Lessons from Chamoli disasters

April 23, 2021. Uttarakhand’s Chamoli district suffered flash floods again. The previous one was on February 7, 2021. Both took a sudden and huge toll on human and animal life and led to economic loss by destroying the dams and roads constructed in the area. Both occurred because of avalanches possibly triggered by glacier-dam burst.

Some environmentalists including this writer, argue that the avalanches were both the cause and effect of global warming (GW).

Cause: The loss of natural forest cover through large-scale deforestation over years for projects like dams and roads, contributes to reduced global carbon capture, and destabilises mountain slopes, making them avalanche-prone.

Effect: Global warming-induced unseasonal/ excessive/ irregular melt of glacial ice and snow in the high Himalayas forms unstable ice-and-earth dams, which burst and trigger avalanches with the catastrophic release of water.

Environmentalists are usually reviled and trolled. However, at the core of their contentions is the understanding that humans and human societies are fundamentally dependent on nature and the “web of life” including forests, trees, and other life on land and in water, for their growth and survival.

The Chamoli disasters are an indication of a larger, bad trend. The cumulative effect of mindless industrialisation following the holy grail of economic growth at any cost over the past century is cause for climate change. Youth across the world are demanding climate action to address and tackle climate change disasters.

In the Indian context, the global warming-climate change connection of the Chamoli disasters may not be fully comprehended by many politicians. Therefore, it needs to be reiterated that climate change is happening because of global warming, which in turn happens because of the increase of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts three major effects of global warming and climate change that impact societies:

Rise in sea levels due to polar ice melting.

More extreme weather events.

Desertification of many regions due to high temperatures.

The major points at dispute are, the rate at which climate change is happening, and what countries must, should, and could do, to slow this down. Scientists argue that the following real-time imperatives can be an effective intervention:

Gaining time by slowing down the rate of global warming by slashing carbon emissions and simultaneously increasing atmospheric carbon capture.

Mitigating the effects of climate change by changes in national-level social-environmental-economic policies.

Adapt to the expected social-environmental-economic effects of global warming and climate change.

Reducing carbon emissions can only be done by reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. Technologists and economists suggest shifting to other sources of energy like solar, wind, etc., phasing out fossil fuels. However, they suggest this without questioning the existing international economic system based on continuing and increasing industrialisation-based economic growth, which is the root cause for growing carbon emissions. Environmentalists argue that this is like trying to bail out water from a sinking ship with a mug—quite ineffective.

For carbon capture, technologists suggest energy-intensive solutions like “carbon sequestration” and economists suggest introducing “carbon credits”. On the other hand, environmentalists insist:

Stop development-based destruction of forests, and of rural and urban natural green cover.

Plant trees wherever possible.

Change the economic-growth model of development and put people at the focus of development, because, as Prem Chandavarkar writes, “Our development model assumes an economy that must grow whether or not we thrive, whereas we need an economy that makes us thrive whether or not it grows”.

World leaders are trying to balance carbon-emission-based development with the imperatives of survival of people and societies. Accordingly, some countries have prepared national action plans on climate change (NAPCC). India’s NAPCC states: “Emphasising the overriding priority of maintaining high economic growth rates to raise living standards, the plan identifies measures that promote our development objectives while also yielding co-benefits for addressing climate change effectively."

Arguably, the expected benefits of economic growth in terms of raising living standards have failed miserably. India has fallen in several global indices which determine human development including living standards. The economic gap has widened than ever before. The poor struggle for survival while an industrialist buys a country club and golf resort in Britain with part of the wealth which multiplied during the pandemic. Our NAPCC stresses on economic growth, addressing climate change as merely a “co-benefit”. NAPCC is neither correctly focused nor adequate. Even what is intended falls short on implementation.

During the global virtual summit on climate change held on April 22, 2021, India pitched for concrete action at "high speed" and on a large scale to combat CC, asserting that India was doing its part to deal with the challenge.

On the one hand, infrastructure projects like dams, roads, airfields, and bullet trains are being aggressively promoted along with industrialisation, to boost economic growth to $5 trillion by 2025. All of these depend on fossil fuels, which increase carbon emissions and reduce the capacity for carbon capture by deforestation.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, mandated by Article 48A “to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”, is engaged in rubber-stamping projects which do precisely the opposite.

Will the twin Chamoli agonies serve as a wake-up call to our political class myopically focused on elections and unaccountable power? Hopefully, the primer on global warming and climate change and arguments made here will be understood by decision-makers. Inaction on climate change will force change in the political climate, already affected by the worsening pandemic.

(The writer focuses on development and strategic issues)