Human minds often makes decision with their emotions. We look for the evidence to justify what we think. Followed by the August 26th Bhotekoshi flashflood the discourse for compensation for the climate change impacts are at peak while the search and rescue still continues. As the Prime Minister Shah prepares his case for climate justice to deliver at the UN General Assembly, it is important to look into other perspective while everyone in the delegation carries the same emotion while the country is grieving. It is easy to think that an idea is universally accepted when the leader is surrounded by people who already agree with your opinion. Leadership is not tested in an echo chamber, where every voices say, 'Yes', the real test begins when a national position is shared beyond domestic comfort. In the UN General Assembly, the applause is replaced by questions, assumptions are challenged, and interests collide. Carefully crafted arguments have to withstand scrutiny. The wisest leaders seek disagreements and carefully prepares his speech before they have to face it in public. I am not opposed to the Prime Minister advocating for climate justice but through this article, I am just playing devil's advocate here. This is especially important as we are living in a world where generosity is increasing giving way to national self-interest and development partnership are being judged more by mutual interests over solidarity. We must recognize that while the solidarity remains important, but national interests increasingly shape the willingness to support developing nations. When we argue, we need to understand what precautions we have put in place when every nation is living with the climate risks. If we are to make a case with the recent flood in Bhotekoshi, let's ensure whether enough precautions were in place to prevent what we have lost along with other countries in the devastation in one of the tourist sites. To begin with the source, was Nepal prepared to monitoring avalanche within its own territory? Was there a trans-boundary risk communication system in place when we were harnessing electricity from the river with the pillow already on the verge of collapse? Let's not forget that a river basin is like a pillow, what happens at one end inevitably affects the other. This raise a big question how prepared we are for the next disaster in similar glacial fed river basins where much of the filling has already occurred upstream but the downstream host the most expensive real estates, multi-million projects, luxury resorts, and infrastructures that support access to communication, market centers, and banking that are vital for living. The Bhotekoshi flashflood is not just an evidence to make a case for Nepal. The world is watching it and they have enough cases from the same disaster to make counter arguments. If Nepal is to strongly negotiate, we must fasten our seat belt first. We need to ensure how compensation will ensure safety for all rather than for Nepal. China, India, and the United States whom Nepali media have been quoting often to compensate for Nepal have the ability to ask difficult question based on their own experience dealing with climate risk. The largest, Three Gorges dam ensures dam-safety monitoring, has large flood control facility, pre-emptive lowering of reservoir levels, emergency warning and evacuation, down-stream flood control system, and more importantly a disaster management approach that calls for 'bottom-line and worst-case-scenario thinking'. So, where do we stand? How many of those hydropower companies had dedicated disaster risk management person with the highest level of authority? The Prime Minister himself claims that country that takes pride in tunneling the mountains wasn't able to find rescuer. Shouldn't we think of disaster risk management well before we start the projects? It's time to initiate a constructive dialogue between greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters and countries than suffer the most. Nepal, with the eight of the ten world's highest mountains, traditional mountain cultures and tourism destination provide comparative advantage to take a regional leadership for ensuring safety of Himalayas and protect global water towers. By doing so, Nepal could contribute to regional safety while ensuring its own. Presenting a clear holistic framework for glacier safety and assurance of using contributions from GHG emitters for addressing broader threat to global food, energy, and water security risks resonates well over arguing on national safety. Let us underscore the achievements we have made in bio-diversity conservation and protecting forest to shift the narrative from presenting Nepal as a passive sufferer to recognize it as a leader in demonstrating affordable nature based solutions to adapt with the risk that Nepal has very less to contribute for. On top of everything, without hesitation, proudly demand that financial support from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)'s Loss and Damage Fund be provided strictly as direct, non-repayable grants rather than debt-creating loans. Nepal can argue that taking on loans to repair climate change impacts compounds financial vulnerability and violates the core principles of climate justice. Nepal as a developing nation, can't afford to fall back into poverty repeatedly while we are so close to graduating to the middle income country status due to a global risk caused predominantly by major global emitters. The article is full of questions as there are no one single right answer to them but these are the question we should ask before we argue and make Nepal a safer place for all. Don't forget when we ask for compensation those who lost their citizens due to our own lack of precautionary measures could back fire us. So, the delegations should do enough homework before they board. As always, I wish best for Nepal. Dhungel is a disaster risk management and humanitarian response professional