Unfounded Explanation for Nepal's Floods
It is difficult to find the right words to describe the sudden and deadly floods that struck Nepal and China’s Tibet region this week.
By Friday morning, hundreds of people had been confirmed dead, while more than 1,000 remained missing. Authorities say the affected area is almost completely cut off from roads, so the full picture of the devastation remains unknown. Amid this uncertainty, misinformation spreads easily.
Initially, reports spoke of a natural “geological dam” collapsing on the Chinese side of the border, triggering a wave of water. Nepal accused China of failing to provide adequate warning, a claim Beijing denied as false and unhelpful. However, China maintains tight control over Tibet, and Western journalists are unable to approach the source of the events.
Later, Nepal’s foreign minister said an earthquake may have caused a landslide. Meanwhile, the U.S. Geological Survey stated that satellite imagery and seismic data suggest a glacial lake outburst may have triggered the chain of events. In short, we are facing a thick fog of conflicting information.
But Western media, as usual, see no value in waiting for the fog to lift. From newsrooms in London and New York, a ready-made explanation for the disaster emerged: “climate change.”
Within just about 24 hours of the floods, major news agencies began linking the disaster to rising temperatures and climate change. Headlines from the Associated Press, Reuters, Forbes, Wired, and NPR all cited climate change’s role in the catastrophe.
I can sympathize with breaking news journalists. They receive reports of a complex disaster in a remote region on the other side of the world. It is natural for journalists to recognize that determining the precise cause may take days, weeks, or even months. But the problem is that newsrooms apparently do not have all that time. There is a vacuum that must be filled, and readers are waiting for answers.
Thus we arrive at the golden rule: write what you know, and what journalism “knows,” often, is that climate change is an unassailable explanation when a disaster strikes. If you don’t know the cause of the incident, say climate change caused it. If that seems exaggerated, say climate change made the disaster worse. It is a narrative you can hardly lose.
Fairness requires noting that some journalists added the necessary caveats. Three New York Times reporters wrote that rising temperatures may have destabilized rocks, but they also acknowledged that it was too early to determine the precise cause.
This, in fact, is the only point that can be stated with certainty at present. In the face of a disaster of this magnitude, we do not need a quick explanation that aligns with our prior beliefs. We need facts first, and interpretation only when evidence is available.
