Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Pakistan’s deadly floods are tied to climate change—and politics
Pakistan can't catch a break.
Its economy is in free fall, a product of years of chronic mismanagement, corruption, and—most immediately—global headwinds like the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, which created massive supply chain challenges, tightened financial conditions, and raised food and energy prices for countries all over the world. Were it not for the approval of a $1.2 billion bailout package by the IMF on Monday, Pakistan would soon be following Sri Lanka into debt default and full-blown economic meltdown.
Its politics have been in upheaval since the ouster of former prime minister Imran Khan, whose populist rule mortgaged Pakistan’s economic future and deeply polarized an already divided country. Should Khan be imprisoned for violating anti-terrorism laws, large-scale violent demonstrations against the new government would ensue—again.
On top of compounding economic and political crises, Pakistan is now facing calamitous floods that have left over 1,100 dead and affected more than 33 million people—over 15% of the country’s population. According to Pakistan’s climathavee change minister, a third of the country is “under water right now,” and countless homes, crop fields, bridges, and roads have been washed away or damaged. The government estimates the economic damage will exceed $10 billion.
Want to understand the world a little better? Subscribe to GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer for free and get new posts delivered to your inbox every week.
A flooded residential area after heavy monsoon rains in Jaffarabad, Pakistan on August 30.Fida Hussain/AFP via Getty Images
This natural and humanitarian catastrophe is a direct consequence of human-caused global warming.
To be sure, many factors contribute to floodings, some of which are cyclical or seasonal. Pakistan, like many South Asian countries, experiences regular monsoons. But man-made climate change makes extreme rainfall and glacial melting much more likely and severe.
Pakistan is home to over 7,000 known glaciers, more than any other country in the world outside the polar regions. As average temperatures have increased, glaciers have melted at record speed, causing rising river waters. Add to that unprecedented rainfall volumes in areas that didn’t historically experience them as climate patterns change, and you get “once in 1,000 years” floods once a decade.
And it’s not just floods. The current deluge, which UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres has called “a monsoon on steroids,” is only the latest extreme weather event to rock Pakistan. In 2010, the deadliest floods in the nation’s history killed 2,000 and affected 18 million. In 2015, another extreme heat wave killed more than 1,000 in Pakistan’s capital alone. As recently as April of this year, Pakistan was in the throes of a cataclysmic heatwave and drought induced by climate change. The frequency and severity of these climate-induced extreme events has increased measurably over the past few decades, so much so that they have increasingly become the norm, not the exception.
Of course, climate change is only part of the story in explaining the havoc these events wreak on the ground. As my Bulletin colleague and veteran climate journalist Andrew Revkin often notes, most natural disasters are to some extent socially constructed. Climate change contributes to the scale of the impact, yes, but so does the exposure and vulnerability that communities have to climate hazards.
In Pakistan, successive governments have failed to adequately prepare the country to withstand the hazards posed by increasingly frequent extreme climate events. Rampant deforestation, haphazard urban sprawl, soil erosion, unchecked construction in flood-prone areas, and lack of investment in vital infrastructure and preparedness have made Pakistan one of the most vulnerable nations in the world to the impacts of climate change.
Such low levels of resilience can in part be attributed to Pakistan’s poor governance. After all, it’s only natural that reelection-obsessed politicians would prioritize short-term economic growth over long-term sustainability.
The problem goes beyond political will and incompetence. Climate change adaptation is extremely costly for a nation as poor as Pakistan. Even if it had wanted to, Pakistan has not had the fiscal space or access to long-term finance needed to pay for a meaningful reduction in climate vulnerability at the same time as it had to lift millions of its citizens out of poverty and was under pressure from a rising debt load.
Most importantly, there’s no reason why poor countries like Pakistan, which produces less than 1% of global carbon dioxide emissions and is responsible for only 0.4% of the historic emissions that are warming the planet, should have to compromise their socioeconomic development to protect themselves from a threat that was almost entirely created by wealthy nations like the United States.
This historical injustice has been the subject of a long-running dispute in global climate negotiations. Most developed countries got rich and continue to live large by burning fossil fuels, paving the way for today’s 1.2°C of global warming. But developing countries bear the brunt of it, even though they are not responsible for causing it and still have much lower per capita emissions.
The rich world has an obligation not only to help poorer countries decarbonize, but also to help poorer countries cope with the effects of climate change and to compensate them for the “loss and damage” they are already incurring. Failure to do so makes catastrophic climate change more likely, because the world can only limit global warming if poor countries decarbonize quickly, and poor countries can’t and won’t do so without substantial help from wealthy countries.
Yet developed countries refuse to act. They have repeatedly failed to meet their 2010 promise to shuttle $100 billion per year in climate finance to the developing world, itself a woefully insufficient target. They have failed to scale up resource transfers for adaptation, which make up a paltry 10% of all climate finance. And they have rebuffed pleas to compensate poor and vulnerable nations for loss and damage.
While the UN has launched an appeal for $160 million in emergency funding to help Pakistan’s flood victims, that amount pales in comparison to the damage caused by the floods, the cumulative toll of climate change, and the costs of cutting vulnerability faced by the South Asian nation—let alone by the developing world.
The floods have swept away bridges and roads, cutting off millions of men, women and children.Fida Hussain/AFP via Getty Images
The good news is that after decades of climate denial, there’s now broad global consensus on the science behind climate change, universal recognition of the consequences of business-as-usual, and sufficient technological breakthroughs and capital deployment to ensure that the world will effectively transition away from fossil fuels in the coming decades. Nearly 200 governments of all stripes belong to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) under the aegis of the United Nations, and they all agree climate change is happening, it is man-made, it has already warmed the planet by 1.2°C, and it will have catastrophic effects on the world unless stopped.
This understanding has prompted unprecedented, if not yet sufficient, levels of climate action and green investment around the world. As a result, the planet is now projected to warm by less than 3°C by 2100 relative to preindustrial levels. That’s a far cry from the 1.5°C threshold agreed to in Paris, but it also means we won’t make the Earth unlivable (for humans, at least).
The bad news is that the last 50 years of indifference have baked in changes that have already caused and will continue to cause tremendous hardship and suffering. The path we’re currently on still entails almost double the level of warming the world is presently experiencing and more than double the impact of climate change.
For vulnerable nations like Pakistan, it’s too little, too late.
🔔 And if you haven't already, don't forget to subscribe to my free newsletter, GZERO Daily by Ian Bremmer, to get new posts delivered to your inbox.
Pakistan underwater: Blame climate change
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody, Ian Bremmer here, and we're closing down the summer, so this will be your last Quick Take before I head back to New York City. And I thought I would talk a little bit about these disastrous, calamitous floods that are happening in Pakistan right now.
Pakistan can't catch a break, their economy is in free fall, given huge mismanagement internally, a lot of corruption, and getting hit by, of course, the inflation and the supply chain challenges that countries all over the world are facing. On top of that, massive political instability, given the ouster of the former prime minister. Big demonstrations across the country, especially now that he is facing potential incarceration from the court, that has claimed that he has made statements that amount to a promotion of terrorism, and so a massively divided country. And now you have over 1000 dead and over 10 million Pakistanis displaced from unprecedented levels of flooding.
I have to say, as I was writing about this a little bit online, I was a little surprised to see the level of online trafficking of fake news. Some circles, particularly in the United States, saying it's just weather. There are monsoons, there are floods that happen all of the time. That is of course true, and it's particularly true in South and Southeast Asia. Monsoon season is an annual occurrence, it's generally not when you want to show up in these countries, for example, we all know that, we've seen it. But glacial melting is unprecedented. And that is directly the consequence of global warming. Ice levels around the world are at record lows and they continue to be at record lows every year. You've got 7,000 glaciers in Pakistan, that's the largest number of glaciers outside the Arctic and Antarctic, outside the polar regions in the world. And so as they melt in unprecedented fashion, river levels are getting a lot higher.
I mean, I guess the good news longer-term is that once the glaciers melt away completely, that will stop the bad news is it's going to mean extreme droughts hitting South Asia, and a lot more fighting, for example, geopolitically between India and China. So take the good with the bad. But as a consequence, even with the same levels of rain, you would be seeing greater levels of flooding. And also the highest level rains are hitting areas they've never hit before, again, as climate patterns change, given the warming in the atmosphere. And so the preparations the governments have made, in Pakistan they're never that great, are inadequate. Pakistan, of course, citizens are extremely upset about all of this. The government's very upset, they have themselves a very low carbon footprint, as does pretty much all of South Asia, India, Bangladesh, but they're getting hit among the hardest. You'll remember in the spring, or at least in my spring, India was having their highest temperatures ever. And that meant outdoor labor for a billion people was banned after 10:00 AM because it just wasn't safe for people to be outside, it had a big productivity hit for the country. And of course, that's going to get worse too. These are some of the poorest and most populated areas of the world.
The good news, and I do think it is truly good news, after decades of climate denialism, is that globally, the science is essentially accepted. We have 195 governments around the world, left-wing, right-wing, democratic, authoritarian, doesn't matter, that are a part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change under the aegis of the United Nations. They all agree on the basic science, they all agree that climate change is manmade, it is not just coming from cyclical changes in global weather patterns. We all agree there's 1.2 degrees centigrade of warming so far that's coming largely from record levels, again, human-induced, in carbon in the atmosphere now standing at 415 parts per million and going up every year. Ditto, record methane levels also impacted by record levels of deforestation.
And of course, the impact of all of that on extreme weather conditions, on rising sea levels, on reduction in biodiversity, on increase in extinctions. And even in the United States, where there used to be a severe political split between left and right, you don't really see that anymore. You see it among older Americans still, but among younger Americans, especially under 30, everyone pretty much accepts the basic science of climate change. And they're increasingly angry about it because of course it means that the world that young people will experience in the next 20, 30 years will be a lot more expensive, will be a lot more challenging to live in, a lot more difficult to travel around, than those that what we're experiencing now, that we're experienced 20, 30, 40 years ago. It is also true that as a consequence of all of this there's a massive amount of money that's being spent on transitions.
And by the way, yes, this is to renewables, so it's to solar and it's to wind and it's to electric vehicles, but it's also to nuclear power, which I guess is not technically speaking a renewable, though it clearly isn't a fossil fuel. And also from critically, from high carbon intensity to lower carbon intensity among fossil fuels. So for example, the United States right now has a per capita carbon emission levels that are roughly where they were in the 1940s. And that's a pretty good story. And it's largely a pretty good story because the United States has moved away from coal, almost completely towards gas, which is much lower in carbon emissions. The US is way behind the Europeans in terms of renewable energy, although the US is picking up on that front as well. And also part of the reason the Americans are paying so much attention, isn't just because of concerns of climate change, but also because most people in the US don't want the Chinese to become the supreme player in renewable energy in the next 30, 40, 50 years. And they're investing massively in solar and wind and nuclear and EVs and supply chain for all of those things. And if the Americans don't do it, then the US is gold in terms of fracking, but when suddenly everyone is moving to new energy sources that are cheaper, more efficient, more decentralized, the US will be behind the curve. And so that's driving a lot of investment as well.
The action is coming, there's no question. And it's coming around the world and you saw this with the most recent misnamed Inflation Reduction Act, which is not going to reduce inflation, but is going to bring carbon levels in the United States, emission levels, much closer to the 50% reduction that's expected, that's pledged by 2030. I guess it gets you to 42%, which is actually not horrible. But still, we're looking at a path to 2.5 degrees of warming rather than the 1.5 that everyone, including my friend, Antonio Guterres and John Kerry and others are saying is absolutely essential. It's extremely unlikely that that is possible or plausible given where we are presently headed. And that means double the level of climate change, double the level of warming that the world is presently experiencing, and the greater it gets, of course, the bigger the impact. And that means that much more, I mean, these once-in-1,000-year storms, and you keep hearing people use that term, and they happen all the time, they should stop using the term frankly, because when you have new climate, you're going to have new one-in-1,000-year storms. And you should be changing that terminology, frankly, every year because the climate is no longer stable.
So anyway, that's where we are. And so I'm glad that we can talk about something where there is a basic global consensus, there's not much of that these days. But given how big a challenge it is, it's kind of rewarding that we've finally gotten there. And there's a lot more work to do. Talk to you all real soon, and I'll see you all from New York. Be good.
For more of Ian Bremmer's weekly analyses, subscribe to his GZERO World newsletter at ianbremmer.bulletin.com