As Nepal calls for climate justice abroad, Kathmandu must confront the pollution it controls and the responsibilities it holds at home.
The August 26 Bhotekoshi–Trishuli flood must first be understood through the lives it destroyed, not only the cost of rebuilding. Government figures reported on September 21 put the death toll at 1,403, with 6,150 people still missing. Families lost homes, fields and livelihoods. Roads, bridges and hydropower went with them. Preliminary reconstruction needs stood at about Rs721 billion-some US$5 billion-pending detailed assessment. That money can replace concrete and steel. It cannot bring back the dead or account for the missing.
Nepal has called for international support. Addressing the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, Prime Minister Balendra Shah cited Nepal's contribution of less than 0.1 per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions and called for greater international action. That small share strengthens Nepal's case. But it cannot serve as Kathmandu's defence for the pollution it produces. The capital must answer for its vehicles, kilns and open burning-and for the policies it sets. Domestic action and Nepal's claim to international support must advance together.
Earlier this year, I filmed from Gerkhu, in Nuwakot. The camera moves from a clear sky over Ganesh–Langtang towards haze above Kathmandu, beyond the Shivapuri–Kakani ridge. The contrast prompted my question: what might Kathmandu's emissions be doing to nearby snow and ice? The video cannot establish the haze's composition or where pollution travels.
Langtang, Ganesh Himal and Gaurishankar lie far closer to Kathmandu than to Delhi, Beijing or New York. Proximity should sharpen the capital's concern, although distance alone cannot establish the source or scale of harm.
If downstream communities sought compensation for Kathmandu's contribution to mountain damage, that claim would require evidence. But uncertainty about its contribution does not remove its responsibility to curb known pollution sources.
A small share is no exemption
Carbon dioxide warms the climate as it accumulates. Black carbon, the soot from incomplete combustion, absorbs sunlight and, when deposited on snow and ice, darkens the surface and can accelerate melting. ICIMOD has called for reductions from household biomass burning, transport and industry. Nepal's small global emissions share does not tell us how much soot Kathmandu produces or where it travels.
Brick kilns contribute alongside vehicles and open burning. Research using winter 2012–13 samples attributed about 40 per cent of measured elemental carbon to brick kilns. That historical estimate cannot describe today's emissions inventory. It identifies a source requiring updated measurement and sustained control.
Kathmandu's air remains unhealthy. IQAir reported an annual average PM2.5 concentration of 39 micrograms per cubic metre in 2025, down from 45.1 in 2024 but still 7.8 times the World Health Organization's annual guideline. These figures measure pollution over the city; they do not establish how much reaches a glacier.
Transport towards the mountains depends on wind, terrain and weather. Kathmandu also receives pollution from elsewhere: ICIMOD's analysis of a severe pre-monsoon episode identified regional forest-fire smoke alongside local emissions. The Valley is both a source and a recipient. Cooperation is necessary, while authorities remain responsible for sources within their control.
The choices already on the table
Kathmandu must curb the Valley's emissions and, as the seat of government, protect communities exposed to disaster. The first requires no international agreement.
Cleaner kiln designs can use less fuel and reduce emissions. But technology does not inspect itself. Performance depends on fuel quality, operating practices and enforcement. Regular stack testing, public results and consequences for non-compliance would give standards practical meaning. Public construction contracts can require bricks from kilns meeting verified emissions standards.
Transport and household energy deserve the same consistency. The revised electric-vehicle tax structure raised concerns among importers and dealers about higher prices, particularly for expensive models. Taxing a luxury vehicle is not inherently inconsistent with climate policy. The test is whether taxes make cleaner transport more affordable and encourage a shift away from fossil fuels.
Electricity taxation raises a related question. In reports published on September 22, the finance minister's secretariat denied an agreement to remove electricity VAT, while saying government agencies were studying possible consumer relief. Does taxation help households and businesses switch from imported fuels to domestic hydropower, or make that transition harder? Nepal's international climate position should be reflected in its domestic incentives.
What Kathmandu owes
Kathmandu owes action on the pollution it controls and accountability for the responsibilities it holds. The principle behind Nepal's appeal abroad must also guide its choices at home: those contributing to harm should address it, and those with the authority to protect people must use it.
The extent of Kathmandu's contribution to mountain damage remains uncertain. A preliminary report hosted by Integrated Research on Disaster Risk suggests that an ice-and-rock mass failure triggered the flood, but it relies on secondary information. It does not establish that the capital's emissions caused this disaster. Kathmandu should support research into its pollution's contribution to mountain risks while acting on the sources it can already control. Uncertainty about the scale of harm calls for investigation; it does not justify inaction.
The obligations are practical. Emissions standards need enforcement and public reporting. Cleaner energy and transport need consistent fiscal support. Responsible institutions across national, provincial and local government need budgets, clear duties and deadlines against which progress can be judged. These are the domestic decisions through which Nepal's demand for climate justice acquires meaning for its own citizens.
That responsibility extends to how flood-hit communities rebuild. Public investment must be guided by river and slope hazards, effective warnings and workable evacuation arrangements. Affected people must have a meaningful say in decisions about their homes and livelihoods. Reconstruction should use cleaner materials and reduce future exposure, with the standards and spending open to public scrutiny.
None of this diminishes the responsibilities of major emitters or makes Nepal's claim to international support conditional on perfect domestic performance. But domestic duties cannot be deferred until international finance arrives.
Kathmandu owes measurable reductions in the pollution it controls and accountable protection for the people its decisions affect. As Nepal calls for climate justice abroad, Kathmandu must deliver on the responsibilities it already holds at home.
