiving states — is the channel through which climate change becomes a near-term strategic threat, not merely a long-term one. It is already active in the Sahel, the Horn of Africa, South Asia, and Central America. The supertanker analogy breaks down here: these aren’t reef scrapes — they’re already happening to the passengers aboard.

SCENARIO MATRIX

SHORT TERM (0–2 years)
🎯 Physical warming continues; 2025–2026 among top-three hottest years on record; regional extreme weather disasters increase in frequency and insured cost | Confidence: HIGH | Impact: HIGH | Key condition: Continuation of observed trend with no mechanism to reverse in this window
⚡ U.S. climate policy rollback triggers partial NDC ambition reduction in 2–3 other major economies, widening the emissions gap | Confidence: MEDIUM | Impact: HIGH | Key condition: Whether key emitters read U.S. withdrawal as permission to defect versus opportunity to lead
⚡ A simultaneous multi-breadbasket crop failure (drought in one region + flooding in another + heat stress in a third) triggers acute global food price spike | Confidence: MEDIUM | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: La Niña/El Niño interaction with regional precipitation pattern shifts already underway
🦢 AMOC shows measurable step-change weakening detectable in ocean monitoring data, triggering rapid reassessment of European climate projections | Confidence: LOW | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: AMOC could fail at less than 2°C of warming; current monitoring shows weakening trend but no confirmed step-change yet

MEDIUM TERM (2–10 years)
🎯 Global mean temperature exceeds 1.5°C sustained warming; Paris target formally missed; international climate governance enters post-Paris redesign phase | Confidence: HIGH | Impact: HIGH | Key condition: Global warming projections based on full implementation of current NDCs point to 2.3–2.5°C;  1.5°C exceedance is essentially locked in
🎯 Climate-driven migration reaches historically unprecedented scale from Sahel, South Asia, and Central America; receiving states face political instability | Confidence: HIGH | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: Dependent on whether affected governments invest in adaptation infrastructure; current trajectory is inadequate
⚡ U.S. climate policy reversal under a post-2028 administration reengages international framework, but institutional capacity (NOAA, EPA, IPCC participation) requires 3–5 years to rebuild | Confidence: MEDIUM | Impact: HIGH | Key condition: 2028 U.S. election outcome and institutional memory preservation
⚡ Amazon dieback accelerates past self-reinforcing threshold, converting significant areas from carbon sink to carbon source | Confidence: MEDIUM | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: Amazon at risk of transformation between 1.5–2°C;  combined pressure of warming and continued deforestation are both operative
🦢 Simultaneous cascade across multiple tipping points (AMOC + Amazon + Arctic sea ice collapse) produces non-linear acceleration that compresses medium-term projections into near-term emergency | Confidence: LOW (SPECULATIVE on precise timing) | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: Emergence dynamics — by definition, not predictable from linear models; the scenario earns the Black Swan label because retrospective rationalizability would be immediate

LONG TERM (10+ years)
🎯 2°C+ warming is locked in; global adaptation becomes the dominant policy frame replacing mitigation as primary strategy in most nations | Confidence: HIGH | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: Current trajectory makes this essentially certain absent unprecedented emissions reduction
🎯 Major coastal infrastructure redesign or abandonment begins in low-lying cities (Miami, Jakarta, Bangkok, Amsterdam, Mumbai); national security implications of managed retreat | Confidence: HIGH | Impact: CRITICAL | Key condition: Sea level along U.S. coastlines is projected to rise as much in the next 30 years as it did in the last 100;  infrastructure lifetimes make this a near-term investment question
⚡ A new international climate framework with enforcement mechanisms emerges, potentially outside the UNFCCC umbrella, among a coalition of major emitters facing shared physical consequences | Confidence: MEDIUM | Impact: HIGH | Key condition: Physical damage to advanced economies creating political will currently absent
🦢 Rapid ice sheet collapse (West Antarctic or Greenland) triggers multi-meter sea level rise on century timescale, making significant portions of current coastal civilization non-viable | Confidence: LOW | Impact: EXISTENTIAL | Key condition: Entire West Antarctic ice sheet melt estimated at 12 feet of sea level rise; ice sheet collapse has enormous inertia — “once the process gets underway, it’s difficult to stop”  — the Black Swan is not the event but the discovery that it is already underway

KEY DRIVERS
• CO₂ concentration trajectory: Already at 423.9 ppm; the physical forcing is locked in for decades regardless of near-term political choices. This is the single most important driver because it is the most irreversible.
• Tipping point cascade risk: The system is now operating in a range where multiple tipping elements are simultaneously at or near threshold. The interaction effects between them are the least-modeled and most dangerous variable.
• U.S. political volatility on climate: No other major economy has oscillated so dramatically between leadership and abdication. This oscillation creates global governance instability that exceeds the direct emissions impact of U.S. policy changes.
• Renewable energy deployment vs. total energy demand growth: The race between the speed of clean energy deployment and the growth of total energy demand (including AI/data centers) determines whether absolute emissions peak this decade or continue rising.
• Climate-security nexus in the Global South: The compounding of climate stress, food insecurity, conflict, and governance failure in Sahel, South Asia, and Central America is already generating the migration and instability second-order effects that will arrive in Northern Hemisphere political systems within this decade.

WILD CARDS
1. AI energy demand as a climate feedback: Data center energy consumption is growing rapidly with AI deployment. If AI electricity demand is met primarily with fossil fuels at scale — particularly in markets with less regulatory constraint — the technology transition and the energy transition could work at cross-purposes, creating a feedback loop that current climate models are not adequately incorporating.
2. Solar geoengineering unilateral deployment: One or more states (or non-state actors) facing acute climate consequences could unilaterally deploy stratospheric aerosol injection — reflecting sunlight to reduce temperatures — without international consensus. The effects on global precipitation patterns would be significant and unpredictable, with potential to trigger interstate conflict over who controls the global thermostat. This scenario is not mainstream but has been gaining serious academic attention.
3. Scientific monitoring degradation: The U.S. defunding of NOAA, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and withdrawal from IPCC processes does not change physical climate dynamics — but it degrades our ability to observe, model, and predict them. A world with less reliable early-warning infrastructure is not merely less informed; it is slower to respond to threshold events that require rapid action. The wild card is whether this monitoring gap, once established, takes longer to repair than the remaining window for effective mitigation response.

ANALYTICAL CONFIDENCE
Overall confidence in the physical science component of this assessment: HIGH. The multi-source convergence across IPCC AR6, WMO State of Climate reports, NOAA sea level data, and the Global Tipping Points Report 2025 is reinforcing rather than contradictory, and observed conditions match or slightly exceed model projections. Overall confidence in the political response trajectory: MEDIUM-LOW. The U.S. withdrawal sequence creates genuine uncertainty about whether international governance can maintain sufficient ambition, and no current framework produces outcomes consistent with 1.5°C or even 2°C pathways. The most important unknown is cascade timing: this assessment can identify that tipping point interactions are possible, but cannot assign reliable probability to when they occur or whether they interact sequentially or simultaneously. The assessment’s most significant assumption is that existing monitoring infrastructure (despite U.S. defunding) will retain sufficient coverage to provide early warning of step-change events — an assumption that Lens 9’s absence analysis flags as increasingly questionable. Where the official narrative of “manageable transition” is most structurally incomplete is in its treatment of tipping points as distant future risks rather than present-boundary conditions being actively tested.

SOURCES
1. Conservation International. (n.d.). IPCC reports on climate change. https://www.conservation.org/learning/ipcc-reports-on-climate-change (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2025). IPCC 2025 updates and AR7 workplan. https://www.ipcc.ch/2025/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
3. Earth Negotiations Bulletin / IISD. (2025, October). Summary report: IPCC-63, Lima, Peru. https://enb.iisd.org/intergovernmental-panel-climate-change-ipcc-63-summary (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
4. Washington State Department of Ecology. (2025, August). 2025 summary report on the science of human-caused climate change. https://apps.ecology.wa.gov/publications/documents/2514064.pdf (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
5. Masters, J. (2025, May 8). How to deny climate change using the IPCC report. Yale Climate Connections. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2025/05/how-to-deny-climate-change-using-the-ipcc-report/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
6. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2025, March 1). IPCC agrees on outlines of three key contributions to the Seventh Assessment Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/2025/03/01/ipcc-agrees-outlines-of-three-key-contributions-to-ar7/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
7. United Nations Environment Programme. (2025). Emissions Gap Report 2025: Off Target. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2025 (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
8. ScienceDaily. (2025, October 29). Global Tipping Points Report 2025: Earth has hit its first climate tipping point. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2025/10/251029002920.htm (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
9. Ripple, W. et al. (2025). 2025 State of the Climate report: A planet on the brink. Reported in Eos. https://eos.org/research-and-developments/2025-state-of-the-climate-report-our-planets-vital-signs-are-crashing (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
10. Met Office. (2025). 2024: record-breaking watershed year for global climate. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/weather-and-climate-news/2025/2024-record-breaking-watershed-year-for-global-climate (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
11. Global Climate Risks. (2025, December). WMO Global Climate Report 2025. https://globalclimaterisks.org/insights/blog/state-of-global-climate-2025-wmo/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
12. Carbon Brief. (2026, January 14). State of the climate: 2025 in top-three hottest years on record as ocean heat surges. https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-2025-in-top-three-hottest-years-on-record-as-ocean-heat-surges/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
13. NPR. (2025, November 19). 3 massive changes you’ll see as the climate careens toward tipping points. https://www.npr.org/2025/11/19/nx-s1-5593087/climate-tipping-points-cop30-brazil-coral-glaciers-carbon (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
14. NOAA Climate.gov. (2023, August 22). Climate change: Global sea level. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-sea-level (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
15. U.S. State Department. (2022). The intersection between climate change, food security, migration and displacement [Archived content]. https://2021-2025.state.gov/the-intersection-between-climate-change-food-security-migration-and-displacement/
16. S&P Global. (2025). Top geopolitical risks of 2025. https://www.spglobal.com/en/research-insights/market-insights/geopolitical-risk (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
17. Stockholm Environment Institute. (2024, November). Climate change and geopolitical division pose risks to food security. https://www.sei.org/about-sei/press-room/climate-and-geopolitical-division-pose-risks-to-food-security/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
18. Council on Strategic Risks. (2026, January). Stability multipliers: Food security, climate change, and the future of NATO resilience. https://councilonstrategicrisks.org/2026/01/20/stability-multipliers-food-security-climate-change-and-the-future-of-nato-resilience/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
19. Congressional Research Service. (2025, April). U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement: Process and potential effects (R48504). https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48504 (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
20. Amnesty International. (2026, January 27). US withdrawal from Paris Climate Agreement threatens “race to the bottom.” https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2026/01/global-us-withdrawal-from-landmark-paris-climate-agreement-threatens-a-race-to-the-bottom/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
21. Earth.Org. (2026, February 12). One year of Trump: How the US reversed climate progress. https://earth.org/one-year-of-trump-how-the-us-reversed-climate-progress-at-home-and-abroad/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
22. UNFCCC. (2026, January 8). Statement from UN Climate Chief on U.S. withdrawal from UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/news/step-back-from-climate-cooperation-will-hurt-us-economy-statement-from-un-climate-chief-on-us (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
23. GIS Reports. (2025, August). Impact of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. https://www.gisreportsonline.com/r/us-paris-agreement/ (Retrieved April 25, 2026)
24. npj Climate Action / Nature. (2025, July). Reversing climate progress: Consequences and solutions in the wake of U.S. policy rollbacks. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44168-025-00247-0 (Retrieved April 25, 2026)