What consequences can happen due to Himalayan Glacier melting? How much do we care about it?

Glaciers high in the Himalayas are dwindling faster than anyone thought, putting nearly a billion people living in South Asia in peril of losing their water supply. Throughout India, China, and Nepal, some 15,000 glaciers speckle the Tibetan Plateau, some of the highest land in the world. There, perched in thin, frigid air up to 7,200 meters (23,622 feet) above sea level, the ice might seem secluded from the effects of global warming.
But just the opposite is proving true, according to new research published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

“At the highest elevations, we’re seeing something like an average of 0.3 degrees Centigrade warming per decade,” Thompson said. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects 3 degrees of warming by 2100. But that’s at the surface; up at the elevations where these glaciers are there could be almost twice as much, almost 6 degrees.” The finding has ominous implications for the hundreds of millions of people who depend on the waters of the Naimona’nyi and other glaciers for their livelihoods. Across the region, no one know just how much water the Himalayas have left, but Thompson said it’s dwindling fast.

“You can think of glaciers kind of like water towers, ” he said. “They collect water from the monsoon in the wet season, and release it in the dry season. But how effective they are depends on how much water is in the towers.”

What technologies and strategies should we adopt in order to minimise our non carbon neutral emissions with the limited resources available without having to make drastic changes to our way of life?

On the basis that global warming may cause catastrophic climate change, if left unchecked, leading to catastrophic effects for the humanity and many other living things and that the evidence indicates that human activity, specifically our desire for energy using technologies, is probably the major cause of climate change.
Considering also the following:
> Generally speaking people like the energy-using technologies, travel, computers, central heating, modern medicine etc. and it would be almost impossible to turn the clock back to the pre-industrial age and in any case it would also require a massive population reduction to be viable anyway.
> There is no shortage of clean energy, the Sahara desert alone receives about 150 times more solar energy daily than the energy used by entire human population each day, the world receives nearly 10,000 times more.
I believe we need an integrated global strategy that integrates energy supply, distribution and use of energy, the latter includes use reduction from efficiency measures and population control but not banning private cars, etc. Population control is actually more important with regard to food and water supply, at the current population growth rate of 1%, then in a about 1,170 years we would run out of dry land for everyone to stand on let alone for growing crops.