Adolf Hitler’s propaganda minister PJ Goebbels is believed to have used the tactic ‘repeat a lie often enough, and it will be believed’ to brainwash Nazis who eventually carried out the establishment’s order of exterminating Jews. It is natural that such tactics may have infiltrated a number of areas, including politics and commerce, even in our times. One such area is climate change, where lies are often used to misinform people about a nearly certain holocaust. It is often said that ‘climate change not only brings sorrow, but fortune too’. It is repeated so often that some people tend to take this as a fact. [break]
Climate change cannot bring a fortune, given that it puts the entire ecology in danger. Unlimited emission of GHG into the atmosphere (current atmospheric GHG concentration of 400 PPM is rising by leaps and bounds) is leading the world to a potential 6 degree rise in average temperature, pushing the entire biological system on harm’s way. Only limited businesses in rich countries stand to benefit from the development for a short while, given that sweltering heat in polar regions is quickly making those areas ice-free, improving access to mineral/gas extraction and fostering agriculture expansion. But for most of the world, including Nepal, such a rise in temperature will only bring sorrow. Himalayas, unlike the poles, are rugged, inaccessible, and poor in mineral deposits. Rising heat in this region will free the ice quickly, but unlike in the poles, may not bring any windfall.
Protothema.gr
Some believe that such rise in temperature would make the Himalayas suitable for agriculture, horticulture or forestry expansion. This is a naïve view, given that temperature is just one of the many physical factors affecting production, others being soil, moisture, and fertility, in which the Himalayas are inadequate. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rightly identifies vulnerability as a combined function of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, none of which favor our mountain system. Higher exposure to warming, sensitivity to floods and slides, and poor coping capacity puts our system at a disproportionately higher risk. Yes, the Himalayas will be warmer as a consequence of climate change, but this does not necessarily translate into rice and banana farming at Kalapatthar and sal forests and rhinos shifting from Chitwan to Sagarmatha National park.
All this means that for countries like Nepal, climate change is much more of a ‘threat’ than an ‘opportunity’. Do we then label climate change a ‘threat’? The answer is both ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Of course, if we go by dictionary definition, climate change is a ‘threat’. But such a use of the term would send the communities into panic—especially those who are the first victims of climate change and have no easy escape from it. Creating panic without giving alternatives is irresponsible and amoral. Should we then use the phenomenon as an opportunity? Certainly not, as the ultimate impact of climate change is inherently negative. The related beneficiaries of the benefits are limited, including some NGOs/investment agencies and business houses that can leverage climate change to fulfill their personal interests. Farmers at grassroots will be the net losers, except for a few who have good access to water and other resources. Poor hill farmers will be the hardest hit, owing to quickly drying sources of water, crop failure, spread of diseases, biodiversity loss and incidents of fire.
I believe the word ‘challenge’ is the most suitable. Climate change should be regarded a ‘challenge’ for one and all, be they development interventionists, donors, climate negotiators or farmers at the grassroots. Climate change cannot be taken as an ‘opportunity’, particularly by policymakers and interventionists, because in doing so, the selfish agenda of limited groups might easily take over. For instance, as long as a medical doctor considers the spread of epidemics an opportunity, her commitment to society is minimal, and she is likely to become too absorbed in taking advantage of the situation and try to maximize her profits. At the other extreme, if she considers the same a threat, she will unintentionally create panic in the community. Accepting the problem as a ‘challenge’ will lead to a safer outcome.
Let us extend this analogy to climate change intervention. Climate agencies and related personnel working in Nepal cannot afford to take climate change as a matter of ‘threat’ for ethical reasons: it may create panic. Neither is it desirable for the country to declare it an ‘opportunity’: It might create opportunities at the cost of the environment. For instance, by doing so government personnel might be tempted to choose a posting in the Ministry of Environment just to be able to attend international conferences. Likewise, climate consultants and environmental NGOs will be too absorbed in taking up new assignments than taking time to see whether their contributions have been meaningful to the society. Similarly, donors may simply be content in keeping the money flowing in the name of climate change, with good intentions replaced by formalities. Thus there is a need for a paradigm shift in defining and accepting climate change as a ‘challenge’ to be dealt with, rather than an ‘opportunity’ to grab or ‘threat’ to overcome.
The author is former Joint Secretary, Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation.
Related story
Craving Newari food? Head to Palu Malta
