5 hours ago
17
Following a familiar pattern, coverage of the glacier collapse on the Nepal-Tibet border three weeks ago has subsided with the initial shock. But while the world’s attention has shifted, Nepal remains in the midst of an appalling tragedy. As well as at least 1,300 people who are known to have been killed, more than 5,000 are missing, some of them trapped in tunnels linked to the 13 hydropower plants that were damaged by the floods. On Wednesday four bodies were recovered from one of these tunnels, with searches ongoing. Families of the missing people are desperate for news.
Last week the country’s foreign minister, Shisir Khanal, said that it would ask the UN’s loss and damage fund for $20m (£15m) towards a total rebuilding cost of around $5bn (£3.75bn) – including the replacement of up to 20,000 homes. The first academic study linking the disaster to the climate crisis will now be added to that application. Scientists at Imperial College London, along with international collaborators on the World Weather Attribution project, found that a number of drivers of the glacier fall had been made worse by atmospheric heating. While not the sole cause, fossil fuel pollution was judged to have destabilised the geology of the mountain environment.
Even before last month, Nepal faced huge economic challenges, due in part to instability in the Middle East. Its government has only been in power for six months, following protests that led to the collapse of the previous one. But inexperienced though they are, Nepal’s leaders are right to insist that other countries should pay towards its recovery. Nepal is estimated to be responsible for less than 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Like the small island nations in the Caribbean and Pacific that are most threatened by sea level rises and tropical storms, Nepal’s people are bearing the brunt of destructive forces that have been unleashed upon them as a result of decisions about resource use, energy and economic development taken elsewhere in the world.
The likelihood of any payment being made quickly is, however, low. Nearly 120 countries have already submitted claims adding up to a total of nearly $3bn (£2.2bn), which is far more than the fund, currently estimated at $400m (£300m), can afford. That is partly the fault of Donald Trump, who withdrew the US from the Paris climate agreement and put pressure on the World Bank to drop its climate finance goals. Other donors have also failed to meet targets.
The Nepal-Tibet disaster, coming as it did at the end of a summer of record-breaking temperatures, including in the Himalayas, ought to focus minds. Scientists have warned for years of the devastating consequences of melting glaciers, particularly for the millions of people who rely on them for water. But as well as a spur to accelerate the green transition and intensify decarbonisation, the plight of the Nepali people should be a wake-up call to the governments and institutions that must find a way to make a global climate finance system work – including in the aftermath of disasters such as Nepal’s. Turkey, which hosts the next climate summit in November, has positioned itself as a champion for developing countries. Boosting the loss and damage fund must be prioritised at those talks if climate justice is to remain a credible goal.
-
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
