Preventing irreversible glacier loss

James Kirkham is a climate scientist with the Ambition on Melting Ice (AMI) High-Level Group. He previously worked with ICIMOD in Kathmandu, and spoke to Nepali Times during COP30 in Belém.

Nepali Times: Why should we be worried about the cryosphere?

James Kirkham: People often talk a lot about coral reefs and the Amazon rainforest as tipping points. But the cryosphere also has a tipping point and it is very close to the temperatures we are already at now, 1.5°C. If we stay at this temperature, ice sheets will begin to tip into unstable configurations and begin to retreat irreversibly.

High Asia's glaciers are important to society, economy, and livelihoods. The water from those glaciers follows downstream and helps about two billion people with drinking water, irrigation, agriculture, and power. So, it is crucial to do everything we can to maintain those glaciers. We can still make a big difference, but we are going to lose a lot of ice in the future regardless of what we do now because we have acted too late.

Why does Nepal need to speak up?

It is really important that Nepal talks about it because it is vulnerable to the effects of cryosphere loss, and it has done the least to contribute to this crisis. It is our moral obligation to make sure countries like Nepal are well informed about the implications of the loss of the cryosphere, so they have early warning systems to detect the implications, and also to reduce the impact of those losses.

You have worked in Nepal. How has that shaped your perspective?

When you live in a country like Nepal you see that the culture is so intimately tied to mountains. The communities see these changes better than the scientists. They have lived there for decades, they have stories from generations going back about where the glaciers used to be, and the effect of this.

We are currently heading towards about 2.7°C as our long-term temperature. Now, under 2.7°C, the glaciers in the Himalayas will be massively diminished. In the central part of the Himalaya, there will be only 16% of glacier ice left. It is an enormously important message to give to policymakers that by acting ambitiously now with policies in a fair, equitable way, they can lock in these changes and limit the damage to those living in the mountains.

But are countries like Nepal actually being heard at COPs?

Nepal is a consistent champion for climate and mountain issues, and it is one of the most vocal countries. Bangladesh is facing a crisis mostly from sea level rise. But they are saying, we do not want to be seen as the victims of climate change all the time. We want to be the leaders in adaptation. And we want to be the ones that the world looks to as an example of what they can do. This is where Nepal and other countries can show leadership here at climate summits and play a vital role to play. They can showcase their actions. And that is a much more inspiring message to send to leaders around the world.

I commend countries like Nepal for their ambitious adaptation action, raising their voice about the importance of mitigation to save glaciers, and of course, financing to make all the adaptation and mitigation possible. I am amazed by the progress Nepal has made. The cars are largely electric now. This is an example of fantastic change that can happen very quickly, even in a country where financial resources and mobility are not so advanced. Nepal's example can be inspiring for other countries to elevate their ambitions.

How do you see the crisis affecting people on the ground in the Himalaya?

As a scientist, we do talk a lot about numbers and if I tell you that half the glaciers will disappear, it will sound really scary. But actually linking it to people is the way to tell that story. And there are so many stories that put faces to the shape of this wider climate crisis emerging. In the mountains, it might be that rivers and streams are drying up or changes to the flora and fauna of those mountains are noticeable and may have an impact on livelihoods as well. It might be the increasing number of disasters like outbursts which wipe away communities that have been there for centuries.

We need to do more as scientists to communicate to policymakers and the wider public. It is a much more powerful message when you can link it to stories people can relate to. Because ultimately, policymakers are humans too, and they have families, they care about these ideals and these values, and they want to act if we can express these messages very clearly.

Do you think COP30 gave enough attention and priority to the cryosphere issue?

We try our best. We have had a Cryosphere Pavilion now for five years and we get lots of good feedback from this. People say we really like having scientists there as a space to give this information. But in this COP we have been quite worried by the treatment of science more broadly, both in the research and systematic observation tracks, but also in things like the fight around whether IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is the best available science. I find this really alarming because the policy needs to be informed by the best available science, and we have seen some countries who want to dismantle this too.