Now, here’s a good question: should serious people focus on global political instability – terrorism, failing states, nuclear weapons – or should we focus on global climate instability – droughts, floods, extreme weather? Here’s the correct answer: yes, both, because climate disruption will make every other national security problem worse.

No matter what the aggressor intends to do, when the world is truly united, it is then the world, not the aggressor, determines how events develop.

It is a grave indictment of this international community that we can spend so much money on war, in fact trillions are spending on war, but we cannot support action that needs to be taken to meet the most basic needs of billions of people in the world, needs such as addressing hunger, health, empowering woman and making sure that there is development in countries that are vulnerable.

In a democracy, that’s the only realistic path to Net Zero. Consent, not imposition. Honesty, not obfuscation. Pragmatism, not ideology.

So the 20th century taught the world not to use nuclear weapons and not to proliferate. This is not a good strategy because recent history has shown that wars could erupt with equal devastation.

In every great challenge this country has faced, it has turned to the essential strength of its people, united around a common goal.

In the past, human progress had to come at the cost of the environment. If we wanted energy, we had to burn wood or we had to burn fossil fuels. If we wanted to grow more food, we had to expand farmland, often at the cost of forests. But technology and innovation means we're very quickly decoupling these impacts, such that this conflict is no longer true.

[Angela Merkel] showed what can be achieved when politicians take the right course of action and work to find solutions to the world’s challenges rather than simply shift responsibility to others.

The hour has come for a new generation to lead the Democratic Congress that I so deeply respect.