"We have bought into the narrative of the West and failed to put the development argument forward"

AURORA: The recent floods inPakistan have put climatechange at the forefront of manyconversations internationallyand in Pakistan. How useful arethese conversations in bringingabout actual change?
ADIL NAJAM: A slightly cynicalway to look at it would be to say thatclimate change is the one thing thatis going somewhere; the one thingthat is having, and will have, animpact. That is not to say it is goingwhere you and I want it to go. It isnot to say that these conversationsstem from our actions; instead, theyare a function of our inaction. Thegolden rule is don’t mess withnature. Humanity has known thisfor a long time, and every time weignore this rule, we do so at ourperil. The hubris with which wehave not only ignored, but laughedat nature over the last 30 years, iswhat is having an impact now. Idon’t say this lightly. There is thissense that we will ‘manage’ it. Weare the ones who ‘tamed’ the riversand ‘conquered’ the mountains.And all this is true – but without therealisation that what gave humanitythe ability to become what it hasbecome is not our victory overnature – it was the bounty of thenatural system we were endowedwith. Think about our relationshipwith nature. We say we ‘conquer’mountains. We use the militarylanguage of control when we speakabout nature and we are proud of it.You don’t ‘tame’ the river, youmake peace with it; you live withthe river. I am getting too lyricalhere, but to your question, yes, wehave made immense progress.Have we made a difference? No,we haven’t. Part of the reason whylies in the magnitude of theproblem and part of it in the hubrisI mentioned earlier.

A: In what sense have we madeimmense progress?
AN: In 1988 when I first startedtaking an interest in environmentalissues, it was a very new field. Onehad to explain to people what oneactually did. Today, everyone,everywhere in the world is talkingabout the climate. In those days,politicians or business leadersnever talked about it, today theyfeel obliged to do so, even if theyare not particularly interestedbecause they know they cannotafford not to speak about theclimate and the environment. Youcannot open your Twitter withoutfinding something about it; youcannot talk for 10 minutes on globaltelevision without the environmentcoming up. In that sense, the wholeworld seems to care about theenvironment. However, it rarelytranslates into actual action. I couldnot have imagined that between theEarth Summit in Rio in 1992 andtoday, the global uptake would beto this extent, but had I imagined it,I would have also imagined that bynow we would have solved theproblem because it is not a difficultproblem. It is essentially a carbonmanagement problem. We say it isvery difficult, but this is anarrogance that stems from thebasic idea that I will not change mybehaviour, but somehow I will solvethis problem. You will find atechnological fix, but you will notchange how you live, change thecar you drive or change how youtravel. I often say that we are in arace between human arroganceand human wisdom. I have nodoubts about the fact that we cansolve the problem, but I am notconvinced we have the wisdom yet.What this wisdom means is thatinstead of trying to use ourknowledge to tame nature, we willmake our peace with nature anduse our knowledge and wisdom togive humanity a decent life withoutimposing the type of costs on thevery system upon which we notonly thrive but survive.

A: Ultimately would not thatmean having to adapt and slowour economic growth?
AN: You have used two importantwords. Adapt and growth. Firstly, Iam a big proponent of what iscalled adaptation. Let me peelaway that word. Adapt we will haveto. Either we do it by choice or byforce. With climate, there are twobasic concepts. One is to mitigatethe effects and the other is to adaptto the impact. To mitigate meansthat when we have a problem, wewill do things to ensure the problemdoesn’t happen again and this iswhat most experts have beentalking about concerning reducingcarbon emissions. Adapting isabout adapting to the impacts ofclimate change once they havehappened. For the first 25 years ofmy life, I did not want to talk aboutadaptation. My activism was tomitigate and bring carbon levelsdown. However, for the last 10years, I have been arguing that welive in the age of adaptation and arenow condemned to live with theimpact of climate change. This iswhat the floods are about. They arean impact of climate change, andwhen such impacts happen whatdo you do? You deal with them.Humans are very good atadaptation; they became thedominant species because theyadapted. What did the peopleimpacted by the floods do? Theytook refuge on their roofs, and thenthey started to walk in the water –which is not a normal thing to do,but when you are in a bad situation,you adapt to it. My point is we arenow living in an age of adaptation,especially in countries like Pakistan.We have regressed in our narrative.We have totally bought into thenarrative of the West, which is allabout carbon and we have failed toput the development argumentforward. The rich countries areresponsible for climate change butlook at the impact on the poor. InPakistan, managing carbonfootprints and putting EVs on theroad will have benefits, and weshould do it, but they will notchange the trajectory. You can godown to zero carbon, but nothingwill change. We don’t have theluxury to just mitigate, we have toadapt. Secondly, when we think ofeconomic growth – please notethat in everything I have said, I didnot use the word growth, I used theword development. Let’s firstunderstand ‘growth’. There are twokinds of growth. One is the growthin our emissions, the other iseconomic growth. Until 2000-2010,growth was the mantra. However,economic growth means havingmore tomorrow than I have today.In other words, perpetual growth.The second kind of growth –carbon – has historically beenlinked to economic growth.Throughout the last century, carbongrowth meant economic growth.You could take any country, plot itseconomic growth and then plot itsenergy use, which is essentiallycarbon. The more energy theyused, the more carbon they threwinto the atmosphere and the morethey grew economically. Climatechange requires that we delink thatcurve economically. China was thefirst country to demonstrate thatthis could be done and now the EUand the US are doing it. They arestill growing but without the samelevels of carbon growth. They havedone so partly by exporting thedirty carbon – go into an Americansupermarket and there is almostnothing inside that is made inAmerica – they are manufacturingsomewhere else, although it is stilltheir carbon footprint. Nevertheless,the fact remains that we have beensuccessful in delinking economicgrowth from carbon growth and thisis one of the best things to havehappened, although because of ourinaction, we also have an impactquestion. To me, the problem is thatthe carbon debate is very activebecause it is led by industrialisedcountries and by large companies.However, the debate in countrieslike Pakistan has to be about theimpacts of climate change thathave become real. These countrieswill have to create their intellectualdiscourse and develop their ideasand options. Such ideas will notcome from Boston, but rather fromBahawalpur.

A: How does this translate in thePakistan context, specifically tothe people who can make adifference?
AN: The awareness is growing– certainly among young people.Climate change has become atalking point even in Pakistan,although it still doesn’t get theresources it needs. The floods havemade people realise that thechallenges are real. Firstly, becauseof the real and visible impacts andsecondly, because people like theUN Secretary-General andAngelina Jolie have shown up. Thequestion is to translate awarenessinto action. For example, I workedwith Pakistan’s Ministry of ClimateChange and the UN on an initiativecalled Living Indus, which wasreleased just before the floods. Theobjective is to develop strategiesaimed at the conservation andrestoration of the Indus as a livingriver. Ninety percent of Pakistanislive or depend on the Indus Basinand it is where 85% of our economyis based. The river has sustained usfor more than 5,000 years. So howdo we keep the Indus as a livingriver system and how do we tacklethe issues of impact? If we startthinking about adaptation, then wecan also start to think aboutredevelopment. Let’s take Karachi’srepeated heat waves, which arealso part of climate change. There is no reason why over 100 peopleshould have died. We live in Karachiand we are not unused to heat.People do not die because of anearthquake; they die because theywere crushed by the roof that fell ontheir heads and was not properlymade. Give people proper roofsand everything becomes better.Same with heat. People don’t diebecause of the temperatures. Butwhen you cut down trees, don’treplant and do not provide anyhydration options on the streets,then people will die. This is whatadaptation is about, and thereason why this agenda has tocome from us. Adaptation canhave positive benefits. Show mean adaptation project and I willshow you a development project.Most solutions related to carbonemissions mean cutting down onsomething. Solutions related toadaptation mean puttingdevelopment on a better path thatprovides benefits. So awarenesshas gone up, but action has not asmuch. Partly because it is expensiveand partly because it is a challengeof imagination. Our imagination isstill stuck in the zone of what theindustrialised world is doing.

A: Isn’t tackling these issueswith both resources andconcrete actions a matter ofsome urgency given that thesekinds of calamitous events arelikely to multiply?
AN: If you go back to humanwisdom, including traditionalwisdom, this is not an unsolvableproblem. I am giving a doublemessage. I am giving a message ofurgency, but I do not want to give amessage of complacency.Complacency comes either whenwe are arrogant and think we cando something later or we believewe cannot do anything about asituation, so what is the use oftrying? It is still a solvable problemfor Pakistan and if handled right, wemay be able to undo many of thedevelopment wrongs of the past.

A: What is your take on issuesrelated to climate finances andclimate justice? Do you think theindustrialised countries are evergoing to agree to any sort ofcompensation, and shouldPakistan be pursuing thisagenda internationally?
AN: This is not a new issue andPakistan has been arguing thiscase, like every other developingcountry, since 1992. There aretwo key concepts. One is called‘Loss and Damage’ and theother is ‘Climate Justice’.Pakistan should certainly raisethem. There is logic in doing this.Having said so, please don’thold your breath waiting for theWest to say, “We were wrongand we will compensate you.”However, that does not meanyou don’t talk about it and don’task for policies that make itjuster. This is my take, but I alsohave another one which isunpopular. Yes, the price ofclimate change is indeed beingpaid by developing countries.But a similar view is equally truewithin countries. You drive aPajero and I drive a Honda 70,yet the person whose house wasswept away by a flood doesn’teven own a bicycle. So, thesame logic of climate changejustice applies to countries andcommunities. So firstly, Pakistanshould raise the climate justiceargument, because we need theinternational system to be juster.Secondly, unless we are alsoprepared to talk about climatejustice within our own countries,our legitimacy will be questioned.Thirdly, discussions regardingclimate reparations should notbe the sole strategy. Theargument should be for a morejust international climate order,but it should not precludeindividual action.

A: Is climate change ultimatelyirreversible?
AN: No. Some change is inevitableand you cannot stop that change.Our grandchildren could see areverse. It is about the chemistry ofthe planet. The planet has gonethrough carbon cycles naturallybefore, so it is possible. The word Iwould use at this point is that somelevel of impact is inevitable.However, the less we act oncarbon, the more inevitable itbecomes. There is a caveat to thatinevitability. If tomorrow the EU andthe US start to cut down theiremissions seriously, this willreduce the impact. However, myargument is that for about 2.5billion people, climate impacts area reality, including for abouttwo-thirds of Pakistan. At theinternational level, Pakistan shouldkeep talking about climate justiceand better resources and push theindustrialised countries to mitigatefaster. In Pakistan, we need to getready for the inevitable climateimpacts and do so with adevelopment lens.

Professor Adil Najam was in conversation with Mariam Ali Baig. For feedback aurora@dawn.com