- Nepal's climate change chief requested $5 billion in disaster aid from a UN climate fund after a landslide and flood killed more than 1,100 people
- Satellite images show a bedrock collapse beneath a glacier triggered the disaster, not warming-driven glacial melt
- Geomorphologists Kristen Cook and Dan Shugar say they have not established climate warming as the cause of the collapse
- Geologists note that tectonic plate collisions naturally fracture mountainsides in regions like the Himalayas, making landslides common regardless of temperature trends
- The U.S. withdrew its pledge from the UN loss and damage fund in 2025, so American taxpayers won't fund Nepal's request
Just days after a catastrophic landslide and flash flood killed more than 1,100 people near the Nepal-Tibet border, the country's climate change chief Maheshwar Dhakal formally requested $5 billion in disaster recovery from a United Nations climate fund, attributing the disaster to human-caused climate change. Yet satellite imagery studied by geomorphologists Kristen Cook and Dan Shugar reveals the tragedy was triggered by a large-scale bedrock collapse beneath a glacier, not warming-driven ice melt, raising serious questions about the scientific basis for the funding appeal.
Dhakal's request was made in an interview Monday and follows a letter his government sent to the fund's board that echoed his own words. That argument — that wealthier nations bear responsibility for climate damage abroad — has been used for years at international climate conferences to help secure funding commitments.
Bedrock collapse, not a melting glacier, triggered the disaster
Cloud cover and dust from the debris field blurred the first satellite images taken Wednesday, leaving geomorphologists able to confirm only that a section of glacier had broken away from Langtang Lirung peak, near the Tibet border. But clearer images captured Thursday told a different story.
"It shows the whole area without anything hidden, and we could see that, yes, it looked like there was not only this glacier that had failed, but a much larger chunk of the bedrock of the mountainside itself that had given way," said Shugar, associate professor at the University of Calgary. "You have this big bedrock failure that took part of the glacier with it."
Cook, a researcher at Université Grenoble Alpes in France, said the debris kept its speed as it funneled through the narrow valley below, burying villages beneath ice, rock and meltwater that piled up multiple stories deep.
Tectonic forces, not warming, explain Himalayan landslide vulnerability
Dr. Matthew M. Wielicki, Director of the US Global Change Research Program, said the new information fundamentally changes the understanding of the disaster. He described it as "a geologic mass-failure event involving bedrock, which then mobilized ice, rock, sediment, and water downstream," not simply a glacier spontaneously collapsing because of warming.
Geologists note that active collision zones like the Himalayas, where tectonic plates grind against each other over millions of years, tend to riddle mountainsides with fractures, leaving slopes inherently prone to sudden failure regardless of surface temperature trends.
Although some scientists, including mountain geographer Alton Byers from the University of Colorado at Boulder, suggest permafrost weakening from warming could have played a role, Cook and Shugar maintain they have not yet established Earth warming as the reason for the collapse. Skeptics of the permafrost theory note the glacier sits roughly 17,000 feet up, where temperatures rarely climb above freezing, raising questions about how warming-driven melt could be the driver.
Nepal's request lands on a fund Washington has already left
Tectonic plates have been grinding beneath the Himalayas for tens of millions of years, long before anyone burned a gallon of gasoline. Attaching a $5 billion price tag to a bedrock failure before scientists have even settled on a cause looks less like disaster relief and more like an attempt to fit a geological catastrophe into a climate narrative.
If the UN fund exists to compensate nations for warming-driven disasters, its remaining donors should be asking Cook and Shugar's own question first: has warming actually been established as the cause here? The U.S. formally withdrew its pledge and board seats from the fund in 2025, so American taxpayers won't be footing this particular bill. But the nations still paying into it should think twice before sending billions on the strength of an unproven claim — a precedent that could turn every earthquake, landslide and volcanic eruption anywhere into a claim against the fund.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.