With Recent Developments to the Nuclear Playing Field, the U.S.'s $1.7 Trillion Nuclear Rebuild Should Concern Us All

By: Jacob Rabin

In February 2023, Russia announced that it would suspend its participation in the New START treaty, the last remaining check on American and Russian nuclear stockpiles. At this point, there have been no negotiations with Russia on a new nuclear arms treaty.

China and the United States lack such a treaty as well, and China halted recent informal negotiations due to the United States continuing to sell arms to Taiwan.

These three countries represent over 92% of the world’s nuclear weapons. Although China’s stockpile lags far behind the United States and Russia, the Defense Intelligence Agency recently published a report stating that China has surpassed earlier growth projections, and by 2030 it is estimated China will have over 1,000 nuclear warheads.

After a brief respite following the Cold War, the threat of nuclear war has skyrocketed. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock still remains at 90 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been.

The United States government is being forced to respond to these recent developments. The United States is now in the process of a $1.7 trillion nuclear overhaul that is expected to be completed in three decades. The developments include building new nuclear facilities, modernizing aged warheads, developing  bombers, and submarines. Jill Hruby, the Director of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the agency that oversees the country’s nuclear weapons, recently called the plan a “renaissance.”

Not only does the plan have massive implications for the future of nuclear war, but even on the home front, these developments will have significant impacts on the communities in which they occur. Although the United States no longer routinely tests nuclear warheads, the effects of even building these weapons have extensive effects. 

In 1989, the last time that the US produced plutonium “pits,” the facility in Colorado where production occurred was actually shut down by the Environmental Protection Agency for environmental violations. The effects persist to this day, with plutonium found in the air near the plant just this past summer.

Other communities will  either be temporarily or permanently changed as thousands of employees descend on rural towns.

This is worrying. As tensions continue to escalate between Russia and Ukraine,, a war in the Middle East becoming increasingly likely, and nonstop posturing in the South China Sea over Taiwan, it’s not like there aren’t ongoing conflicts involving nuclear powers. One mistake or overreaction could genuinely change the future trajectory of the planet.

The simple truth is that we need to be alarmed. This is a multifaceted issue whose neglect will have impacts on people both now and later. We need to bring more attention to his issue. We need to work together  to build a nuclear-free future where countries, including the United States, aren’t devoting trillions of dollars to technology that could legitimately destroy the world. 

Continued French Ignorance of Indigenous Populations

By: Luke Crafton

In May 2024, riots roared across the French Overseas Territory of New Caledonia due to the French government’s implementation of a new voting amendment. The legislation, passed by politicians across the ocean in Paris, allowed for residents who have been on the island for at least 10 years to vote in elections and participate civically. 

However, the Indigenous Kanaks, who make up 41% of the country’s population, have lived through many migration efforts by the French government since the 1960s. These attempts have encouraged French residents to migrate to the territory, actively displacing and lessening the influence that the Kanak have over their native land. 

For decades, tensions have continued rising between the island's pro-independence and loyalist parties. The Kanak have continuously suffered from the neglect of the French government and face numerous socioeconomic challenges, such as unemployment, reliance on subsistence farming, and land dispossession. 

This amendment is seen as just an additional move to disregard and overlook the struggles and needs of the island’s native population. 

Between the 1960s and 1980s, the movement for independence within New Caledonia swept across the country’s political scene, and in 1988, a referendum for independence was accepted: the Nouméa Accord. 

This frustration has now taken a new front. 

Native Kanak peoples seeking the autonomy that was gradually promised in the 1989 Nouméa accord feel that any progress has effectively been walked back through this motion, a step that many see as further reducing the influence they have in their homeland by those who are supposed to represent their needs in their politics.  

Even UN experts have been alarmed by the situation, stating: “The French government has failed to respect the basic rights to participation, consultation and free, prior, informed consent of the Kanak Indigenous Peoples and its institutions, including the Customary Senate.”

Beginning in February 2024, Kanak people have taken to the streets in response to protest this measure. Still, due to a lack of dialogue, violence has started to emerge out of these demonstrations. In response, the military has utilized what many have referred to as excessive force, leading to today with the deaths of 14 Kanaks, over 2000 arrests, and nearly 1 billion euros of damage. A large factory was burnt down in Nouméa, alongside the destruction of other property like businesses and cars. 

On the 16th of May, the French government even banned TikTok on the island, aiming further to reduce the spreading of communication and anti-government sentiment. The app’s restrictions were lifted on the 29th as violence began to lighten up due to a French military operation that targeted those organizing. 

Yet, attacks persist across the country as tensions run high between the natives of the New Caledonian islands and the police and military forces, who just months ago employed any means necessary to suppress their voices and resentment over the poor treatment of their communities within the island’s political sphere. A strong police presence remains in many neighborhoods and urban areas across the country, signaling to the Kanak that those who claim to be interested in their liberation still don’t trust or understand them. 

New Caledonia’s status as an overseas territory, especially in the 21st century, is incredibly unique and repeatedly displays the inadequacy of colonial policies that persist in the modern era. 

Roughly 71 overseas territories exist globally, and while not all have created difficult situations for Indigenous populations’ homelands, New Caledonia exemplifies how governments that are so detached can be wholly inadequate for meeting the needs of the people that they have jurisdiction over. 

As this situation unfolds, the international community will continue to watch how poorly this form of governance can manifest itself upon those it is designed to protect. 

The U.S.-Mexico Border isn't Just a Political Issue, it's a Humanitarian Crisis

By: Priya Buddhavarapu

The US-Mexico migrant crisis isn’t just a political issue, but also a major humanitarian crisis. 

As Americans, we tend to boil down the complexity of the border crisis to three major dimensions: border security, illegal immigration, and drugs. However, there is a fourth dimension, a humanitarian dimension, that goes relatively unnoticed by the mass media and governments alike. Migrants are a highly vulnerable demographic, often exposed to extreme cases of danger, exploitation, and abuse. 

There are two aspects of the trans-American odyssey that especially contribute to the significant humanitarian risk that come with illegal immigration. The first is the dangers of the chosen form of passage, and the second is the exploitation of migrants by drug traffickers and powerful cartels.

Each mode of transportation along the migrants’ journey to the United States is accompanied by its unique risks and tribulations, whether it be by foot, boat, bus, or train. For example, a migrant traveling by foot from South America must survive the Darién Gap, a roadless crossing that is “more than sixty miles of dense rain forest, steep mountains, and vast swamps” situated on the border of Panama and Colombia. The Darién Gap is the only overland path connecting Central and South America, making it a key transit point that authorities have led crackdowns on. Through this route, migrants must often pay for a guide, called a “coyote,” to lead them through the jungle, where they are often faced with extreme hunger and thirst, intense anxiety, hopelessness, relentless rainfall, muddy terrain, and drastic temperatures. At the same time, they must evade–and often fall victim to– smugglers, drug cartels, and bands of criminals who often extort and assault migrants. In the first six months of 2023 alone, there were 60 reported deaths, leaving cause to believe that the actual figure was much larger. Not only do these migrants face the physical dangers of their environment, they are also victims of rape, robbery, and human trafficking. 

Assume the migrant has successfully crossed the Darién Gap, one of the most dangerous natural traps of their journey up north, as well as several other Central American countries. Now, they face the last, yet arguably the most treacherous leg: traversing Mexico. They opt for the infamous cargo train lines that run from the Guatemalan border to the north of the country. Colloquially called La Bestia – “The Beast.” —  migrants ride atop these rapidly moving freight trains, seeing that there are no passenger rail cars. Any space is valuable real estate; if they fall or are pushed off, they are subject to injury, amputation, or death. Furthermore, many of these freight lines are controlled by gangs and organized crime groups. Defenseless migrants are often subject to extortion, violence, rape, kidnapping, and robbery. According to one estimate, “eighty percent of passengers are subjected to violence while hundreds have died.” 

The humanitarian perils of their journey does not stop here. Throughout every step, organized crime groups exploit the fragile states of migrants, using blackmail, extortion, and violence to trap them in dangerous, self-serving situations. Many, especially women and children, fall victim to human trafficking and sexual violence, leading to grave circumstances such as unwanted pregnancies, HIVs, sexually transmitted diseases, and mental health issues. And, of course, no matter where migrants are, there is the omnipresent risk of being turned in or discovered by immigration officials threatening deportation or worse. 

The statuses of these migrants must not be diminished to a figure on an immigration report. In fact, this issue should not solely be looked at as a border issue, but as a real, imminent humanitarian crisis that governments across North America are insufficiently acting to prevent. In addressing a solution regarding the border, these governments must not only focus on security, but also on the lives and safety of migrants, who risk everything to seek a better life. 

AI Threatens to Exacerbate Global Inequality

By: Saira Uttamchandani

The development of artificial intelligence has led to some fascinating, increasingly popular inventions, such as the large language model ChatGPT. While artificial intelligence (AI) can do many interesting things, such as write music or create art, it also has had a significant positive  impact on various fields, such as finance, transportation, and medicine. As a result, investors are betting that the implementation of AI could raise global GDP by 7.5% by the year 2034. However, this incredible potential for growth could also exacerbate global inequality, as AI’s benefits are experienced unequally across countries and regions. Many developing countries lack the resources needed to take advantage of AI’s benefits and may also be the first to experience its harms.

Reaping the benefits of AI requires countries to have the necessary hard and soft infrastructure to support its use. This requires extensive digital connectivity, a technically savvy population, appropriate laws and regulations, and innovation. Higher-income countries are better prepared to take advantage of AI's benefits in all these areas due to the current wealth disparity between nations. Higher-income nations are thus better poised to benefit from artificial intelligence financially and economically. As these countries continue to benefit from artificial intelligence, it threatens to increase global inequality, as AI has the ability to increase productivity and generate greater wealth. 

Artificial intelligence also requires a lot of energy for the algorithm running, data center operation, and other similar tasks. This poses an issue, as lower-income countries often lack access to stable and reliable energy sources. This means they are less likely to benefit from the use of AI compared to higher-income nations, further increasing the chasmic divide. 

Artificial intelligence has been shown to improve economic productivity and economic status. If lower-income countries do not have access to these benefits, they will continue to fall behind as higher-income countries grow richer. Similarly, AI requires extensive computing power to run effectively, which many lower-income countries do not have. This is yet another difficulty lower-income countries face when trying to harness the power of artificial intelligence. 

It would be bad enough if developing countries were only less able to take advantage of AI's benefits, but this harm is exacerbated by the fact that AI also threatens to weaken the economies of developing countries through labor market disruption and a lack of technological skills in the countries’ workforce.

Labor market disruption via artificial intelligence has already begun. For example, automated assembly lines are replacing human workers, especially among “routine and repetitive” jobs, which automation can easily replace. Many corporations, such as Nike and Apple, outsource labor to developing countries, and a significant part of these countries’ GDP can be attributed to these manufacturing jobs. As they invest in their factories to improve productivity, the workers who are replaced by artificial intelligence have less disposable income and dollars to reinvest into the economy of these developing countries, thus stunting growth.

Incorporating artificial intelligence also increases demand for workers with skills to work alongside these new systems. 

AI is different from previous significant technological developments. For example, compared to the Industrial Revolution, AI is more likely to impact both blue-collar and white-collar jobs, and there is much more potential for high-skilled workers to reap the benefits. Complementary jobs in cybersecurity and IT, which already pay quite well compared to other fields, will surge as AI creates new opportunities As a result, high earning workers may experience a disproportionate increase in their income. These high-wage earners are disproportionately located in developed countries and, therefore, workers in lower-income countries may not experience the benefits as robustly.

In an increasingly automated world where artificial intelligence is continuously growing at remarkable speeds, we must recognize the unequal benefit  it provides and the harm it causes.

The U.S. Needs to Stand With Canada

By: Saira Uttamchandani

Last summer, the news of Canadian Sikh activist Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s murder in Surrey, British Columbia, shocked the world. He was shot in his truck outside of the the Guru Nanak Sikh Gurdwara (a Sikh temple), sparking an uproar in Canada’s Sikh community. Nijjar was known for being a prominent activist for the creation of Khalistan, an independent Sikh state. This led the Indian media and government to label him a terrorist, while he gained a large following in the Sikh community.

This situation escalated when Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, asserted in September of 2023 that there were “credible allegations” that the Indian government was connected to Nijjar’s murder. 

These accusations have sparked a wave of disputes between Canada and India, culminating in the expulsion of six Indian diplomats from Canada. 

The United States has been pulled directly into this affair, with the Department of Justice announcing in November the thwarted murder of Canadian-American Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, an associate of Nijjar who was also an advocate for the Sikh separatist movement. U.S. prosecutors are asserting that the accused, Nikhil Gupta, was directed by an official of the Indian government, Vikash Yadav.

As each others’ “closest allies,” the United States has a moral obligation to support Canada in this dispute, despite the US’ growing financial and strategic ties with India. Additionally, the legal and ideological ramifications of not condemning these extrajudicial killings threatens American interests as well.

India is not only a major trading partner for the United States, but also a key ally in the security sphere. It’s proximity to China has also helped counterbalance and deter the latter’s influence and promote democracy in the region, a cause that is incredibly important to the United States.

However, the importance of the Canadian-American alliance cannot be understated. They share the longest border of two countries in the world, trade hundreds of billions of dollars between them, have close military relations, and similar cultures. The partnership strengthens both nations on a global stage in multiple sectors. A lack of condemnation towards India regarding this issue not only sends a signal to Canada that their shared values of due process and democracy and close relationship are less important than placating India, but also sends a global message of acceptance of India’s actions.

The United States and India have a strong partnership that is founded upon the shared ideal of democracy. Extrajudicial killing contradicts the core of democracy, and violates the fundamental right to life that all individuals have, leading the United States to explicitly condemn it. A supposed democratic institute such as the Indian government must protect this right and punish those who violate it, and an ally of the United States should share such a cardinal value.

Not only does the Indian constitution protect the right to life in Article 21, but the Indian government has signed numerous international treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which the United States has also signed) that affirm that the right to life is protected. Specifically, the ICCPR affirms individuals’ rights to a fair trial and due process, both of which were violated in the case of this extrajudicial killing. 

The fact that the government of an American ally is acting in such discordance with our fundamental values is a huge ideological concern. Not standing with Canada in this dispute sends a conflicting global message about what the United States stands for, weakening its position as the leader of the free world and a powerful global player overall. Furthermore, failing to condemn India’s actions sends a message that these extrajudicial killings are acceptable, suggesting to India—and potentially other nations—that there are no foreign relations consequences for such breaches of international law, thereby emboldening them to continue.

This is an incredibly slippery slope of injustice. It is imperative that the United States makes it known that they stand by their foundational values.

Nuclear Fears: The Death of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the Future of Iranian Nuclear Weapons

By: Emma Kim

In 2015, Iran, the US, and several other world powers entered an agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). This agreement attempted to restrict the revival of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which ultimately proved successful, with Iran agreeing to in-depth investigations of their nuclear facilities and a subsequent dismantling of their nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief. 

This agreement remained in effect until 2018, when President Donald Trump withdrew the US from the deal, claiming it was one-sided. Iran initially claimed that they would continue to honor the agreement, but as the Trump administration’s sanctions increased, Tehran began to violate the deal. This started with stockpiling stores of low-enriched uranium at levels above the established limits and escalated to a complete abandonment of uranium enrichment restrictions. 

Iran worked to develop the use of nuclear power with the assistance of the United States Atoms for Peace Program from the 1950s continuing into 1970s, even becoming one of the original 62 signatories of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NTP), intending to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. However, following the Iranian revolution of 1979, nuclear projects were mostly halted, and US support ceased. 

In the late 1980s and early 90s, following a costly war with Iraq, Iran resumed its nuclear program with the help of China, Pakistan, and Russia. However, concerns quickly arose regarding undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran, reinforcing US skepticism that Iran was using its civilian nuclear program to hide its nuclear weapons development. 

Tensions between the US and Iran were high during the early 2000s and escalated further following the US withdrawal from the JCPOA. Longtime US ally Israel published a report in 2018 detailing previous Iranian nuclear activities, which US President Donald Trump cited as justification in the US’s withdrawal from the JCPOA, and no meaningful reconciliation were made during the remainder of Trump's term. 

When Joe Biden was elected president, he began making attempts to salvage the JCPOA. In 2022, Tehran and Washington made significant progress, but Iranian demands for changes to the agreement, coupled with US concerns regarding the suppression of domestic protests in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini at the hands of Iran’s morality police ultimately led to a collapse in dialogue.

Following the outbreak of war in Ukraine, Iran began supplying Russia with weaponry and has continued to do so into the present day. Exacerbated by growing hostilities between Iran and Israel following the October 7th attack by Hamas on Israel and subsequent Israeli bombardment of the Gaza strip, little to any hope remains of renewal of the JCPOA. 

The death of the JCPOA has become increasingly relevant as Iranian nuclear advancements continue to accelerate. In April of 2024, it was believed that Iran’s “breakout time”—the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb was close to zero. Slowing Iran’s equipment to produce nuclear weaponry was one of the JCPOA’s primary goals, explaining the strict caps on the amount of uranium Iran could stockpile that were part of the agreement.

In December of 2024, reports announced that Iran’s enrichment of uranium has reached levels that are near bomb grade, a likely sign that Iran is approaching capability of constructing nuclear weaponry. While the previous reports from April had indicated 60% purity, reports released in December point towards 90% purity, an amount that most believe can have no civilian justification. While Iran insists its nuclear development has been primarily in the pursuit of energy production, these recent developments question the validity of these claimed motives.

It is unclear what Iran’s purpose in developing nuclear weapons would be. While it is plausible that Iran is shoring up its defenses toward US-Israeli joint opposition following the onset of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian region, it is also possible that Iran intends to create a bargaining chip in the face of Donald Trump’s return to office in the US. As Trump was the one to initially withdraw from the JCPOA, his return to office potentially poses an opportunity for renegotiation, although Trump has pledged that if he were ever to enter an agreement with Iran, it would be far more strict than the one initiated by the Obama administration.

At this time the future of Iranian Nuclear Weaponry is unclear, and heightened tensions in the Middle East between US-backed Israel and Iran-backed Lebanon continue to complicate the path forward. As the US prepares for Donald Trump’s re-entry into the white house and Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, the U.S. and its Western allies must weigh the choice between making concessions to Iran to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and confronting the potential consequences of refusing to do so.

Lethal Autonomous Weapons: What Are They and How Do We Address Them?

By: Charlotte Sparling

What used to be a myth is now a reality. Lethal autonomous weapons (LAWs), at their core, are weapons that act and make lethal decisions without human intervention, effectively thinking on their own. They are similar to drones but lack the crucial element of human oversight. However, not even the international community has a clear definition of what they are, contributing to the challenge of how to adequately address them. 

The development of these weapons poses several major concerns that must be addressed.

First, there are serious questions about LAWs violating international law. UN Secretary-General António Guterres argues these weapons are morally concerning and violate International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Two of the core elements of IHL are distinction and accountability. LAWs act without human oversight; there is no human verification of targets. Facial recognition is one method to identify targets but opens the door to ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, like any other technology, LAWs will inevitably malfunction, resulting in the question of who is then accountable. If a robot accidentally kills the wrong target, is the machine accountable?

Second, the question of regulation is uncertain and pressing. There is no clear regulation of LAWs, yet their potential to cause such sweeping impacts makes their regulation imperative. To prevent crises, standards must be established. The international community has recognized the importance of discussing this issue, but what exactly those steps would be is unclear. 

Despite this pessimistic outlook, regulation is possible. Land mines, biological weapons, and nuclear weapons were all regulated in some manner. There is no reason why the same could not be done for LAWs, but such regulation must first be preceded by establishment of a solid definition. 

The truth is that LAWs are here. We must move forward, acknowledge, and act accordingly. In the Russia-Ukraine war, there has been talk of Russia deploying weapons with some autonomous capabilities. Turkey, Israel, Russia, and South Korea have reportedly deployed similar weapons. Both the US and China are also investing heavily in this technology. No one wants to be the one without the newest and shiniest toys.

Part of what makes LAWs of interest is their life-preserving abilities. Without having to send troops who are often clouded by emotions into risky situations, LAWs can be more accurate, mitigate the loss of life, and reduce damage to the surrounding areas. It is important to recognize these benefits as the march of innovation cannot be halted. 

Ukraine, recognizing these benefits, has invested heavily in autonomous drones and similar technologies. In a war that is not likely to end in a decisive Ukrainian win, any methods to minimize the sacrifice of Ukrainian lives are imperative. While Ukraine’s weapons still require human intervention, they are only one step off from LAWs. How the war develops with these weapons will likely serve as a turning point for the future of autonomous warfare.

On the global diplomatic scale, opinions are mixed. The UN and many countries support a full ban on LAWs or regulation at a minimum. The US supports regulation over a complete ban. China and Russia, meanwhile, have yet to clearly indicate their positions. 

Instead of an outright ban, the solution is to establish regulations. By embracing the reality that LAWs will likely play a crucial role in future warfare, guidelines can help shape the role this technology plays while simultaneously reaping its benefits. Ignoring these weapons could lead to their misuse and make humanitarian violations far more likely. The first step in regulation is to create a singular definition of what LAWs are. It is through these efforts that the international community can adequately address ethical concerns. 

Climate Change Threatens National Security

By: Charlotte Sparling

In the latest UN climate report, the Secretary-General starkly warned that we are in the midst of  “a ‘code red for humanity.’ ” The climate is collapsing and national security is at risk. While green energy is the solution, and investment into the sector is crucial to protect national security, this is not a simple fix.

Globally, accounting for 80% of energy production, 75% of greenhouse gas emissions, and nearly 90% of carbon dioxide emissions, fossil fuels are the largest contributors to climate change. Consequently, the World Health Organization has reported that around 99% of the world’s population breathe in air that has exceeded safe air quality levels, causing millions of deaths a year and $2.9 trillion in health and economic issues. 

This climate crisis extends beyond health concerns and into national security threats. Before Russia’s war on Ukraine, over 40% of Europe’s imported gas and roughly 25% of their oil came from Russia. When Russia turned off the tap, oil and gas prices skyrocketed. 

Energy is fundamental to a successful country. The power and influence fossil fuel exporting countries have over their tethered receiving countries, threatens the recipient’s national security. Hospitals, schools, homes, businesses, and governmental activities are all reliant upon energy. Cut that off, and the country is at its knees.  

Yet, Europe recognized their Achilles heel was their fossil fuel reliance, and shifted faster towards green energy. As they moved, so too did the world, which sped up the global transition towards green energy upwards of five to ten years.

Green is on the rise; out of the renewable energies, solar, wind, and hydropower are the three most promising. This transition to renewable energy is imperative, but the solution is by no means simple.

As a cheap and abundant source of energy, solar appears to be the perfect solution. If utilized to its full extent, one hour of sunlight generates more energy than the world consumes in a year. Yet, solar contributes only 3.6% to electricity production globally. This huge gap in utilizing solar is largely due to how expensive and difficult it is to store the energy. 

Wind, another cheap energy source, also is inefficient with storing excess energy. Simultaneously, wind turbines cause environmental concerns, such as bird collisions, habitat disruptions, and noise pollution. 

Hydropower outproduces all other forms of renewable energy in US electricity production and begins to address the energy storage problem. In these systems, water is pumped up to a higher elevation, from an initial energy source, and is released downhill through a turbine that generates energy when necessary. However, hydropower systems have problems of their own, including specific geographical needs, access to an energy source, and high capital inputs.

While pumped hydropower systems are one approach to the storage issue, batteries are another. The most common option is lithium-ion batteries. Unfortunately, these often utilize fossil fuels in transportation and manufacturing, while also containing nickel and cobalt, which are associated with complications of their own. 

Contaminating the air, water, soil, and natural habitats, nickel mining is extremely costly. The extraction itself produces sulfur dioxide and metal-infused dust. In Indonesia, nickel mining has caused deforestation, water pollution, and human health concerns. 

The mining of cobalt employs unsafe practices, child labor, and unregulated disposal of toxic waste, which causes water and crop pollution. In turn, this destabilizes the local regions and makes them more vulnerable.

The truth is this: no energy source is perfect. Countries must continue to fund research and development to progress this green transition forward. 

Currently, 80% of people live in countries that are net-importers of fossil fuels. To avoid being vulnerable to these countries turning off supply or fossil fuel depletion, green energy should be explored as a safer and a more abundant alternative. However, this assumes green energy is a viable solution, thus stressing the need for more resources to be devoted to solving this issue. 

Simply put, investing in green not only protects the environment, but also releases other countries from the grasp of fossil-fuel producing countries, which, in turn, boosts national security.