New study about Himalayan glaciers

Okay, so there is a new study out ( http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/rapidpdf/328/5984/1382.pdf?ijkey=PdRTX0ybYaIjY&keytype=ref&siteid=sci ) that says that the Himalayan glacier recession scenario isn't as scary as the IPCC's 2007 Fourth Assessment Report projected ( http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-6-2.html ). That report's projection was based on research that wasn't peer-reviewed, according to an article in New Scientist. The IPCC 2007 report stated that Himalayan glaciers that feed rivers are likely to disappear by 2035. The new study, which appears in the journal Science, tries to establish two things. One, that the rate of recession isn't as scary as the 2007 IPCC report suggested. The other is that the rivers with higher ratio of snow and glacier upstream discharge to downstream natural discharge will see a bigger effect on irrigation capabilities, ability to sustain agriculture etc. The final conclusion - the Indus and the Brahmaputra basins will feel the most negative impact on the ability to sustain populations. The Ganges basin and the Yangtze and Yellow river basins won't see as severe an impact.

Since the scientist who authored the non-peer-reviewed article started this all-important debate, he deserves a special word of thanks from the scientific community and the human community. The IPCC deserves credit for being bold enough to highlight this critical issue using whatever data was available. I haven't read the apology from IPCC for using this article as the basis of its claims, but I don't understand what there was to apologize for in the first place. Climate change is an inexact science, and as the only scientific work that dealt with this issue at this crucial juncture in human history, it couldn't possibly have been ignored.

What should the implications of the new study be for environmental policy, agricultural policy, water supply infrastructure policy etc ? I am not sure that anything changes. Do we really want to take the assurances of this new paper literally ? The study projects up to 2050. So, what happens between 2050 and 2100 ? There is no guarantee that temperature stabilization goals from the Copenhagen thing can be achieved by 2050 given the voracious appetite for growth in developing countries and the sloth-like pace of progress in climate change legislation in countries like the United States. If the stabilization goals aren't achieved, we should be looking forward to 2100 for worst-case scenarios regarding reduced river flows. Don't genetically modified crops require more irrigation water to work ? The neo-liberal line of thinking will say that growth is the only answer. Basically, growth is the answer to everything. But growth for whom and what kind of growth ? It has already been revealed over the last 15 years that high growth rates have done little to accelerate poverty reduction rates in India. It would be foolhardy to expect that growth as we know it in India will be able to deal with challenges of this magnitude that are local in nature, and that involve poor populations whose weighted-average contribution to India's GDP growth hasn't been as high as the overall GDP growth ( exception must be made here about rich Punjabi farmers who are well-integrated into the global economy, but even they will face difficulties if flow rates in the tributaries of the Indus decrease substantially.The new study doesn't say anything about the tributaries of the Indus ). Since the rivers can't sustain so much population relying on agriculture, they need to be sucked into the trajectory of either industrial or service sector growth. The sad thing is that India's elitist growth model offers little hope that this will happen. In many ways then, these populations in the river basins will be left at the mercy of nature, and if the past is any indication, the urban population will treat this issue with benign neglect. Unless, of course, these changes lead to extreme food scarcity situations. In which case the urban population, given its past cynical approach, will try to maintain food security for itself while offering the bare minimum or even less to the beleaguered agricultural population. In extreme scenarios, the attendant rise in poverty rates may even lead to concentration of agricultural lands in the hands of a few, despite the stated goals of land redistribution and economic equity.

A projection up to 2100 for different cases will be useful, like Copenhagen-implemented and Copenhagen-not-implemented. I don't think policy-wise, the reassurances of this paper matter much. The fact still remains that large populations that rely directly on rivers for their livelihood will be extremely vulnerable over the next several decades. And even the urbanites who are shielded from the direct impacts may experience hardships due to things like reduced hydroelectricity generation, food insecurity and the need to provide a modicum of economic security to the poor rural population. What the paper tries to argue is that armageddon isn't here. But, it does nothing to allay fears of economic distress.