Climate Change

Ten Reasons Why Climate Initiatives Should Not Include Large Hydropower Projects

A Civil Society[i] Manifesto for the Support of Real Climate Solutions Large hydropower projects are often propagated as a “clean and green” source of electricity by international financial institutions, national governments and other actors. They greatly benefit from instruments meant to address climate change, including carbon credits under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), credits from the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, and special financial terms from export credit agencies and green bonds. The dam industry advocates for large hydropower projects to be funded by the Green Climate Fund, and many governments boost them as a response to climate change through national initiatives. For example, at least twelve governments with major hydropower sectors have included an expansion of hydropower generation in their reports on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs). Support from climate initiatives is one of the reasons why more than 3,700 hydropower dams are currently under construction and in the pipeline. Yet large hydropower projects are a false solution to climate change. They should be kept out from national and international climate initiatives for the following reasons: Particularly in tropical regions, hydropower reservoirs emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases. According to a peer-reviewed study, methane from reservoirs accounts for more than 4% of all human-caused climate change – comparable to the climate impact of the aviation sector. In some cases, hydropower projects are producing higher emissions than coal-fired power plants generating the same amount of electricity.   Rivers take about 200 million tons of carbon out of the atmosphere every year. In addition, the silt that rivers like the Amazon, Congo, Ganges and Mekong carry to the sea feeds plankton and absorbs large amounts of carbon. Hydropower projects and other dams disrupt the transport of silt and nutrients and impair the role of rivers to act as global carbon sinks.   Hydropower dams make water and energy systems more vulnerable to climate change. Unprecedented floods are threatening the safety of dams and alone in the US have caused more than 100 dams to fail since 2010. Dam building has exacerbated flood disasters in fragile mountain areas such as Uttarakhand/India. At the same time more extreme droughts increase the economic risks of hydropower, and have greatly affected countries from Africa to Brazil that depend on hydropower dams for most of their electricity.   In contrast to most wind, solar and micro-hydropower projects, dams cause severe and often irreversible damage to critical ecosystems. Due to dam building and other factors, freshwater ecosystems have on average lost 76% of their populations since 1970 – more than marine and land-based ecosystems. Building more dams to protect ecosystems from climate change means sacrificing the planet’s arteries to protect her lungs.   Large hydropower projects have serious impacts on local communities and often violate the rights of indigenous peoples to their lands, territories, resources,  governance, cultural integrity and free, prior informed consent. Dams have displaced at least 40-80 million people and have negatively affected an estimated 472 million people living downstream. The resistance of dam-affected communities has often been met with egregious human rights violations.   Large hydropower projects are not always an effective tool to expand energy access for poor people. In contrast to wind, solar and micro-hydropower, large hydropower dams depend on central electric grids, which are not a cost-effective tool to reach rural populations particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Himalayas. Large hydropower projects are often built to meet the demands of mining and industrial projects even if they are justified by the needs of the poor.   Even if they were a good solution in other ways, large hydropower projects would be a costly and time-consuming way to address the climate crisis. On average large dams experience cost overruns of 96% and time overruns of 44%. In comparison, wind and solar projects can be built more quickly and experience average cost overruns of less than 10%.   Unlike wind and solar power, hydropower is no longer an innovative technology, and has not seen major technical breakthroughs in several decades. Unlike with solar power, climate funding for large hydropower projects will not bring about further economies of scale, and does not encourage a transfer of new technologies to Southern countries.   Wind and solar power have become readily available and financially competitive, and have overtaken large hydropower in the addition of new capacity. As grids become smarter and the cost of battery storage drops, new hydropower projects are no longer needed to balance intermittent sources of renewable energy.   Hydropower projects currently make up 26% of all projects registered with the CDM, and absorb significant support from other climate initiatives. Climate finance for large hydropower projects crowds out support for real solutions such as wind, solar and micro hydropower, and creates the illusion of real climate action. Including large hydropower in climate initiatives falsely appears to obliterate the need for additional real climate solutions. For these reasons, the undersigned organizations and individuals call on governments, financiers and other institutions to keep large hydropower projects out of their initiatives to address climate change. All climate and energy solutions need to respect the rights and livelihoods of local communities. [i] Amazon Watch, Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente, Bianca Jagger Human Rights Foundation, Carbon Market Watch, International Rivers, Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement International, Oxfam International, South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People; Urgewald, REDLAR and Movimiento Ríos Vivos.  

COP21 Begins, as Climate Hope Grows Stronger

Hundreds of world leaders gathered in Paris today to officially kick off the highly anticipated global climate talks. This is a critical moment for the future our life here on Earth. The conference is expected to produce a new and binding global climate accord, which could shape the ways in which we live, govern, create energy, and adapt to a changing climate. The expectations are set high for this 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change – because they have to be.  In the next two weeks, States will have the opportunity to show their commitment to combating climate change. At the close of the negotiations, if all goes well, governments from around the world will adopt the measures necessary to ensure a better planet for present and future generations. The task at hand for this Conference is finalizing the Paris climate package, which includes a final draft of the new climate agreement and a series of decisions to be adopted by Member Parties. Both are vital to the proper implementation of the Convention. Though it has been successful in elevating climate change in policy discussions worldwide, the Convention still requires States to adopt clear and concrete actions to ensure compliance.  What do we hope to achieve in Paris? There are two key tasks that AIDA will press Conference negotiators to achieve: Clarify the commitments related to climate financing after 2020. Include language requiring the respect, guarantee, protection, and promotion of human rights in all climate actions in both the preamble and the operating text of the Paris Agreement. Focus On: Climate Finance Climate finance is fundamental to ensuring that the commitments established in the Paris Agreement, as well as in the Convention itself, become a reality. Concerning climate finance, the new agreement should include the following key elements: Clarity on which countries should mobilize new and additional resources after 2020. It’s also important to reevaluate the role of developing countries that, though they have no obligation to provide financing, may be in a position do to so. Clear commitments to increase climate finance to achieve the desired outcomes. Clarity on sources of financing, ensuring that those sources implement clear and transparent methods that allow for their accounting and effective use. Collective short-term goals that demonstrate clear advances. Clarity on the institutional arrangements needed to channel resources. It will be important to strengthen the Green Climate Fund’s role in ensuring that finance supports projects and programs that are low-carbon and climate-resilient. Cycles of financial contributions, and their corresponding verification periods. Climate finance is a critical component of progress on the climate agenda. Providing clarity on this matter is essential to achieving goals and paradigm shifts in the short, medium, and long term.   Focus On: Human Rights The protection and promotion of human rights is vital in the fight against climate change.  The very success of the Paris Agreement depends on this element being integrated into the text and, particularly, into its objectives. A climate agreement featuring language to protect human rights will help to: Increase the ambition of the Agreement and strengthen its goals, encouraging better implementation, given that the human rights perspective may remind States of obligations that they already have. Clarify the responsibilities of States and other actors in the fight against climate change, and increase understanding of public policies related to it. This provides us the opportunity to advance and provide lessons learned, avoiding the duplication or creation of new obligations. Define a clear and acceptable pattern to prevent further socioenvironmental conflicts in the future. Having a uniform legal framework for the recognition of human rights would make it possible to improve the management of water, food, and land, which have particular resonance in Latin America. The Paris Conference is a historic opportunity for AIDA to strengthen the substantial progress made to date in the fight against climate change. Follow Along With Us!

For the life and health of my children: We MUST include Human Rights in the New Climate Accord

By Astrid Puentes Riaño (@astridpuentes) Originally published by IntLawGrrls We humans have caused climate change, a real threat to humanity thus it requires human solutions.  We also have lost precious time on eternal discussions about the existence of climate change, despite imminent evidence.  Our efforts to deliver solutions must be inclusive and ambitious if they are to ensure that the lives and livelihoods of all people are protected. If and how to include human rights protections in new climate accord was one of the primary issues discussed during October’s Bonn Climate Conference. These protections were notably left out of the no-text presented by the co-chairs, and then added back in at the insistence of several countries, many from the Global South, and hundreds of civil society organizations. I could write a long list of legal, political, ethical, and economic arguments as to why human rights must be included in the Paris Agreement. In my opinion, however, they can all be distilled into two primary and powerful arguments: my children! At 4 and nearly 2 years old, they are already experiencing the realities of a changing climate.  Some days, for example, they cannot go to the park because of increased air and climate pollution levels in Mexico City, be it black carbon or ozone, or both.  Unfortunately, the worst is yet to come, as hurricanes, droughts, floods, glacier loss, and fires are all increasing. Now the question for my kids is not whether they will suffer from climate change, but to what extent. Some may say I’m exaggerating, and that my kids aren’t among the most affected. They’re right. Many others are suffering, and will continue to suffer, far worse consequences, such as: the Kunas in Panama, who are loosing their land due to sea-level rise; the 62 million people living on 52 small island states, including Tuvalu and Barbados; the 70 million people in the Andes, all of whom depend on water from glaciers and paramos, which are expected to dissapear within a few decades. Despite the evident urgency, official responses have been shamefully slow. The United Nations recently announced that current national commitments aren’t enough to prevent world temperatures from surpassing 2oC by 2100, when my children will be 89 and 87 years old. How, then, can we speed up agreements, increase ambition, and close the gap between what is needed and what is promised by States? Human Rights are an important part of this answer. If implemented, they can help to: Recognize the realities of climate change and its impact on the enjoyment of human rights of all peoples, particularly those in vulnerable situations. Remind States of their existing obligations to protect and respect human rights, obligations which are fundamentally shared by corporations and other international entities. Incorporating human rights in the climate change agreement will not create new obligations; it will instead allow us to be consistent and comply with preexisting commitments. Avoid increased threats to world stability that have been linked to climate change due to impacts such as: local resource competition, livelihood insecurity, migration, extreme weather events and disasters, volatile food prices, transboundary water management, sea-level rise, coastal degradation, and the unintended effects of climate policies. Spur effective solutions, such as the rethinking of energy. These kinds of solutions haven’t yet been achieved due to a lack of ambition and political will. For my son and daughter, and the millions of children of the world, we must accept that climate change is a human rights issue. For the health of future generations, and that of those already suffering from its impacts, we must do all we can to create effective solutions. The new climate accord, which will be signed in Paris this December, must include human rights protections in its Preamble, as well as in its operative text. Only then, with an overarching respect for the rights of all people, can begin to see the results we need in the fight against climate change. We must take the climate crisis seriously. If not, we will be trapped in short-sighted negotiations that won’t provide my children the hope of a dignified and healthy life. They will be left inside, unable to play in the park, to enjoy the world beyond our doorstep. And those in more vulnerable situations may be left with nowhere at all to find the shelter they seek.

Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants: A life jacket in times of climate change

By Florencia Ortuzar, AIDA attorney They’re all around you – the air conditioner hanging from your neighbor’s window, the charcoal powering your grill, the black smoke pillowing out of a passing truck, even the cows dotting the fields outside town. These familiar aspects of our daily lives are just some of the sources of short-lived climate pollutants (SLCPs). When released, SLCPs warm our atmosphere. But, compared to carbon dioxide, they have a relatively short lifespan. Consequently, their effective mitigation could provide a life jacket on the troubled waters of climate change. That’s why SCLPs are worth considering as the world moves rapidly toward the new global climate accord to be signed at the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The meeting in Paris this December will be the most important in the global climate negotiations thus far. The new accord it produces could help us out of the planetary dilemma we’re currently in. The task is difficult. There have been 20 conferences of the UNFCCC so far, none of which has made substantial progress. Emissions have increased each year since the convention began, except for 2008 and 2009, when they decreased due the global economic crisis (not, notably, due to human will to survive). Sometimes, it’s hard to keep hope alive, but at AIDA, we never lose it.  What are SLCPs? These contaminants include black carbon, tropospheric ozone, methane and hydroflourocarbons (HFC). Each one of them is different, but they share two main characteristics: they are major contributors to global warming, and, once emitted, they remain in the atmosphere briefly. The second feature is the one to which we must draw attention if we seek to mitigate climate change in the short term. Unlike SLCPs, carbon dioxide (CO2) can remain in the air for centuries. That means that even if we stopped all emissions today, the CO2 emitted would continue to warm the atmosphere for a very long time.  How big of a problem are they?  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that SLCPs are responsible for more than 30 percent of global warming. More recent studies estimate between 40 and 45 percent. Mitigating carbon dioxide, responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect, is essential to maintaining the climatic equilibrium of the earth in the long term. But the opportunity offered through the mitigation of SLCPs is much more immediate, and its effects could be felt in our daily lives.  Advantages of reducing SLCPs The desirability of reducing SLCPs is much greater if we consider that, in addition to heating the atmosphere, these contaminants cause other problems that directly affect human health and the natural environment. Black carbon and tropospheric ozone, for example, are the cause of millions of premature deaths each year, since they increase the risk of respiratory and heart disease. They also damage crop yields, so their control would help improve food security worldwide. What does the Convention say?  The Convention and its Kyoto Protocol do not recognize SLCPs as a concept, although the Protocol does include methane and HFCs in the greenhouse gases it seeks to combat. But this lack of recognition may change with the new climate accord.  The current agreement includes a list of specific polluting gases that States must reduce. With the new agreement, however, countries will be free to decide what to include in their gas mitigation targets. Mexico has become a notable example in this regard by unconditionally committing, through its Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), to reduce black carbon by 51 percent by 2030. This percentage has the potential to rise to 70 percent with international assistance.  The work at hand At AIDA we work to inform governments of the measures they could take to effectively reduce short-lived climate pollutants in their countries. We advocate for the adoption of solutions whose effectiveness has already been tested in various parts of the world. We are preparing a report that reviews current regulation of these pollutants in three Latin American countries: Brazil, Chile and Mexico. We hope this report will facilitate progress towards a better approach to SLCPs in these countries. We will then continue working on this important issue in the rest of the region. You can find more information about SLCPs HERE! 

6 Things You Should Know About The Paris Climate Talks

Across Latin America, and the world, communities are facing the severe effects of a changing climate. As floods destroy ancestral homes, and droughts threaten livelihoods, the urgency with which world leaders must act is becoming increasingly apparent. It is in this critical global climate that world leaders will meet this December in Paris for a pivotal meeting of the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC), also known as COP21. The conference is expected to produce a new global agreement on climate change, which we hope will set the stage for the transition to a low carbon, climate resilient economy. AIDA’s lead Climate Change attorney Andrea Rodríguez has been monitoring key elements of the ongoing climate negotiations and bringing information and analysis to policy makers and NGOs throughout the Americas. To prepare you for the barrage of news that will come out of COP21, we’ve asked Rodríguez some questions we thought you’d like to know the answers to: What is the COP21? The meeting in Paris will be the 21st yearly session of the Conference of Parties to the global climate change convention, also known as the UNFCCC. World leaders will convene in Paris with the goal of signing a new global agreement on climate change. The primary goal of the agreement will be to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global temperature increase to 2° C above pre-industrial levels, so we can adapt to the new changes in climate. Why is the conference so important? Climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. No matter what governments do, if they don’t work together and take collaborative actions, we are never going to succeed at providing an effective solution. That’s why a global space that coordinates what countries do to tackle the problem is crucial for finding a way forward. The global treaty on climate change has been established for more than 20 years. What we need from COP21 is further guidance to ensure its effective implementation. If we don’t provide clarity on exactly how we’re going to achieve reduced emissions in a timely manner, we’re putting at risk the future of the planet. What are the key issues AIDA is following? AIDA is following two key components in the development of the new climate accord: climate finance and the protection of human rights in climate related activities. Climate finance entails providing money for developing countries—which are generally the least responsible for and the most impacted by climate change—to implement climate related actions effectively. COP21 needs to provide clarity on the specifics of that support—when and how will it arrive, and where will the money come from? A baseline of $100 billion per year by 2020 has already been agreed upon. But how do we make sure that goal is reached, and that is continues to grow?  And, once resources are distributed, there must be mechanisms in place to ensure those resources are used properly and effectively. AIDA is pushing governments to incorporate human rights protections into the agreement, because climate change directly affects human rights. We need to create a broad consciousness of the human rights dimensions of climate change. That includes incorporating specific language to ensure the protection of human rights in all climate actions. When governments or institutions are planning climate-focused projects, programs, plans and strategies, they must also think about how those projects will affect people and the realization of their human rights. What will the agreement mean for governments? Governments of the world need to start looking within. They must do an internal analysis to see what they have, and what they need, to ensure they can strategically implement the agreement. In order for a nation to commit to taking action, it must first make sure it has the institutional capacity and the means to succeed. What will it mean for the average person? The climate agreement is a political commitment, but it will certainly have repercussions at the local level. It will influence national policies. If leaders create an effective agreement, you will see your government shifting to low-emission, climate-resilient development. There will be better local regulations, and you will begin to see policy improvements, and eventually more climate resilient actions taken in your own communities. You will be less vulnerable to the effects of climate change. How can the average person engage on this issue? You can begin by demanding more of your government. Climate change is a political fight, and your voice can help influence outcomes. Learn what your government wants and what their expectations are—you can start now by familiarizing yourself with their INDC. Then get organized and push your government to take a more proactive stance. Familiarize yourself with climate finance, follow the negotiations, and help inform others by sharing our work. It is our duty as citizens to hold our governments responsible, and to do our part to protect and defend this beautiful planet as best we can. 

Rights of the Environment: The Pope is on our Side

In his speech before the United Nations today in New York, Pope Francis argued passionately in defense of the environment, proclaiming that the natural world should have the same rights and protection as humanity. The Pope insisted on the “rights of the environment” because, according to His Holiness: We human beings are part of the environment. We live in communion with it, since the environment itself entails ethical limits which human actions must acknowledge and respect (…) Any harm done to the environment, therefore, is harm done to humanity… In all religions, the environment is a fundmental good. The Pope also proclaimed the fundamental nature of the fight against climate change, which requires concrete and effective actions. A decisive moment in this fight will come this December at the Paris Climate Conference, where governments from around the world will meet and commit to global actions to confront the climate crisis. The Pope declared: I’m confident that the Paris Conference on climate change will secure fundamental and effective agreements.  During the UN General Assembly, before leaders and representatives of the people of the world, the Pope added: Our world demands of all government leaders a will that is effective, practical and constant, concrete steps and immediate measures for preserving and improving the natural environment.  This speech is a milestone in the struggle for the defense of the environment and against climate change. It’s yet another push to continue fighting every day for the preservation of biodiversity, ecosystems, freshwater, and the balance of life on this planet, this marvellous creation that we humans share with so many other forms of life. At AIDA we strive every day to defend the right to a healthy environment in the Americas, and in our Climate Change program we monitor and support the negotiations to reach a new global climate accord. As long as humanity and the environment suffer at the hand of irresponsible development, we will continue to fight in defense of the environment. 

A World Without Ozone

By Laura Yaniz In Mexico, on September 16th, people rest from a night of partying, and so does the sky. In that country, Independence Day begins contaminated by the excessive fireworks used in patriotic celebrations. The irony is that, worldwide, that same day is reserved to celebrate the preservation of the ozone layer. What would have happened had we not decided to care for the ozone?  Each 16th of September, Mexico City wakes up with its air hanging thick and dirty. Although the streets are nearly empty, the government maintains a “Don’t Drive Today” program and sanctions distracted drivers whose plate numbers are forbidden from driving that day. I call them “distracted” because on holidays, the government often suspends the “Don’t Drive Today” program, but not on September 16th. On this day, everyone must recover from his or her hangover, including the sky. This is a result of September 15th, when Mexico celebrates its “motherland night.” In cities across the country, thousands of fireworks are launched from plazas packed full of partiers. And so, the next day, the sky hangs even greyer than usual. It’s a bit ironic that September 16th is International Day for the Preservation of the Ozone Layer.  More ironic still is that a Mexican named Mario Molina was part of the group of scientists who discovered what was causing the hole in the ozone layer: chemicals expelled into the air by human beings. The discovery became a turning point in the war against gases that damage our atmosphere. It led to diplomatic actions worldwide: the Montreal Protocol was signed with the specific purpose of protecting the ozone, prohibiting the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, commonly known as Freon) and spurring the elimination of other harmful substances. “My first environmental panic,” is how Florencia Ortúzar, AIDA climate change attorney, remembers it. And why not? Destroying the ozone meant weakening protection against the UV rays that cause skin cancer and cataracts, not to mention the fact that extremely dangerous radiation could cause drastic changes in the ecosystems we rely upon in our own lives. We’ve had 40 years of scientific investigation into the effects of chemicals on the ozone, and 30 years of global and political actions to confront them. Have they mattered at all? Yes. The world we avoided NASA published a simulation that explains the world that might have been had we not acted so quickly to protect our ozone: By 2020, 17 percent of all ozone would have disappeared on a global level. By 2040, UV radiation would have reached an index of 15 in mid-latitudes. An index of 10 is considered extreme and can cause burns within 10 minutes. By 2065, we would have lost two-thirds of the ozone, causing never-before-seen UV radiation levels, which could cause burns in only 5 minutes of exposure. Would we have reached 2100? NASA didn’t say. The hope: What we can do Richard Stolarski, a scientific pioneer in ozone studies and the co-author of NASA’s simulation, expressed his admiration for the global work to confront the problem: “I didn’t think the Montreal Protocol would work, it was very naïve in terms of politics. Now it is a remarkable international agreement and should be studied by all those involved in seeking a global agreement on global warming.“ Certainly, what was achieved was inspirational, because a catastrophic situation was avoided.  But we can’t let down our guard just yet. When the Montreal Protocol prohibited chlorofluorocarbons, industry replaced them with hydrofluorocarbons.  Like the CFCs they replaced, HFCs are potent greenhouse gases. As part of our Climate Change program, we work to reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants, which include hydrofluorocarbons. Although they represent only a small percentage of greenhouse gases, their production and use are growing and will continue to increase if action is not taken. That’s why at AIDA we are working to identify ways to strengthen regulations that reduce emissions of short-lived climate pollutants. Because these pollutants persist in the atmosphere only briefly, reducing their concentrations can provide near-term climate benefit, giving us more time to implement renewable energy and efficiency programs that lessen the severity of climate change. Are you with us?

Monitoring the UN Climate Negotiations

The new climate agreement should help nations meet existing commitments!

The governments of the world are working on the negotiating text of a new global agreement to combat climate change. It will be signed in December, during the Paris Conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and will take effect in 2020. AIDA is advocating for the new climate agreement to be a tool that adequately addresses the effects of extreme changes in climate, especially in the most vulnerable countries. "We want the new climate agreement to help implement existing agreements effectively and strengthen national commitments made through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; we cannot start from scratch and the new agreement should not replace the Convention, but rather improve its implementation, "said Andrea Rodriguez, AIDA senior attorney. With a view to the Paris Conference, delegates from various countries are meeting to work on the elements that will form the basis of the "Paris package." The package includes a new climate agreement (overarching commitments) and a decision (provisions likely to change over time) that spell out commitments made under the Convention. The next meeting will be held in Bonn, Germany, from August 31 to September 4. To contribute positively to the draft negotiating texts of the agreement and decision, AIDA prepared remarks for the negotiators aimed at strengthening two key issues: the financing of activities to combat climate change, and protection of human rights in carrying out such activities. On climate financing, the comments emphasize the need for the new climate agreement to help mobilize sufficient, adequate and predictable financial resources effectively, establishing concrete commitments, such as terms of responsibilities and timeframes. On the second point, the comments ask the Paris agreement countries to commit themselves to protecting human rights in all actions related to climate change, a commitment already made in the Cancun Agreements of 2010 that needs to be reaffirmed in the new legally binding climate change agreement in order to ensure compliance. Countries have already committed to provide 100 billion dollars to the fight against climate change, beginning in 2020. "The Paris decision on climate finance must provide assurance that countries will make every effort to ensure that commitment from 2020 on; then we will be able to trust that the new climate agreement will actually work," Rodriguez said. Learn more about our comments on climate finance and human rights for the new climate deal!

Indifference to life and health in Peru

By María José Veramendi Villa, @MaJoVeramendi In Peru, every year around 400 children die of cold. I learned this dramatic figure a few weeks ago when I read a column titled “Dying from Indifference,” by Congresswoman Veronika Mendoza. I asked with genuine indignation: How is it possible that children could die of cold in a country that prides itself on its mineral wealth, its great attraction for foreign investment, its tourism and culinary strengths? A country that hosts major world events such as the Conference of State Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change? Besides the lack of political will from our leaders, who worry more about looking good in photos taken at grand events, the answer can be found in a key paragraph of Mendoza’s column: “Where could such political will come from if no one is moved, if no one is indignant that these children die, perhaps because they tend to be “somewhere else,” usually peasants, who often speak Quechua or Aymara?” Regret before prevention On July 18, 2015, the government issued a supreme decree that declared a state of emergency in some districts and provinces of the country, due to frost. The first paragraph of the decree states that “every year and on a recurring basis, between the months of May and September, our country experiences weather events related to low temperatures, such as frost in our highlands, as was observed in recent seasons with extreme temperatures well below 0 ° C ...” If these weather events occur every year, why not prevent their impacts? In 2004, information from the Tyndall Centre, University of Manchester, revealed that Peru is the third most vulnerable country to the effects of climate change, the main cause of such phenomena as increasingly intense frost. Indifference to the violation of human rights Indifference in Peru not only manifests itself in children dying of cold in remote communities, but also La Oroya, a city only 175 kilometers from Lima. In a context of extreme industrial pollution, the population, including children, has for many years suffered violations of the rights to life and health. On August 11, a strike organized by the workers of the metallurgical complex in La Oroya, and the subsequent closure of the main highway that provides access to the center of the country, set off alarm bells in the city. Not bells that should sound when pollution limits are exceeded, but those of a long-neglected social demand. The metallurgical complex, owned by the company Doe Run Peru, is for sale and in the process of liquidating. According to information released to the public, no interested party submitted a financial offer because Peruvian environmental standards are too strict. In response, the workers took control of the road, demanding that the State relax those standards so the complex can be sold and they retain their jobs. The protest left one dead and 60 wounded. It ended after the signing of a five-point agreement, which does not mention the rights to life and health of the population of La Oroya. In a city that has been subjected to unchecked contamination for more than 90 years, Doe Run Peru has continued to obtain extensions to meet its environmental obligations. In July 2015, the company obtained a further extension of 14 years for the complex to meet environmental standards. But what about the life and health of the people? The State has not seen that environmental standards are met in La Oroya. Neither has it fully safeguarded the health of its inhabitants: • The air quality alert system has not been activated properly. • The doctors in charge of health and the heavy metals strategy are scarce and face the constant risk of running out of resources to continue working. • The State insists on asking the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to lift the measures ordered in 2007 to protect the lives and health of a group of La Oroya residents. Speaking Loudly Children are as vulnerable to cold as they are to the effects of industrial pollution. However, the State only comes to their aid in times of crisis or when it is too late. It sounds like a cliché, but children are our hope. Let us listen so they don’t die of cold and are no longer poisoned! Otherwise, we will also be victims of the disease of indifference.