By Kusnandar & Co., Attorneys At Law – Jakarta, Indonesia
Jakarta’s perennial flooding problem has once
again pushed emergency responses into the spotlight. This time, Governor
Pramono Anung’s claim that weather modification operations (OMC) can help
suppress flooding has sparked renewed public debate. By intervening in rainfall
patterns before extreme downpours reach the capital, the city government hopes
to reduce flood risks during peak rainy periods. While the approach reflects a
proactive use of technology, it also raises important questions about
effectiveness, sustainability, and public expectations.
At first glance, weather modification sounds like
a bold and modern solution. In simple terms, the operation aims to disperse
rain clouds before they reach Jakarta by inducing rainfall over the sea or less
vulnerable areas. If successful, this would reduce rainfall intensity over the
city, easing pressure on rivers, drainage systems, and floodgates. From a
crisis-management perspective, such measures appear reasonable—especially when
meteorological forecasts predict prolonged heavy rainfall.
Indeed, past experiences suggest that weather
modification can reduce rainfall intensity under certain conditions. Several
operations in recent years have reportedly lowered precipitation levels in the
Greater Jakarta area for limited periods. These outcomes support the governor’s
argument that OMC can serve as a short-term mitigation tool, particularly when
time is critical and conventional infrastructure responses are insufficient.
However, effectiveness is only one side of the
equation. Weather systems are inherently complex and influenced by global and
regional atmospheric dynamics. No weather modification effort can guarantee
precise outcomes, especially during extreme climate events. When rainfall
exceeds predictions or weather patterns shift unexpectedly, OMC’s impact may be
minimal. This uncertainty means that weather modification should never be
portrayed as a definitive solution to Jakarta’s flooding.
More importantly, floods in Jakarta are not
caused by rainfall alone. Decades of rapid urbanization, inadequate drainage
capacity, land subsidence, shrinking green spaces, and poor river management
have turned heavy rain into a recurring disaster. Even if rainfall intensity is
reduced, water will still accumulate if it has nowhere to go. Framing weather
modification as a central solution risks oversimplifying a deeply structural
problem.
There is also a political and social dimension to
consider. Public communication matters. When authorities highlight advanced
technologies, expectations can rise quickly. If floods persist despite weather
modification efforts—as they likely will—public trust may erode. Citizens may
perceive such measures as symbolic or even cosmetic, especially if they are not
accompanied by visible improvements in infrastructure and long-term planning.
This does not mean weather modification should be
dismissed altogether. On the contrary, it can be a useful component of an
integrated flood mitigation strategy. In emergency situations, reducing
rainfall by even a small margin can buy valuable time for pumps, reservoirs,
and evacuation efforts. As a supplementary tool, OMC has its place.
Ultimately, the real test of Jakarta’s flood
policy lies beyond the clouds. Sustainable solutions require consistent
investment in drainage systems, river normalization, green open spaces, coastal
protection, and stricter land-use regulations. Climate adaptation strategies
must also account for rising sea levels and land subsidence, challenges that no
amount of weather modification can fix.
In this context, Governor Pramono’s weather
modification initiative should be viewed as a tactical response—not a strategic
cure. Technology can help manage risk in the short term, but long-term
resilience depends on structural reform and urban planning. Jakarta does not
need miracles from the sky; it needs firm solutions on the ground.
By : K&Co - January 27, 2026
No comments:
Post a Comment