It is a daunting task to respond to someone as eminent as Jack Ives on matters Himalayan (see above: Global Warming—A Threat to Mount Everest?). But respond I must. Having read his piece several times, I fear—and I use the verb with consideration and respect—that he hasn't grasped the seriousness of the situation.
He sets out to assess the “relevancy, accuracy, and effectiveness” of the growing number of “alarms that link Mount Everest, or other glacierized mountain regions, with global warming.” And includes in the hype the recent UNESCO petition to place Sagarmatha National Park on the List of World Heritage in Danger because of climate change, on which I'm one of the petitioners.
Alarms. Indeed, there are lots of exaggerated media reports. And Jack's Icelandic treatment on the TV sounds particularly disrespectful. For a long time now, alas, my initial response has been to disbelieve almost all media reports, as a defense to being seriously misled. And to make sure that I work with respected journalists when I approach the media. But alarmist media reports are not to be equated with lack of scientific basis. In the imperfect world we live in, they are not mutually exclusive.
Relevancy and accuracy. I'm no scientist, I'm a lawyer, so I need to know what the scientists and other experts are saying in order to do my job properly. I'm not interested in professional sanctions or a judicial clip around the earhole. So when I read, for example, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) making the same consistent statements of the kind in the Boxes on the previous page and above, I wish to respect and respond to those statements. As would a judge.
I'm with Jack on the reported flaws in the ICIMOD study. These are important matters of detail that we call in the petition to be urgently addressed. But nobody, including Jack, is questioning the thrust. His question, too, about “what can anyone do to protect Mt Everest from climate change?” is a critical one. I fear it might be too late. In the words of the World Glacier Monitoring Service's FOG8 report (Fluctuations of Glaciers, 1995–2000, vol 8), “[w]ith a realistic scenario of future atmospheric warming, almost complete deglaciation of many mountain ranges could occur within decades.” But does it follow that we don't try? And I have no wish to minimize the other significant problems facing the Park that Jack lists. Though describing these as “actual” problems, implying that climate change is not a problem, is not in my view objectively sustainable.
I'm pleased to say that at the UNESCO World Heritage Committee meeting in South Africa in July 2005, the issue was taken seriously and the petitions led to an unprecedented discussion on the impacts of climate change on world heritage. The Committee recognized the genuine nature of the concerns expressed in the petitions (which included a petition on the Huascaran National Park in the Peruvian Andes) and set up an expert working group to review the impacts of climate change on World Heritage Sites and to report back to the next meeting. We are pleased with this outcome, because if drastic cuts in greenhouse gases are not made, the legal obligation under the World Heritage Convention to pass many of the best parts of the planet to future generations will not be complied with—the legal basis for the petitions in the first place.
We're coming from the same place, Jack. Please don't let the irritating alarms deafen the voices of reason. We need to hear and see both behind and beyond them.
Appendices
IPCC, Third Assessment Report, 2001
Summary for Policy Makers, Working Group 1
“There has been a widespread retreat of mountain glaciers in non-polar regions during the 20th century.”
“Most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations;” “likely” is a defined term, meaning 67–90% confidence in the judgment.
“Robust findings,” Summary for Policy Makers, Synthesis Report
“Most of observed warming over last 50 years likely due to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities.”
“Global average surface temperature during 21st century rising at rates very likely without precedent during last 10,000 years;” “very likely” defined as 90–99% confidence.
“Glaciers and permafrost will continue to retreat.”
OECD, 2003
Development and Climate Change in Nepal: Focus on Water Resources and Hydropower
“Analysis of recent climatic trends reveals a significant warming trend in recent decades which has been even more pronounced at higher altitudes. Climate change scenarios for Nepal… show considerable convergence on continued warming, with country averaged mean temperature increases of 1.2°C and 3°C projected by 2050 and 2100. Warming trends have already had significant impacts in the Nepal Himalayas—most significantly in terms of glacier retreat and significant increases in the size and volume of glacial lakes, making them more prone to Glacial Lake Outburst Flooding (GLOF). Continued glacier retreat can also reduce dry season flows fed by glacier melt, while there is moderate confidence across climate models that the monsoon might intensify under climate change. This contributes to enhanced variability of river flows. A subjective ranking of key impacts and vulnerabilities in Nepal identifies water resources and hydropower as being of the highest priority in terms of certainty, urgency, and severity of impact, as well as the importance of the resource being affected.”
