11/04/2020

Human Face Of A Himalayan Climate Crisis

Nepali Times - Rastraraj Bhandari* | photos Rastraraj Bhandari

Fatalism and denial among mountain communities living downstream from a dangerous glacial lake

Tso Rolpa glacial lake at 4,580m has grown seven times in size in the past 60 years due to global warming.

The picturesque village of Beding below Mt Gauri Shankhar lies directly on the path of a flash flood if the Tso Rolpa glacial lake were to burst in future.

In a small riverbank community of Donggang below Mt Gauri Shankar, Janmu Sherpa runs a small teahouse. The settlement has two families who are still rebuilding their homes after the earthquake five years ago.

Janmu has a dozen goats, her primary companions in this wilderness near the Chinese border. The tea house is a rest stop for trekkers headed up to Tso Rolpa glacial lake, or onwards to Tashi Laptsa Pass to Khumbu.

With the Himalaya warming between 0.3-0.7oC faster than the global average, these mountains will lose at least one-third of their ice by the end of the century. And that is the best-case scenario, according to the  Hindu Kush Himalaya Assessment: Climate Change, Sustainability and People put together last year by Kathmandu-based International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD).

The increased melting means melt water is accumulating in glacial lakes that absorb and transmit thermal energy to the glacier face, causing a positive-feedback loop and accelerating the thaw. The lakes are growing in size, and are at risk of bursting to flood downstream valleys.  Glacial Lake Outburst Floods (GLOF) can be caused by avalanches falling into the lakes, or by earthquakes.

A weir built 20 years ago reduced the level of the water by 3m, but it needs to go down by 20m to reduce the danger of a Glacial Lake Outburst Flood (GLOF).
Na-Gaun at 4100 meters is still rebuilding after the 2015 earthquake. It is located directly below the Tso Rolpa glacial lake that is in danger of bursting.
In the late 1990s, the risk of a GLOF event from Tso Rolpa led to panic among people living in the Tama Kosi Valley below. Scientists had been monitoring the lake which had grown seven times in size since 1957.

Twenty years ago, the Nepal government with international partners constructed a 70m canal that lowered the water level of the lake by 3m.  Scientists believed the water level needed to be lowered by 20m to mitigate the risk of a GLOF, but this was better than nothing.

The resulting decrease in pressure on the terminal moraine is probably why Tso Rolpa did not burst during the 12 May 2015 aftershock which was epicentred just 10km away. Nonetheless, the risk still exists as scientists  reassess the state and vulnerability of the lake.

Out of the 1,466 glacial lakes in Nepal, 21 pose potential risks and six are considered to be at a high risk of an outburst. There have been at least 14 glacial lake flooding events recorded in the last decade in the region.
Melting Mountains

A future Tso Rolpa GLOF would cost lives, property, infrastructure development projects including hydropower plants, livelihood, tourism and trade, forest, pastures and fisheries. ICIMOD estimates the tangible damage of a lake burst would range from $2-9 million depending on the duration, velocity and flooding level with almost 650,000 people up to 100km downstream affected.

However, people living along the Tama Kosi appear to be either oblivious or skeptical of the danger. Many think it is a hoax spread by the international community to mine precious stones. A hut next to the lake has a Maoist slogan that reads ‘End American Imperialism, Long Live the Nepal Maoist Party’.

“Ordinary citizens cannot understand why else the government and foreigners would spend almost $3 million dollars on future climate change when many villages in the region urgently need proper schools, health-post and roads,” explains Charikot resident Akal Man Maharjan.

Out of the 407 young undergraduate students from Dolakha and Kathmandu interviewed recently, more than one-third believe glacial flooding to be a hoax.

Akal Man Maharjan operates the Bajaj dealership in Charikot, and says most people think climate change is a conspiracy.
The village of Singati on the banks of the Tama Kosi River was destroyed in the 2015 earthquake, and is being rebuilt.
Janmu Sherpa’s is different. Despite having no formal education, her knowledge of global warming stems from her closeness to nature of which she considers herself to be a part. She has noticed erratic weather with an increased frequency of flash floods and landslides.

Tso Rolpa is directly upstream from Donggang, but the lack of alternatives and  fatalism has helped her put climate change at the back of her mind and carry on with her daily life.

“No one knows when the lake will burst, so we cannot stop our daily chores.  Let fate decide,” Janmu Sherpa tells us.

This diverse narrative among Nepalis means that the government faces the complexity of turning public awareness into climate action while trying to reduce poverty, marginalisation of women, state neglect of indigenous communities, racial discrimination and out-migration.


Janmu Sherpa who operates a small tea house in the village of Donggang has experienced climate change first hand, but says, “Let fate decide.”

A research hut next to the Tso Rolpa lake with a Maoist slogan, ‘End to American Imperialism, Long Live the Nepal Maoist Party’.
These socio-economic issues overlap, and policymakers are faced with the difficult task of identifying and implementing policy that prioritise climate adaptation alongside raising the livelihoods of mountain communities.

Up here in the Rolwaling, one thing is clear: the focus of research must shift to human-centric solutions, one that brings scientists, mountain communities, transient visitors, the government and activists together.  Indigenous mountain communities are well placed to observe changes and flood events, but they are often unaware of the predicted consequences.

Subsistence living, the inability to comprehend complex scientific studies, weak government institutions rampant with corruption, and traditional beliefs make matters worse. Hence the hoax theory.

Engaging local residents as citizen scientists who can contribute to data collection and documentation would be a step. Micro-insurance schemes are a great tool in protecting low-income communities against risks of climate change in exchange for a regular payment of premiums proportion to the likelihood and cost of the relevant risk.

This early warning siren system to warn downstream communities of a Tso Rolpa lake burst does not work anymore.

The mountains are melting before our eyes. People living here are unable to stop it, they can only adapt to the changes. Some do it by putting it out of their minds and plodding along in forced denial. Others think the climate crisis is a conspiracy.

While the long-term impacts of climate change are widely understood among many residents of Nepal, it means very little to people who struggle to live in this harsh environment.

*Rastraraj Bhandari is pursuing a Masters in Economics and China Studies at the Yenching Academy of Peking University in Beijing. 

Links
at No comments:

(AU) Climate Scientists Say Coronavirus Could Be Australia's Golden Opportunity

SBS News - Claudia Farhart

Climate experts say the way Australia chooses to rebuild its economy after the pandemic will seal its climate change fate.

Students protest in Sydney during February's national day of action against climate change. Source: AAP

Australian climate scientists are urging the government to recognise the similarities between the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, arguing they could be the key to stopping global warming.
Professor Matthew England from the University of New South Wales’ Climate Change Research Centre said acting early, listening to expert advice and adaptation were the keys to solving both crises.

Matthew England of UNSW's Climate Change Research Centre. UNSW

While the coronavirus is posing a serious risk to millions of lives right now, Mr England said climate change will threaten even more lives over the next five decades.

"We’ve seen all around the world that the nations ignoring the best advice of their scientists are suffering the most, and climate change is no different," he told SBS News.

"We have expert reports that have been tabled for the last three or four decades, but many nations are ignoring those, so I think that COVID-19 provides a wake up call for what happens if you do ignore the best scientific advice."

Revealing the possibilities

Emissions around the globe are already dropping significantly as the world stays home and production grinds to a halt, with China already recording a 25 per cent drop in emissions in the first quarter of 2020.

Photographs of smog-free Los Angeles skies, crystal clean canals in Venice and clear views of the snow-capped Himalayas from India have circulated online, showing visible improvements.

While these significant improvements in air and water quality are showing people around the globe what is possible when emissions are reduced, Mr England said it is not time to celebrate yet.

Instead, he says Australia needs to recognise the opportunity COVID-19 presents to rebuild in a more environmentally friendly way.

Los Angeles is experiencing its longest stretch of good air quality since 1996. Ted Soqui/Sipa USA
"This is going to be a major stall in the global economy, but out of this pandemic we're certainly going to see a huge economic boom and it's going to be a real chance to make that boom a low-carbon boom," he said.

"To solve climate change, we actually need large scale innovation and the huge economic boom that is poised to happen out of this pandemic."

'Fight or flight'

 While COVID-19 has already killed at least 90,000 people, the World Health Organisation has warned that climate change will kill as many as 250,000 people per year by 2030.

Professor Mark Howden of the Climate Change Institute said governments’ differing approaches to the two crises was as simple as how our brains are wired.

Mark Howden is the director of the Climate Change Institute. ANU

"The coronavirus is appealing to our hindbrain, our fight or flight responses, rather than our forebrain, our planning and strategic responses," he told SBS News.

"Humans are much more attuned to responding to the short-term rather than the long-term.”

While Mr Howden is expecting to see a drop in Australian carbon emissions of roughly five per cent due to COVID-19, he said this will not be the first time such a drop has occurred.

Australia’s emissions saw a similar drop during the global financial crisis of 2009, but were back to their normal levels within two years.

"This is simply because we’re much less active economically, and emissions are fairly closely tied to GDP, so the big challenge will be what happens after the coronavirus,” he said.

However, unlike during the GFC, Mr Howden said coronavirus has now given governments the proof that a health crisis can be halted by an all-in effort.
"Coronavirus has meant that governments have ditched often long-held ideologies and been forced into very pragmatic responses," he said.

"I think climate change actually needs that - it needs to move away from ideological positions into responses which are informed by the evidence, the science."

SBS News contacted the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science for comment but did not receive a response.

Links
at No comments:

The Green New Deal Is Cheap, Actually

Rolling Stone - 

Decarbonizing will cost trillions of dollars, but it’s an investment that will have big return — for the economy and the environment

Ortley Beach, New Jersey, in 2012, after Hurricane Sandy. A recent study shows 2 degrees of global warming will cause $36 trillion in damages. Tim Larsen/New Jersey Governor's Office 

Opposition to the Green New Deal is often framed as a matter of cost. President Trump’s re-election campaign blasted the “radical” plan, claiming it would “cost trillions of dollars, wreck our economy, and decimate millions of energy jobs.” But science shows that the costs of unchecked global temperature rise are far higher than transitioning to clean energy — which will, in fact, boost the economy. “Everybody thinks, ‘Oh, you have to spend a huge amount of money,’” says Mark Jacobson, a civil and environmental engineering professor at Stanford University. “Well, yeah, there’s an upfront cost, but this is something that pays itself back.”

The coronavirus crisis is changing the world’s comfort levels with massive expenditures. Fresh on the heels of a $2.2 trillion economic rescue package, President Trump has begun calling for another $2 trillion infrastructure package to create jobs. Across the political spectrum, politicians are anticipating that the economy will need something approximating a New Deal to spring back to life after the pandemic subsides. And climate advocates are making the case that we can use this disaster response to invest in renewable energy, to ward off an even more dangerous crisis down the line.

The price of not acting on climate change is staggering. The Paris climate accord aims to limit global temperature rise to 2 C. But a recent study in Nature shows that settling for that outcome — rather than a more ambitious limit of 1.5 C — will cost the world $36 trillion in climate damages. Global warming lowers global GDP, according to a 2019 paper co-authored by Cambridge University economists, who project that “a persistent rise in temperature, changes in precipitation patterns and … more volatile weather events” will slow productivity and investment, as well as damage human health. Holding warming to 2 C can limit the negative impact to one percent of global GDP per capita by 2100. But runaway climate change would crater that GDP figure by seven percent worldwide, and by 10.5 percent in the United States. “Climate change is pain,” Michael Mann, a top climate scientist, recently testified to Congress. “Anyone who tells you differently is selling something — most likely fossil fuels.”

The heart of the Green New Deal is a commitment to largely transition America to renewable energy by 2030, and wholly by 2050. That will require an upfront investment of $7.8 trillion, says Jacobson, who recently published a study in the journal One Earth that modeled the economic and climate impacts of moving to 100 percent clean energy in the U.S. These upfront costs, however, are a true investment. “It’s not just a doling out of government money with no return on it,” Jacobson says. By 2050, this transition avoids $3.1 trillion a year in climate damages. The green energy itself is also cheaper — saving $1.3 trillion a year for consumers over the fossil-fueled status quo. Ending combustion would also save 63,000 lives a year otherwise lost to air pollution. Most surprising: The study projects that a carbon-free economy increases energy employment. While 2.2 million fossil-fuel jobs would be lost, they would be replaced by 5.2 million permanent clean-energy jobs.

America has the clean-power technology it needs to transition to a combustion-free economy. The only thing that’s missing, Jacobson says, is political leadership to drive action with the urgency the climate crisis requires. “You need somebody who really understands the problem,” he says, “and knows you can’t have a half-ass solution.”

Links
at No comments: