Our professor took us to the deck of the ship and began talking about all of the different creatures we would be able to see while out here in the middle of the ocean traveling from port to port.

He went on to describe the role these creatures play in their own microcosms, but also in the world at large and in our everyday lives, whether we realize it or not. We ended up discussing issues of global warming, the rising seas, glacial melt, energy shift, higher temperatures and droughts – all topics we would come back to many times over the course of the summer.

But when Maggie and I got back to our room after that first day of class she looked at me and said, “You know, when he was talking about all the global warming stuff — I’m sorry but I just don’t believe him. I know that’s a load of hogwash.”

I was completely shocked. While I knew that there were many non-believers out there, I didn’t know any of them. Not to mention, at this point it was 2012 and there was someone my age—albeit very conservative in her political persuasion—who actually thought the idea of global warming was a myth (and especially a computer engineer, no?).

How can a population cause so much destruction to the natural environment and cause extinction for many of its inhabitants and not see any repercussions? Until this day, that still boggles my mind. I didn’t even know how to respond to Maggie other than trying to morph the expression in my face quickly enough to hide my true feeling.

I managed to say, “Oh, really? Yeah….I mean, I definitely believe in that.” I wasn’t exactly trying to start anything, so I quickly changed the subject since I knew there were just clearly some fundamental differences in our beliefs, and we still had a whole summer to live together.

My point is, that even just three years ago and I’m sure still today, there are people who simply ignore the majority of scientists and research, and argued against the concept of climate change. But now, the conversation has changed or at least, it’s beginning to. Today it’s not about if it’s true or false, it’s about how we can best counter the domino effects that have been set into motion.

Across the U.S. our nation’s leaders and commander in chief have taken action, so much so that the United States is actually leading global efforts to address the issue of climate change. That’s because they’ve realized something: the issue of climate change is connected to American interests at home and abroad.

It may be hard to see the connection but at the basest level of analysis you can deduce that for national security, there is a purely logistical concern about the effects of climate change.

Dr. Boudrias, an expert in environmental studies at the University of San Diego, put it this way, “there’s no doubt at this point, having talked to military members at a national level, that they are clearly concerned of the affects of climate change on national security and international conflicts.” Boudrias explained that the issue of climate change comes into play for military installations around the world.

“If you think of Navy bases and understand the problems that come with rising sea levels, the issues begin to change,” said Boudrias, “If climate change effects water resources and you have a drought, then in the logistics of your bases—having enough water for your troops, for your facility, there are going to be major problems.”

Go beyond a military scope and think about natural disasters. Though it’s unclear whether climate change will increase the number of hurricanes, it’s a fact that its effects intensify their impacts.

Take for example, Hurricane Sandy, which caused an estimated $65 billion in damages. The magnitude of power the storm wielded was only increased by the rising sea levels. We saw the destruction of homes, crops, land, depleting the area of human necessities needed to survive and leaving people homeless, jobless, displaced from their own families and impoverished.

Even in more recent years we have seen an increase in the number of North Atlantic tropical storms per year, jumping from 11 annually to 16. The rise in sea surface temperatures, which could be related to global warming, has a direct correlation to that number.

What about at even more basic level? We don’t need a hurricane or an increase in the number of tornadoes to see that something has to change. Just think about something as basic to us in the U.S like water, with global warming comes decreased rainfall, higher temperatures, desertification and energy shifts. According to A Medill student journalism project, Global Warning, “the UN projects climate change will double the number of droughts worldwide and extend their length.”

With potable water level low around the world, that scarcity coupled with increased urbanization, ethnic tension, poverty, etc. and something is going to happen. The National Intelligence Council predicts that fresh water scarcity “could lead to conflict in the Nile, state failure in Pakistan and Yemen and large movement of people along the Rio Grande.”

But bring that even closer to home, what about California right now? Where the drought is so bad, Gov. Jerry Brown introduced mandatory water cuts for the first time in the state’s history.

How is water scarcity going to effect the ~38 million people and 900 miles of wildlife who call that state home?

Even further than that, it’s a state that grows much of the produce shipped across the U.S, so what is that going to mean for everyone who call the U.S. home?

I know that for myself, being from California, it’s something I think of a lot.

When I first heard that climate change was an issue of national security I didn’t make that immediate connection, but climate change has the ability to affect our everyday life and it can happen instantly.

As Boudrias said, “climate change is complicated and the connections are everywhere.”

It changes the whole economic, social and political world, it’s a symbiotic relationship—when one part of that equation falters it creates a butterfly effect to the other.

At issue is the implementation of a key section of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which is approaching its fifth anniversary next week.

“That is five years of payments for oil projects without adequate transparency and citizen oversight. Five years of corruption and poverty in oil-rich countries. Five years with investors not having access to this critical data,” the report says.

The provision requires oil, gas and mining companies to disclose payments to the Securities and Exchange Commission for things such as taxes, permits and licenses needed for development overseas.

Oil production in developing countries including Angola, Nigeria, Indonesia, Sierra Leone is estimated to have generated approximately $1.55 trillion for such governments in the five years since Dodd-Frank Act was enacted, and much of it has flowed to governments with limited or no transparency, according to the report by Oxfam America, the U.S. branch of the international charity working to find solutions to poverty around the world.

The federal rule would also have “serious impact on investors and their bottom line,” said Isabel Munilla, Oxfam America’s senior policy advisor.

“Oil, gas and mineral development has destabilized a lot of countries,” Munilla said in a phone interview. Despite generating a lot of money, the development often leads to conflicts in local communities, where many remain poor despite the windfall, she added.

“And when communities protest to stop a mining or oil drilling project, the company can loose millions of dollars in a day,” Munilla said.

The report also indicates that American Petroleum Institute and 10 of its members have spent over $360 million on lobbying and political contributions in the U.S. between 2010 and 2014. Most notably among their efforts, was an oil industry lawsuit led by the API that resulted in the overturn of a “strong final rule” issued by the SEC in 2012.

The U.S law, when implemented, will “shine a light on payments made by more than 1,100 companies”, many of which constitute the world’s largest oil, gas and mining businesses, including Chinese and Brazilian state-owned companies, says the report.

In a March filing the SEC has indicated that it may not issue the new rule until spring of next year.

Oxfam has asked the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts to compel the SEC to finish the rule by the close of 2015. The court’s decision is still pending but “should come out any day from now,” said Munilla.

“With payments for oil and mining projects out in the open, citizens can demand their governments spend these funds in the communities where drilling is taking place – using it to fight extreme poverty and build roads, schools, and hospitals,” said Raymond Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America.

Facing aggressive lobbying and legal challenges by trade groups like the API and oil industry giants like Shell and Chevron, the SEC has already delayed its rule making “at least seven times,” Munilla said.

An SEC spokeswoman declined to comment on the report or the rule-making process.

The Dodd-Frank provision has inspired 30 countries to adopt similar laws and regulations requiring payment transparency of oil, gas and mining companies, the report says. As a result, U.S.-listed companies including Shell and BP, even though not yet required by the SEC to disclose payments, will soon have to do so as these companies are also covered by the European and Canadian regulations.

Not all companies in the oil, gas and mining industry oppose the disclosure rule. Oil companies including Statoil and Kosmos Energy have already begun disclosing their payment information. Statoil, an API member, has publicly distanced itself from the lawsuit against the SEC, the report says.

Published in conjunction with

WASHINGTON — After several European allies applied to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank this week, U.S. officials have begun to soften their critical view on the China-backed initiative.

“We do not ask any country to choose ties with the U.S. to the exclusion of anyone else,” Deputy Secretary of the State Tony Blinken said Tuesday in a speech at the Brookings Institution, the centrist think tank.

Tony Blinken talks about China’s role in Central Asia development

Blinken restated the White House’s earlier concerns about the standards the China-backed will use for making decisions. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew also remarked at a congressional hearing last week that anyone joining the AIIB need to ask those questions.

The AIIB’s operation plan won’t be revealed until later this year. But it is said the bank will model itself after existing development banks, giving founding members the most voting power. China will also reportedly give up veto power, which eased concerns from many countries.

Blinken worries the AIIB could “dilute the standard” of existing institutions

On one front, the environment, the AIIB is not a copy of World Bank

In the “Environmental and Social Framework” released last June, the World Bank sets specific requirements on labor and working conditions, resource efficiency and pollution protection, community health and safety, and three other categories of environmental and social standards. All are mandatory in order to reduce poverty and increase prosperity in a sustainable manner worldwide, the World Bank asserts.

Chen Bin, a commentator in the outspoken Chinese newspaper, Southern Weekly, however, said it’s “inconsiderate” to ask AIIB to stick to and carry out these criteria.

China’s Finance Minister Lou Jiwei said at a recent Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting that the bank is aimed at promoting connectivity among Asian countries, through commercial infrastructure investment instead of poverty reduction.

Largely commercial, AIIB sets itself apart from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, led by Japan, both committed to public welfare. This leaves more space as well as questions in how the bank will select the programs and infrastructures in which to invest.

“The World Bank and other existing multilateral development assistance organizations have strong rules to promote sustainable and inclusive growth,” said Scott Kennedy, director of Project on Chinese Business & Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “China’s bilateral foreign assistance to date is filled with examples where there has been insufficient attention to protecting the environment and ensuring safe and fair treatment of workers. And a substantial portion of this aid has benefitted Chinese companies. Hence, there is good reason to have some concerns about how the AIIB will operate,” he said.

AIIB currently has 30 prospective founding members, including Great Britain, France, Germany and Italy. Seventeen other countries and regions, including Australia and Taiwan, have yet to be approved. The final list will be confirmed on April 15.