There's a great piece on RH Reality Check today on the fact that while global climate change is, at long last, getting the attention it deserves, there needs to be more focus on how women are being disproportionately affected - particularly in low-income countries.

While studies have shown that natural disasters shorten women's life expectancy significantly more than men's as well as contribute to reproductive and maternal health problems, there are also inequalities in everyday life experiences resulting from climate change:

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that women produce 60-80 percent of food grown in the developing world -- often small scale crops critical to their family's sustenance. Women and girls are responsible for collecting and carrying water -- a time consuming and physically demanding task in places where wells are not easily accessible. In some places, this work takes hours each day, and as communities cope with the effects of changes in climate, demands on women's time and workloads are likely to increase.

The piece raises up a lot of questions to be answered, and a few potential ways to improve women's status during global climate change, like giving them more decision-making power in disaster prevention and preparedness programs and disaster recovery operations and increasing female participation in national talks about climate change. The author says it best:

The world needs more women-centered research and strategies for climate change adaptation, and the world's large emitters must shoulder the responsibility for their impacts on the world's poorest populations in order to see a world that is more equitable, healthy, able to prevent catastrophic climate change, and to adapt to its impacts.

Tragic news out of Darfur shows that peacekeeping is a dangerous and deadly job.

Suspected Janjaweed militiamen have ambushed a UN convoy in Sudan's war-torn Darfur, killing seven peacekeepers and wounding more than 20, dealing the deadliest attack to the six-month-old mission.

Armed with heavy weaponry and travelling in 40 vehicles, officials said gunmen ambushed the police and army convoy on Tuesday at Um Hakibah in North Darfur State, southwest of the peacekeeping headquarters in El Fasher.

Seven peacekeepers were killed and 22 were wounded, seven critically, UN spokeswoman Michele Montas told reporters in New York.

The peacekeeping force known as UNAMID, which is severely under-equipped and under-manned, has suffered a string of attacks since it assumed control from an African Union force in Darfur, gripped by escalating insecurity and banditry.

An attack like this demonstrates just how important it is that we support peacekeepers who are risking their lives in Darfur, doing a job that no one else wants to do. The Save Darfur Coalition says more:

"The Save Darfur Coalition vehemently condemns yesterday's brutal attack on the UNAMID civilian protection force between the towns Gusa Jamat and Wadah in North Darfur. The U.N. Security Council must impose consequences on the parties responsible for this act of brutality -- which comes just weeks before the one year anniversary of UNAMID's authorization and violates numerous Security Council resolutions. Additionally, the attack underscores the need for the council to work diligently to ensure the full and rapid deployment of UNAMID -- which currently only has one third of its authorized troops on the ground -- and the swift delivery of necessary equipment if the force is ever to have the hope of fulfilling its mandate."

Back in November the head of UN Peacekeeping warned of the consequences of mounting an under-equipped mission that lacked necessary force multipliers like attack helicopters. "If [UNAMID] was to know humiliation in the early stage of its deployment then it'd be very hard to recover," said Jean-Marie Guehenno. His warning went unheeded. Now, after mourning the loss of these peacekeepers, we will have to turn our attention to the political fallout of this attack. Potential troop contributing countries in the developing world may be understandably deterred from putting their troops in harms way if support from the developed world is not immediately forthcoming. The tragedies of Darfur may compound.

New from the Stanley Foundation is a fantastic new interactive (and aesthetically pleasing) website, Rising Powers, which chronicles how emerging powers like Brazil, China, and the European Union are changing the global landscape. The site also includes some key data on how non-state actors are responding to the rise of alternate power centers to the United States. It's fascinating stuff...but wait, there's more! To accompany this new project, the Stanley Foundation has teamed up with a number of journalistic enterprises to sponsor a new audio documentary series for public radio.

TSF's new project immediately conjures to mind this On Day One video cut by Parag Khanna, author of Second World: Empires and Influence in the New Global Order which chronicles how international relations is changing as new global power centers emerge. In the clip below, Khanna argues that the United States must completely overhaul its public diplomacy apparatus to make the most from these changes.

At a press stakeout yesterday, Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters that he has "nine votes" lined up behind a United States sponsored Security Council resolution imposing an arms embargo on Zimbabwe and sanctioning a number of Zanu-PF leaders.

What's the significance of "nine votes?" For one, it means that Russia may be softening its opposition to Security Council sanctions. Yesterday's stern G-8 statement condemning Zimbabwe's political leadership (signed off by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev) may have presaged a Russian shift at the Council in support of French, American, and British efforts to sanction Zimbabwe. A vote could come at the end of the week, but the threat of a Chinese veto could still disrupt the Council's schedule. The Financial Times has more.