(EDITORIAL from Korea Herald on Aug. 31)

Korea must reconsider its disaster policy in light of climate change, as extreme weather events are redefining what was once considered normal. On August 31, a massive collapse beneath a glacier near Langtang Lirung in the Himalayas triggered a devastating flash flood that claimed at least 750 lives and left 3,044 people missing across Nepal and Tibet.

Among the missing were nine South Korean workers, including six employees from Doosan Enerbility and Korea South-East Power, who were working on an Upper Trishuli-1 hydroelectric project in Nepal's Rasuwa district when the disaster struck.

The government of Seoul is prioritizing the search for the nine missing Koreans, dispatching a rapid response team and chartered helicopters to the area while negotiating access with Nepali authorities. However, Nepal has imposed strict limitations on foreign search operations due to the challenging terrain, unpredictable weather, and the threat of further flooding. Seoul should be prepared to offer technical assistance, relief supplies, and other forms of humanitarian aid.

The disaster underscores the limitations of traditional disaster planning, particularly in the face of climate change. The sudden collapse of a massive section of rock beneath a glacier, which was not predicted by conventional monsoon flood models, highlights the need for a more comprehensive approach to hazard assessment. The event was triggered by a magnitude 5.2 seismic signal, indicating the scale of the geological failure.

Nepal's early-warning sensors, primarily designed to monitor gradual changes in glacial lake levels, were inadequate to detect the sudden chain of geological failures. Climate change is making such extreme events more likely, as Himalayan glaciers have been melting at a rate more than twice as fast since 2000. The changing interactions between natural forces and infrastructure, once thought to be permanent, pose new hazards that historical data cannot fully capture.

While Korea has no Himalayan glaciers nearby, the country's infrastructure, including dams, drainage systems, flood barriers, underground roads, and densely developed coastal areas, was designed based on historical weather patterns. The frequency of extreme rainfall events, such as the torrential downpour in Geoje that reached 124 millimeters per hour (a level considered a once-in-200-years occurrence), demonstrates that such rare extremes are becoming more common worldwide.

This trend necessitates a fundamental review of safety design standards, as what was once considered a rare extreme may now be a frequent occurrence.

The Himalayan flood presents two key lessons for Seoul. First, the government must strengthen protections for Koreans working in high-risk environments abroad, where companies may not be able to anticipate every combination of disasters. Second, infrastructure standards in Korea must be adapted to the evolving hazards they are meant to contain.

While recalculating the capacity of existing dams is valuable, applying outdated 100-year criteria to new infrastructure in a changing climate could result in designs that no longer account for current conditions. Coastal areas, major cities, and transport hubs require forward-looking hazard models that incorporate changing rainfall patterns, sea levels, and storm surges.

Ultimately, the deadly Himalayan flood serves as a stark reminder that disaster policy should be prepared for the possibility of the deadliest floods beginning without a cloudburst. By rethinking disaster policy and adapting infrastructure standards to the realities of a changing climate, Korea can better protect its citizens and infrastructure from the emerging risks posed by climate extremes.