Five thousand years ago, nomadic people settled in the Indus basin and developed one of the earliest Bronze Age civilisations on Earth, centred on the cities of Harappa and Mohenjodaro. By 1700 BC, the civilisation had descended into oblivion as desertification devoured the landscape. The fall of the Indus Valley Civilisation is ascribed by many scientists to climate change – though only marginally, perhaps, contributed to by the humans of the day. Today, however, the entire blue planet faces the crisis of climate change, and this time we are all to blame.
Back in 1991, Himal's wry cartoons of a gushing 'Khumbu Waterfall' in place of the stupendous icefall that comes off Mount Everest, and a submerged Maldives, were perceived as good albeit farfetched jokes. But in 2009, with global warming looming as one of the greatest threats to humankind, a prediction of Himalayan atolls, perched atop a submerged Subcontinent, represent not necessarily fantasy, but only the extreme extension of what is already being forecast in terms of sea-level rise. Undoubtedly, dire predictions are no longer droll. When over 10,000 heads of state, scientists, policy pushers and climate-change wallahs gather in Copenhagen this December (in the process generating more than 16,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide at a meet that will cost upwards of USD 65 million), it will be crucial to separate the hot air from the rhetoric.
Thus far, the negotiations have been mired in a false dichotomy between environment and development, the latter position best represented by India and China. When agreeing to cut emissions according to international targets is interpreted domestically as weak-kneed and short-changing economic growth, it is only the boldest governments that can make legally binding commitments to reverse global warming while simultaneously reviving flagging economies. President Barack Obama is evidently in no position to take those giant leaps forward, as evidenced by his platitude-filled address to the UN Climate Summit on 22 September. Good intentions in the absence of specific targets and commitments will not bring down the global temperature. China's promises at the Summit, meanwhile, while representing a shift from earlier obduracy about binding international instruments, likewise need to be translated into action or risk being interpreted as mere greenwash on the international stage.
That climate change does not respect national boundaries is a non sequitur, making the governmental negotiations laced with ultra-patriotism that much more short-sighted. While many in Southasia have urged a regional approach – hobbled in no small part by India's economic and political dominance – this must go beyond capitals, because those who are quite literally feeling the heat are the poor and marginalised in each of these countries. Indeed, pointing fingers at the industrialised world for its contributions, past or present, to global warming must likewise make distinctions. For even in the developed countries, it is the poor and homeless, and mostly coloured, populations that have and will continue to bear the brunt of extreme climate events, be they hurricanes, typhoons, droughts, floods or acute winters.