To mark the UN’s first International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation (IYGP), Unesco and UN Water have released a flagship report, Mountains and Glaciers: Water towers. It warns that mountain water resources are “literally melting away before our eyes”: the Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH), part of the so-called Third Pole, has a glacier system that is among the most vulnerable on Earth and is “disappearing at an alarming rate”.
The report warns that reduced water flows and increased droughts “are expected to jeopardise food, water, energy and livelihood security” in the region, while disrupting ecosystems and escalating risks of conflict and migration.
Meanwhile, in Stop the Melt, a report published by China Water Risk (CWR), a Hong Kong-based think-tank focused on water and climate, 13 fact sheets show Asia’s acute socio-economic exposure to cryosphere losses – from rising seas to GDP shocks in major river basins. It also highlights a unique opportunity for Asia: contributing over 50% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the region has the potential to achieve significant decarbonisation this decade.
As an early-career cryosphere scientist with the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), contributing to the UN Water report was a milestone for me. Around the same time, I sat down with Pam Pearson, founder and director of the International Cryosphere Climate Initiative, which was the co-producer of the CWR fact sheets, to reflect on what’s at stake.
A veteran of climate diplomacy since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, where she was part of the negotiating team, Pam leads on policy, partnerships and finance for the IYGP and continues to shape the global cryosphere conversation. We spoke about what drew her into this work, how the field has evolved and what it means to hold onto hope in the face of accelerating loss.
Tenzing Chogyal Sherpa: The ICCI’s work now spans from mountain regions to both geographic poles. What motivated you to establish this organisation and how do we make people care about what’s happening in these remote zones?
Pam Pearson: I was born in Texas – not much cryosphere there – but I’ve been connected to it since I was an exchange student in Sweden, where I now live.
My first posting [with the US State Department] was in Ecuador, in 1987, a few hours from Chimborazo, the country’s highest peak. There, a mountain hut used by climbers had to be rebuilt higher up because the glacier had retreated. They’ve since built a third one even further uphill.
Later, I left the State Department and started working on Arctic Council issues [the Council is an intergovernmental forum to address issues faced by Arctic states]. During the International Polar Year (2007-9), I took Dave Carlson, its executive secretary, to the UN climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany. After a side event, which I’d invited old negotiator friends to, I asked him what he thought. He just exploded: “These people know nothing… nothing!”
He was watching the planet change in real time and felt these negotiators were way behind.
That’s when it hit me: negotiators really don’t know what’s happening in these regions – they’re too far away. I saw the power of bringing these regions together. There was no organisation focused on that, so I started one.
How has the discourse around the cryosphere evolved?
One of the biggest changes since the Paris Agreement is how the science has shifted. It’s no longer just about what’s happening in these regions, it’s about the impact their loss is having on the rest of the planet. That’s our focus now.
We avoid talking about snow leopards, penguins, or polar bears – it sounds far away, and doesn’t usually promote behavioural change. What does is [people] seeing the impact [of climate change] in their own backyard.
Last year’s ICCI State of the Cryosphere report contained the striking statement that 2C is too high. But the Paris Agreement aimed to limit warming to 1.5C. At ICIMOD, we’ve also said 1.5C is too hot. What does 2C really mean for the cryosphere, and is it too late?
The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, set the goal of limiting global temperature rise to well below 2C, with efforts to stay under 1.5C. But now we know that even 2C is too high. Back then, we didn’t understand the cryosphere like we do now.
Some people, especially the paleo-climatologists who study the Earth’s past, had a sense of it. They’ve shown that, at 1C, sea levels were 1 to 3 metres higher than today; at 1.5C, 6 to 9 metres, and at 2C, 20 metres or more. For coastal countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, and China, 2C is far too high.
We’ve since learned that glaciers are even more sensitive. If we stay at 1.5C for any length of time, we’ll lose a third of the glaciers in this region, and a lot of snowpack, which is crucial. Permafrost is also loosening, triggering avalanches, with terrible impacts downstream. It will be difficult to stay within 1.5C. But I listen to the atmospheric scientists: when they tell me it’s out of reach, I’ll say it’s out of reach.
Some pathways are still open. One of my biggest concerns is that we don’t know how glaciers in this region will respond if we overshoot 1.5C. Some troubling research shows that even if we limit temperatures, the glaciers won’t fully recover. We shouldn’t think it’s OK to go up to 2C or 2.5C and come down later. The glaciers will stay lost for hundreds of years. That’s why it’s urgent not to overshoot; doing so would be like sleepwalking into disaster, especially in this region.
What should early-career researchers do to have the greatest impact on those in power?
Early-career researchers are really inspiring. When I first started, many older cryosphere scientists were cautious and careful. Many have grown much more comfortable about speaking out.
But most early-career researchers already see public engagement as part of the job. They go into schools [to speak], and many are really good at it. That’s a big change. First, find those opportunities and practice. Second, when designing your research, think about how it can be used by policymakers. Third – and this is critical, especially in these political times – we have to be clear: physics doesn’t lie. Ice melts at 0C; you can’t wish that away. This isn’t about politics, it’s about physical reality. If we don’t bring temperatures down, more of the cryosphere will cross that threshold, and the more we’ll lose – in many cases irreversibly.
How far have we come on negotiations – have they improved? Has the cryosphere gained more limelight?
We’re not where we should be; CO2 is still rising. Emissions reductions aren’t really happening. But knowledge of the cryosphere is growing.
We’ve done well at engaging different generations of politicians. But they leave, resign, or get voted out, and then we need to bring new ones on board. That’s part of the job.
As scientists, you need to keep orienting policymakers at every chance, until it breaks through to enough people in power who are willing to act. It’s hard. The question is, will it happen in time to save the glaciers?
Can you talk about 2025 – this critical year for international glacier preservation – and your role leading Taskforce 4 [IYGP’s policy advocacy, partnerships and resources mobilisation team]?
By luck or by design, 2025 – the International Year – is also the start of the next commitment period under the Paris Agreement. Governments will be coming to Belem, Brazil, with new climate pledges for 2030-2035.
A couple of things: Nationally Determined Contributions need a course correction. The pledges made five years ago need to be strengthened, or we’ll be off track for 1.5C. If we’re extremely unlucky, climate sensitivity may be greater than we thought. So this is a really good year to talk about glaciers, and how they respond.
It’s easy for people to think this is far away and won’t impact them, but they won’t be the last to suffer if we keep going like this.Pam Pearson
My biggest battle as head of Taskforce 4 is reminding people that there’s only one way to preserve glaciers: emissions reductions. This isn’t the year of glacier observation or glacier monitoring; the only way is to radically cut emissions. We should be cutting emissions by half by 2030 to have a 50-50 chance of never exceeding 1.5C.
Belem, of course, is in the Amazon, fed by the Andes glaciers. It’s very low right now due to drought; almost the only water left, if it’s not raining, is what comes down from the mountains. We’re trying to send a hard-hitting message – from the glaciated nations meeting in Kathmandu for the Sagarmatha Sambaad [a global forum organised by the government of Nepal] in May, and later in Dushanbe [the capital of Tajikistan] – about how urgent it is to bring temperatures down.
It’s important for people to understand this isn’t just a mountain issue. Mountain Indigenous Peoples are saying: “We’re suffering now, but you will suffer in future.” It’s easy for people to think this is far away and won’t impact them, but they won’t be the last to suffer if we keep going like this.
What should we be doing?
More than ever, it’s important to communicate – whether with your own family, in your own school, or by volunteering to speak at schools or local community groups. The most important thing is to demand action.
Politicians keep saying: “Five years ago, we had Greta Thunberg and young people marching – and now it’s all petered out.”
We need to keep that energy going and grow it. At the end of the day, that’s what the political set listen to. If this becomes one of the top three issues people care about, it will break through. We must maintain momentum.
We also need to help people understand: it’s bad now, but it will get worse. People are beginning to see what a 1.5C world looks like, and they don’t much like it.
And the more we do now, the less we’ll have to do later…
Yes, and the less expensive it will be. Early-career scientists are important, but early-career economists too. We need them to set out the costs of mitigation, adaptation and loss and damage at 1.5C versus 2C. It’s so much easier – and cheaper – to act now.
This is an edited version of a discussion held at ICIMOD on 27 February 2025.
