While Schneider makes some good points, she misses one key element by insinuating that the dams will be useless if all the glaciers melt. First, the melting of the glaciers in the Himalayan region, while a fact, has been revealed to be overstated. Secondly, the increased rainfall in such a scenario, which she herself points out, can be harnessed by reservoir-style dams to generate power. The point is that the dams must be built with the corresponding margin of safety. The article fails to mention successes such as Kulekhani in Nepal as well as Bhutan's dams. While displacing hundreds, they have also quite literally turned the light on for thousands. Finally, countries such as Nepal attempted for years to "go it alone" only to be left in the dark. Even getting a small percentage of the electricity from built-to-export dams is better than nothing. It is easy to criticize development elsewhere when you have the luxury of electricity in your own house.

I commend Mr Khadka on a balanced assessment of a complicated and, of late, badly conflicted discussion.

I would just clarify the comment of mine he cited. It referred specifically to observations in two basins of the central Karakoram and high altitude glaciers which had advance between 2005 and 2009. In fact they are part of more than 30 glaciers I have observed advancing in the past decade in the highest "Mustag" part of the Karakoram in involve small to intermediate glaciers (10-40km) in length. On the largest Karakoram glaciers I have only observed widespread evidence of thickening of the ice or over-riding of the ice margin moraines, but this seemed evidence of expansion which has not yet (and may or may not?) affect the distant termini.
Let me add that until quite recently, my observations were challenged or dismissed by even by glaciologists working in other regions, but now seem to be accepted. However, the evidence seems clear that the ice cover is diminishing in most other regions of High asia and the world. In either case, climate change is the key, just more complicated than fomerly thought.

Setting out a trees for grass land will fail! I have just returned for Provinces close to the region. What is needed is 100yr plan. Trees are C3 taking carbon from soil.We need to deliver rain by planting from coast C4 vegetation to build soil carbon/elements and the transpiration links. Removing the nomadic people who managed the grass/dung for 1,000yrs like those in Qinghai a mistake.
I have planted out C4 sinks in these areas and soil carbon follows. (no computer translation please) Robert Vincin (see Google)

Resettlement projects in nomadic communities in Qinghai province is very popular(in a negitive way) these years and there are many problems in the relocated nomadic communities. Nomads were kicked out from their land and arranged in small rooms/spaces in towns and urban areas, and they lost their way of live and encountering a new chanllenge. Most of the nomads are iliterate in Chinese language and thus when they kicked out from their land, they have almost nothing to do. No job opportunities at all. And they dont have enough land to keep their livestock and they have to sell them. What will if they sell their livestock? please watch this video, it talks about government policies over nomads relocation. http://sites.asiasociety.org/chinagreen/origins-of-rivers-omens-of-a-crisis/#comments

Tibetans have for centuries managed their natural environment sustainably. What has changed to cause their environment to so clearly degrade if not external influence? (The impact of climate change is more recent than the changes mentioned in the article.)

Many of the semi-nomadic people who have now been urbanised will have been given little choice by their "benefactors", not to forget that fencing and aforestation projects make their otherwise sustainable lifestyles untenable. That this external interference would be unsatisfactory is just common sense. It also reflects the arrogance of outsiders - whether well-intentioned or not.