As many people return from remembrance Sunday, attending a service in memory of the lives lost to human conflict, the death toll in the Philippines from Typhoon Haiyan mounts, do we need a service to remind us of the ever increasing death toll from Climate Change?
Typhoon Haiyan has caused immense devastation in the Philippines and is now threatening Vietnam. Will this disaster generate the political will necessary to get the climate negotiations back on track? Unfortunately, historical precedent is that despite the disaster mobilising international aid efforts and generating global sympathy, the global political community is more interested in protecting self-interest than making the sacrifices necessary to deliver a global agreement.
Only twelve months ago the lead negotiator of the Philippines delegation, broke down during his prepared statement at the COP18 climate talks in Doha, as he appealed to the world: ‘no more delays, no more excuses’ as the death toll from Typhoon Bopha, which was at then the most powerful tropical typhoon to ever hit his country leaving many hundreds of people dead. Less than twelve months later and a new ‘most powerful’ typhoon leaves many thousand, certainly ten and maybe hundreds of thousands of people dead, will it make a difference?
So what was I hoping for as I remembered the sacrifice of a previous generation? I am hoping that we can put down our own self-interest and come together to deliver a global agreement that responds to the damage we have already done to the climate and to the planet. MITIGATION, we need to act to halt greenhouse gas emissions, ADAPTATION, we need to step forward with our promise to deliver adaptation financing to those who are already suffering as a result of changing climates and we need to act on LOSS and DAMAGE, recognising that for many it is already too late!
Let us all hope that the government representatives meeting in Warsaw remember the plea of only twelve months earlier, “what is demanded of us by 7 billion people… if not us, then who; if not now, then when; if not here, then where?” Will Warsaw be remembered as the first positive step on the road to a new global agreement, to do this it is critical that now is not the time for pointing fingers, but now is the time to act? Will a set of decisions and a road map be agreed that demonstrate we are serious about averting further catastrophic warming before it too late not only for the people of the Philippines, but for all of us!
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2012/dec/06/philippines-negotiator-emotional-plea-doha-climate-talks-videoNo Comments » | Add your comment
The guy who just took my order for dinner - ‘chicken or fish, rice or chapattis?’ – nonchalantly waited for my reply while picking fluff out of his belly button.
He seems a nice person so I didn’t complain.
I am choosing to let that image remain in my mind rather than the ‘we’re all doomed’ message from my dinner time reading – the Russell Brand-edited New Statesman.
I agree with Russell’s overarching message - ‘before we change the world, we need to change the way we think’ – however I found the pessimism that runs through the magazine deeply depressing. He, and also interviewed, Noel Gallagher, won’t vote becaus,e as Billy Connolly said, ‘it encourages them’, describing voting as ‘a tacit act of compliance’. He also includes an article by Naomi Klein writing after interviewing eminent scientists who feel gagged and their criticism of various governments’ environmental policy massaged (or worse) away. One who chose to break the gag, Brad Werner, a geophysicist, invited to address 24,000 space scientists at the American Geophysical Union titled his talk ‘Is the Earth F***ed?’ and when pressed by journalists to answer his own question replied ‘more or less’.
This is deeply depressing, even more so as I’ve just arrived in Bangladesh which is the country most at risk according to the just published Climate Change Vulnerability Index 2014. It’s also one of the poorest places in the world and many families living on the edge are already feeling climate change impacts.
Management theorists etc. tell us there are lots of things you need to deliver change
One is fear – to shock people out of their complacency and natural inertia. Russell Brand in The New Statesman tries I think to do this.
The second is vision – how because of the change things can be better, and the change can even be better for you.
Russell Brand focuses too much on fear, I prefer vision but I get the need for balance. We agree the time to act is now.
I am not willing to blame politicians, their short termism is driven by a ’spectacle and cakes’ approach to keeping people happy, but even with this I’ve seen real and massive change in my life – in South Africa, in Germany with the fall of the Soviet Union, through the transformation of IT. I believe our world can change I’d like to think each and everyone of us has a part to play in making the change happen. This isn’t complacency – sitting here in Bangladesh it’s hard to be complacent - it’s about hope.
Worryingly though, I have D:Ream’s song ‘Things can only get better’ going through my mind – but I’ll go with it and recall the transformation of Brian Cox from D:Ream keyboard player to Professor of Astrophysics and popular science presenter. Things only got better for him! One person changed – and a mass movement is just that – a movement of individuals. Let’s act so things get better for our planet.3 Comments » | Add your comment
If you ask someone “what is the role of Technology in Disaster Risk Reduction?” they may scratch their head and look puzzled, but if you ask the more direct question “how can technology alleviate or exacerbate risk?” you can start a much more lively debate. Well that is what happened when I recently challenged a group of post graduate students on the MSc Disaster Management and MSc Emergency Planning and Management courses at Coventry University, to think about how technology can influence risk.
The popularity of these courses is recognition of the increasing levels of risk facing us today. The scale, frequency and severity of natural and man-made disasters have risen progressively, with the key drivers being climate change, depletion and destruction of natural resources and increasing populations living in vulnerable locations. Disasters not only kill and injure people, they also damage infrastructure, reduce productivity and generate social tensions, they consume resources that would otherwise be directed towards productive activities, and they can wipe out years of development in seconds.
Practical Action’s work in the field has highlighted that it is insufficient to focus only on responding to disasters; there is an urgent need to shift to risk reduction in which avoidable risk is eliminated and unavoidable risk is factored into the livelihood choices of local people. There is no doubt that technological advances have increased productivity, income and life expectancy, they have improved quality of life and removed the threat of disasters from our daily lives. Technology such as early warning systems are vital in this transition, as experienced with the 4 day advance warning of the passing of the Atlantic storm by the Met Office in October 2013 as compared to the swath of disaster left in the wake of the unexpected 1987 hurricane. Therefore, it was a great opportunity to work with students at Coventry University to explore the role of technology in the risk equation, to understand how the application of technology can reduce or exacerbate risk, and explore what changes are necessary to deliver the promise of technology justice for the over one billion people who still live in extreme poverty and vulnerability.
The day began with a presentation of Practical Action’s work outlining our achievements in disaster risk reduction. The students were then asked to brainstorm the multitude of hazards facing poor people today. They selected natural disasters such as earthquakes, Tsunami, flooding, drought, extreme storms, landslide, volcanic eruption, wildfire and disease epidemics, as well as human induced disasters such as conflict, war, terrorist attack and chemical spills. The students then broke into five groups and selected one hazard and a key sector to explore in more detail. The five hazards and sectors selected were; flooding and the communications sector, disease and public health, earthquake and public works, wildfire and forestry and war and the health sector. Each group was then asked to identify technologies that are involved in the sector and to explore the potential of the technology to alleviate or exacerbate risk and identify the key players involved.
Looking at the group that studied the health sector in conflicts situation, the group identified a wealth of different technologies involved, including; communications such as targeting of first aid, coordination of search and rescue for the recovery of casualties; food storage and distribution to ensure hospitals are well supplied but also ensuring the front line health staff have adequate supplies; transportation critical for ambulances, medication and food delivery and equipment supply; shelter especially for casualties, but also providing adequate facilities for doctors such as operating rooms; utilities such as water and electricity supply and the need for refrigeration to keep medicines safe. The group also explored the role of protective technologies for healthcare workers such as gas masks and other protective clothing.
The groups were asked to explore the issue of technology justice for their selected hazard. They picked one or two technologies already identified and were asked to explore the drivers and barriers to the development and implementation of technologies in a developing country context. Each day, everyone regardless of where they live is exposed to risk of one form or another. The students quickly realised that the majority of technological solutions reflect the ability to pay and not the priorities on the ground. Thus the majority of disaster risk reduction technologies reflect consumers demand, rather than deliver vital risk reduction to poor people living in vulnerable situations. More work is needed to understand how decision processes can be changed to ensure that the right technology is available at the right place so that when the next hazard strikes it doesn’t become a disaster.
Technology justice in DRR requires the involvement of the poorest and most vulnerable in the development of solutions so that technologies deliver the biggest impacts for the poorest and most vulnerable and are not driven by a profit motive alone. Changing this mindset will be a challenge but one of the first steps must be the realisation that existing technologies applied at the right place could save many thousands of lives each year. Practical Action is uniquely positioned to increase global recognition of the role that technology and innovation play in alleviating and occasionally exacerbating disasters on people’s wellbeing. We must make efforts to demonstrate and advocate for the positive role that technology can play to promote disaster sensitive development; ensure the right technologies are available in the most demanding situations regardless of the cost and reverse technology based development approaches that exacerbate long term vulnerability. Thus technology justice is central to the work of Practical Action as we build a movement, where technology is used for the benefit of all, in a way that is not at the expense of future generations.
Were you horrified by Simon’s blog on the World Energy Congress? I was!
The energy industry is putting forward two scenarios, the first seeing a 30% increase in global energy consumption, the second an approximate 80%. Both scenarios leave huge numbers of poor people without access to decent energy – the rich remain profligate, the poor without?
Last night I put the scenarios from the World Energy Congress report to the panel of eminent speakers at the Royal Society and All Party Parliamentary Group on Climate Change meeting. The response I got was twofold:
- These would be included within the business-as-usual scenario (is that reassuring?!)
- From Professor Tim Palmer, University of Oxford: ‘The IPCC’s job is to assess the scientific literature. It’s quite a conservative document in many respects.’
I think I was a bit shocked or maybe I’m a bit naive … Is it just me that finds the idea that the world is working on a major increase in carbon-based energy surprising?
We need to work together with nature and respect our planetary boundaries. Just because we can exploit nature doesn’t mean we should.
Poor people are feeling the impact of climate change first and hardest. As the impact increases, they will be the least protected – I read today of an asylum seeker in New Zealand arguing his case on the basis of climate change making his island home untenable. The judge found his argument tenable, but outside the criteria on which asylum was allowed.
I’d love the climate scientists to talk to the energy planners. Wouldn’t it be great if we had a joined up vision of our future – even is its one that scares us?No Comments » | Add your comment
Is scientific objectivity morally wrong? In other words is it a cop out?
I’ve just attended a meeting of The Royal Society and the All Parliamentary Group on Climate Change, at which hugely eminent scientists – Professor this and Lord that – presented the findings of the 5th Assessment report of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The truth is we’ve heard it all before – and while in scientific circles the evidence has become yet more conclusive: now at 95% for anthropogenic climate change – what it tells us, we already know. The world is warming quickly, rainfall patterns are changing – and the change is probably irreversible. The question is how far we go before we as a world decide to take action?
Talking about Bangladesh, Professor Tim Palmer, professor in climate physics at the University of Oxford, said ‘By any stretch of the imagination this is going to put a major stress on humanity. The impact could be devastating.’
Yet all of the scientists there agreed the need for impartiality – the scientific methodology. Not having opinions beyond the scientific facts.
Lord Oxburgh told a story of going to a meeting a few years ago with 80 ‘captains’ of US industry and how they were turned off from tackling climate change by the scientists’ love of the unknown. The business people wanted to know facts and plan what to do. The scientists wanted to tell them what they needed to explore further. The meeting ended in disarray and no action.
The impact of climate change is close to my heart because I’ve seen how poor communities are already feeling its impact. I’m going to Bangladesh in two weeks, and sitting at the meeting thinking about the people we work with, somehow the impartiality, the studied objectivity seemed wrong. How can we say Bangladesh will be devastated, and not apply moral values to the impact on millions of people? How can we not argue with passion the need for change and start working towards solutions?
I love science, the curiosity and solutions-focus. This studied impartiality is a trend, I understand that it’s in response to the furore that surrounded the last IPCC report and ‘email gate’, but even so in my view, it’s wrong.
Yesterday in the Atlee Suite Lord Oxburgh, referring to the way the IPCC reports are ‘approved’ by government before they are published, dared to use the word appeasement!
It’s probably not a word I’d use – I’d paraphrase Fritz Schumacher and quote Elvis Presley: ‘A little less conversation, a little more action’.
No part of our society is morally neutral – science, for all its stringent processes and methodologies, needs to take a stand. To talk about the future is only useful if it leads to action now.
By the way, the scientists were a hugely impressive and personable bunch. Lord Oxburgh as the Chair was most outspoken and thought provoking. For all my ‘please take a stand’ demands, they are doing a great job and would be brilliant to work with. I just want such brilliant people to engage more.
And finally from Lord Oxburgh: ‘We have to have more articulate, user friendly speakers who are actually selling the product.’ Exactly!
Did you know that access to science is a human right? I didn’t until very recently. With this in mind, how do you think scientists should behave, and should they focus on the problem (now well understood) or the solution?
Or is that a leading question?6 Comments » | Add your comment
Continuing my series of blogs from the World Energy Congress in Korea, Tuseday’s theme at the confrenece was all about identifying business opportunities in the exploitation of resources and the development of energy technologies. Once again though truly revolutionary thinking to address climate change and energy poverty seemed to be strangely missing. Two examples illustrate this:
Firstly, there is a lot of talk at this conference about the ‘shale gas revolution’ in the United States and the possibility of it being replicated in other countries, including China. In chemical terms shale gas is similar to that produced from the North Sea. It is liberated from rock strata by a process known as ‘fracking’, where water is injected under high pressure through boreholes to fracture the rock and allow the gas to be released through the cracks formed. It’s a controversial technique that can involve real environmental challenges as it needs vast amounts of water which, once flushed through the well, is itself an environmental hazard that needs careful disposal. Depending on who you talk to here, shale gas is either a revolution that will make the US energy independent in a couple of years and provide it with cheap energy for a century or it’s just another bubble that is about to burst (at the moment shale gas comes with some shale oil attached which keeps costs artificially low; the shale oil production will finish quite quickly though and once that happens the cost of extracting the gas alone will rise dramatically).
A second example would be the session I attended on Tuesday morning called ‘New frontiers: what is the next game changer?’ I was hoping to hear something about renewables, off grid solutions or new applications of smart grid technology. Instead I got a lot of information about ‘unconventional oil’ – shale gas, shale oil, oil exploration in the artic and something called methane hydrates (for more information on the latter see here). Apparently there is 4 times more oil locked in shales alone than there are left in conventional sources, which leads to the frightening (if you are worried about climate change) claim that the idea we might be reaching Peak Oil (the point at which consumption exceeds the rate of new discoveries and oil prices start to spiral) no longer applies. According to many speakers here, Peak Oil no longer an issue as there is at least 100 years left for coal oil and gas when you include unconventional sources.
The problem with all of these ‘solutions’ to the looming global energy crisis is that, apart from the obvious environmental issues associated with each of the extraction and production processes themselves, they are all about extending the life of hydrocarbons and our dependency on fossil fuels. Discussion of renewables is not entirely absent here, but the level of enthusiasm for innovation in renewables doesn’t seem to be anywhere near the level of enthusiasm for innovation in unconventional fossil fuels. The mantra repeated over and over again here is that the world will still be heavily dependent on fossil fuels in 2050, however much we invest in renewables. I can’t help wondering how much this mantra is dependent on the current subsidy regime. As someone pointed out during a session, at the moment the world provides around $500 billion a year in subsidies to fossil fuels and only about one tenth as much ($60 billion) on subsidising renewables. What if we reversed this and made subsidies for renewables 10 times greater than those for fossile fuels? Would we still be heavily dependent on oil and gas in 2050 then?
Maybe I’m just not selecting the right sessions but from what I’ve seen in the first two days I do not detect the sort of revolution in energy industry thinking that’s going to be necessary to address climate change or achieve universal access to energy.No Comments » | Add your comment
World Energy Congress: The energy industry’s view of 2050 – no controls on demand and 500 million still without electricity
I’m attending the World Energy Congress in Daegu, Korea this week and I thought it might be interesting to blog on the key themes of this meeting.
The World Energy Congress happens every 3 years and is organised by the World Energy Council (WEC), a network of 3000 member organisations located in 90 countries. Principally members come from the private sector, government or international institutions, although there is some representation from academic institutions. The conference is huge, with more than 5000 delegates and a large trade exhibition running alongside it.
The meeting has a different theme every day. Monday’s was ‘Vision and scenarios for the future’ and to mark this WEC launched a report titled: World Energy Scenarios: Composing energy futures to 2050 that shows 2 different scenarios for the development of the energy sector between now and 2050. The scenarios are artfully named after two styles of music – “Jazz”, where there is little forced direction and reliance is principally on markets to deliver change and “Symphony”, where there is more regulation and direction provided by governments. The scenarios are supposed to represent the two extremes within which actual future energy policy paths are likely to fall. From a development perspective a major problem with both scenarios is that neither eliminates energy poverty by 2050 and so lack ambition when compared to the UN Sustainable Energy for All goal of universal access by 2030. The Jazz scenario does the best – with markets left to their own devices reducing the level of people without electricity in the world from 1.2 billion today to 300 million by 2050. Surprisingly WEC’s more regulated Symphony scenario does worse, leaving 500 million people still without electricity by 2050 – possibly because the government regulation envisaged by the scenario’s authors was focussed on green issues and carbon rather than on energy poverty. I say possibly because the other alarming outcome from both scenarios is a massive predicted rise is global annual energy consumption from 373 EJ in 2010 to between 491 (Symphony) and 629 EJ (Jazz) in 2050.
These two scenarios are supposed to represent extreme alternatives with an expectation that actual development will fall somewhere in-between. But scenarios are only as good as their underlying assumptions and in this case it appears those assumptions are “business as usual” for the energy industry, plus or minus a bit of green regulation. It is disappointing that WEC hasn’t been more radical in its scenario building and had at least one of its scenarios representing what it would take to achieve universal access by 2030.No Comments » | Add your comment
According to the BBC News on Tuesday, black soot-containing smoke from cook stoves is heating the atmosphere and accelerating glacial melt in the Himalayas and elsewhere. Soot (or black carbon) released from the incomplete combustion of biomass and biofuels among other things, enters the atmosphere and eventually is deposited on ice and snow, causing it to attract solar radiation rather than reflecting the sun’s rays. As millions of people in the Hindu Kush Himalayan region rely on the melt water from snow and ice melt, the disappearance of glaciers and the resulting impacts of this, is unimaginable.
The first part of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to be released on Friday 27 September, will provide the most up to date assessment of the physical science basis of climate change (i.e. the man made and natural causes of climate change). The report will include evidence on black carbon and its impacts. The Climate and Clean Air Coalition (CCAC), which focuses on addressing short-lived climate pollutants that can have harmful impacts on human health, agriculture and ecosystems, has released literature which provides evidence that while there are several sources of black carbon, a significant one is believed to be from household cooking in developing countries.Practical Action has been addressing the problems associated with indoor smoke from cook stoves for more than twenty years. Currently almost 3 billion people worldwide still cook on open fires using wood, animal dung, crop waste or coal. Every year this results in the death of 4 million people, of which the majority of victims are women and children under five. This is more deaths than malaria, HIV/AIDS and TB combined!
In addition, tackling black carbon releaed from cook stoves, is not as “straightforward” as the BBC suggests, especially if you consider the development as well as environmental challenges. In the 3 years since its inception, the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves (a partner of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition) has led the drive to promote the uptake of clean cookers, but progress has been slow. Although there are a number of improved cook stoves on the market – the challenge is to persuade women (who invariably do most of the cooking in most developing countries) to purchase and use these improved cook stoves for all their cooking needs.
Improved stoves and smoke hoods are designed to use less wood, so that women spend less time collecting fuel and it burns more efficiently – and healthily. The environmental impact of minimising black carbon from more complete combustion should be considerd a positive co-benefit rather than what motivates us to promote cleaner cook stoves, or the reason for poor women to use them.As part of Practical Action’s programme of work on energy, household energy is a key focus area; delivering clean energy to poor men and women who need it most. As an issue of justice, reducing carbon emissions must be regarded as a secondary issue to people’s health and well-being. Why should those people who have contributed nothing to the warming of the planet be unjustly burdened with lowering their emissions of black carbon or other greenhouse gases? If the International Community is going to start focusing its attention on black carbon, we should rather start with our own activities that contribute to the problem, such as gas flaring and fossil fuel power plants.
If household cooking is found to be responsible for some of the world’s black carbon, this might result in more funding and a higher profile for this serious health problem, but should not be the driving force for taking action.No Comments » | Add your comment
As if it isn`t tough enough being an alpaca farmer in the high plains of Peru, last week 15 cm of snow blanketed the land. It killed thousands of alpacas, which are vital for smallholder farmers, who sell the wool. They don´t make much money, but it´s enough for food, clothes, and schooling for their children.
We drove for two hours over bumpy tracks, many miles from the nearest town, to meet a group of these farmers. They are used to harsh conditions, with scarce water and poor grazing land, but the heavy snow had added an extra burden.
We talked to Victor Hancco, who is 46, has 5 children, and lives in a small two room house, made of mud and straw bricks, with a corrugated iron roof.
Victor has been trained by Practical Action in irrigation, animal care, and wool classification. He uses this knowledge to tend his own herd of 150 alpacas, and shares his skills with neighbouring farmers.
He said that the snow fell over two days, and then froze hard, down to minus 20 degrees. The alpacas became weak as they couldn’t graze through the icy snow. Eight of his animals died in just a few days, mostly the kids. For a farmer with such a small herd, that represents a huge loss. Alpacas have a gestation period of almost a year, so it will take a long time to build up the numbers again.
The people suffered too – some roofs collapsed with the weight of the snow. The only source of fuel is alpaca dung, and there was only enough for cooking, not for heating homes too. Victor said that they all just put on all the clothes they had, and some came down with pneumonia.
But it could have been much, much worse. Victor used his training to tend the weak alpacas, providing medicine and basic animal care for cold conditions. He visited his neighbours too, and worked with them, to save their herds. He said he felt very proud that his skills made such a difference.
As I listened, I was incredibly proud of Victor and of hearing him say,
“I really value working in partnership with Practical Action – my new knowledge has helped me strengthen my community, especially in these times of climate emergency.”
Without Victor, and the training he received from Practical Action, many more alpacas would have died, especially the vulnerable young kids. It would have taken years for them to recover, financially. Victor is a local hero and if we can train more people like him, then when the next heavy snows come, more alpacas can be saved.1 Comment » | Add your comment
Practical Action is working with other agencies in an emergency response following the massive snow storms that have devastated the lives of the poor farmers we work with in Peru.
The emergency situation in the Andes, Peru
Temperatures in the Andean mountains this week plunged to their lowest levels in decades, killing tens of thousands of animals, including alpacas that they depend on to survive. Thousands of homes have been destroyed and crops have been ruined. Around 100,000 people living in the vulnerable mountain communities have been affected.
Practical Action has several projects in these areas and the people we are working with are being affected. You can find out more information on these projects in Peru here.
What Practical Action are doing to respond to the emergency
Practical Action Latin America Director Alfonso Carrasco said: “During the last couple of weeks people and animals in the highlands of Peru have been suffering a disaster situation due to extreme cold and totally unusual big snowfalls. Thousands of people have been affected. Practical Action is member of the group of emergency attention that is commanded by the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO), and this group becomes automatically installed when a disaster strikes. All agencies involved are sending ECHO a report of the damages, and a quick plan to try to attend the emergency.”
Regional and central governments and the Disaster Risk Management Secretary have already helped people in areas they can access by providing blankets, clothing, shelter, food, bales of hay for cattle, blankets, beds, mattresses, medicines and clothing.
Practical Action is co-ordinating with a network of Kamayoqs (para-vets) that we have trained, to help channel aid to more remote areas.
We are also helping to intervene directly in the affected areas of Cusco, Puno and Apurimac that we work in. This is what Practical Action’s priorities are for emergency care and rehabilitation:
Helping farmers and livestock owners recover
- Providing technical assistance for livelihood recovery
- Forage storage and handling to ensure animals get the food they need
- Providing drugs to control animal epidemics in affected communities
- Providing shifting cultivation seeds to help recover supply of crops
Improving housing conditions and water service
- Providing technical assistance for homes and schools
- Reinforcing homes affected by the snow
- Building community shelters to ensure the affected communities have a roof over their heads
- Rehabilitating water systems and community water sources
- Providing safe water in affected communities
Coordination and institutional technical support
- Supporting and advising the emergency operations centres
- Providing technical assistance in damage assessment and needs analysis
- Training for local and community teams for the proper handling of the emergency
- Installing risk management disaster working groups and civil defense platforms, for a timely emergency response
- Coordinating and deploying Kamayoqs to isolated areas to distribute aid
- Coordinating with DIPECHO partners and other institutions to coordinate intervention strategies
- Supporting students and academics in technical and social assistance
Winter in the Andes, which runs from May to September, is tough already for vulnerable farming communities – temperatures drop to minus 20 degrees.
Daniel Rodriguez, Practical Action’s Director of Programmes in Peru, said: “It’s impossible to adequately describe the environment in which they live. High in the Andean mountains, some 4,000 feet above sea level, the cold is brutal. The land is barren, capable of producing little more than potatoes. Homes are made of mud with no basic services. Families struggle daily to make enough money from selling the wool from their alpacas. The commitment these families make to their alpaca livelihoods under such difficult circumstances is moving.”
The “Friaje” of recent winters – a phenomenon of intense cold never experienced so extremely before – is challenging highland communities’ abilities to survive. It’s suspected that the extreme weather had been triggered by climate change. These weather emergencies are going to be repeated year after year and we need to support these vulnerable communities to cope with climate change to survive.No Comments » | Add your comment