When the Himalayas Collapse, Should the World Still Call It a “Natural Disaster”?

Kathmandu is asking a question the world cannot comfortably avoid:

When a climate-vulnerable country suffers a catastrophic disaster, who should answer for it?

Nepal is now confronting one of the most devastating disasters in its recent history. Floods triggered by a glacial collapse and cascading hazards in the Himalayas have killed more than a thousand people, with thousands more missing. Nepal’s Prime Minister has argued that the international community must recognise the growing climate risks facing the Himalayas.

But there is another uncomfortable question.

Was everything that could have been done to save lives actually done?

That question matters because climate change may explain why extreme events are becoming more dangerous. It does not automatically explain why people receive warnings too late.

Reports emerging from the Nepal disaster indicate serious weaknesses in the warning chain. Monitoring stations along the upper Bhotekoshi River were destroyed by the sudden surge before they could transmit an alert. Nepal’s authorities reportedly learned of the flood only after people on the ground began reporting what was happening.

Other reporting has raised concerns about delayed and insufficiently actionable SMS warnings and the absence of a system that automatically connects a forecast to an evacuation order.

That distinction is crucial.

Climate change can make the bullet more dangerous. But poor preparation can determine who gets hit by it.

And then comes India’s warning

While Nepal is dealing with a Himalayan catastrophe, the United Nations has delivered another uncomfortable message: rising seas are already threatening coastal cities around the world.

A new UN report says global sea level rose at an average rate of 4.7 mm a year between 2014 and 2023. In 2024 alone, the increase reached a record 5.9 mm. Around 770 million people—roughly one in ten people globally—live in coastal areas less than five metres above the high-tide line.

And India is firmly inside this danger zone.

The UN specifically identifies Mumbai and Kolkata, along with Dhaka, as vulnerable low-lying South Asian cities where the defining danger is not merely damage to buildings—but mass displacement.

More than 14 million people across these South Asian low-lying deltas are described as being at immediate risk of losing their homes to permanent inundation.

Think about that number.

Fourteen million people is not a flood-control project.

It is a population crisis.

India has more cities on the warning list

Scientific research examining India’s coastal cities has identified Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Visakhapatnam, Surat, Kochi, Thiruvananthapuram and Mangaluru as particularly exposed to future sea-level rise and coastal flooding.

The wider risk extends through India’s coastline—from Gujarat and Maharashtra to Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and West Bengal.

Surat is already confronting the combination of heavy rainfall, high tides, the Tapi River and rising seas.

The danger is not simply “the sea will swallow the city.”

It is more complicated—and potentially more destructive.

Higher seas can make drainage harder. Storm surges can travel farther inland. Extreme rainfall can overwhelm urban drainage. Saltwater can enter freshwater systems. Coastal erosion can destroy land. And infrastructure built for yesterday’s climate can fail under tomorrow’s conditions.

And this is not only India’s problem

The UN’s warning extends across the world.

It identifies vulnerable Pacific nations including Fiji, Vanuatu and Solomon Islands, where displacement is already occurring. Major cities including Miami, New York and Guangzhou face enormous financial exposure, with coastal assets at risk estimated at $2 trillion to $3.5 trillion.

Venice is vulnerable. Low-lying island nations are vulnerable. Tropical deltas are vulnerable. Major coastal megacities are vulnerable.

The geography is different.

The problem is increasingly the same.

So who is responsible?

It is tempting to blame the world’s biggest emitters—and there is a legitimate argument for climate responsibility. Nepal contributes very little to global greenhouse-gas emissions while facing disproportionate consequences in the Himalayas. The UN climate leadership has explicitly connected human-driven warming with increasingly frequent and severe climate-related disasters.

But pointing only at global emissions is not enough.

Governments responsible for vulnerable communities must also answer:

Were the warning systems good enough?

Did warnings reach people in time?

Did somebody have the authority to order evacuation?

Were dangerous settlements allowed to expand in known risk zones?

Are cities building infrastructure for the climate that actually exists—not the climate planners remember?

The uncomfortable truth is that climate justice and governance accountability must exist together.

The world’s largest emitters cannot simply say, “It was a natural disaster.”

And vulnerable governments cannot simply say, “It was climate change.”

Both sides have responsibilities.

Because when the next Himalayan wall of water comes—or the next cyclone hits Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai or Kochi—the most important question will not be who gave the best speech at a climate summit.

It will be much simpler:

“We knew the risk. Why weren’t we ready?”

Comments

comments