David versus Goliath – The case of Saúl Luciano (climate justice and glacier melt in the Andes)
This lesson plan for Year 9 (secondary school) transforms a complex legal and ecological issue into a lively, student-centred learning setting. Instead of passively learning about glacier melt in the Andes (e.g. through documentation), learners become active participants in one of the most significant climate processes of our time: Saúl Luciano Lliuya v. energy giant RWE.
| Age group | 14–16 years / Year 9 |
|---|---|
| Duration | 90 minutes |
| Learning goals & outcomes | Technical competence: Students explain the physical consequences of climate change in high mountain ranges (glacier melt, rise in lake volumes, risk of drought). Methodological competence: Students extract subject-specific information from complex continuous texts and transform it into role profiles and interview questions. Judgement skills: Students evaluate the issue of global climate justice and discuss the responsibility of industrial companies towards affected communities in the Global South. |
| Methods | Student-led role play; interview method; group work; change of perspective |
| Source / Author | Ehrenberg-Gymnasium, Germany |
| Values | Justice; Solidarity |
Didactic notes
The core of the 90-minute unit is the interview method. The pupils acquire in-depth background knowledge in five specialised expert pools (plaintiffs, lawyers, local government, scientists and sceptical observers).
Through the perspective-changing format of cross-examination, students must use the physical facts to credibly defend their respective roles (emotional, scientific or economic). The lesson concludes with a future-oriented transfer (year 2040) that reflects on the long-term significance of this precedent.
Material & Downloads
- Worksheets M1 – M3
⬇Download.
Introduction
Time: 10 minutes
Teacher shows picture of Saúl Luciano: “What does a Peruvian mountain guide have to do with a German energy company in Essen?”
Students make guesses and ask questions.
Objective: Formulation of hypotheses. Brief presentation of the case: A single farmer is suing one of Europe’s largest emitters for compensation for climate damage.
Materials / tools
M1: Picture input
M2: Brief information about the case
Development
Time: 30 minutes
The class is divided into five groups. Each group prepares a perspective for the later interview with Saúl Luciano. One group is the “Saúl pool” (the main characters), the others are the “interviewers”. Each group receives the list of facts and must derive their questions (or Saúl’s answers) from it.
Saúl pool (plaintiffs): Acquiring knowledge about Saúl’s living conditions (Quechua, mountain guide, 4550 m, fear of the lake)
Lawyers (law & justice): Focus on Roda Verheyen (Saúl’s lawyer), the trial in Germany and the 2°C limit
Local government (home & history): Focus on Huaraz, the disaster of 1941, the 7m wall and the 150,000 inhabitants
Scientists (facts & measurement): Focus on the 34x enlargement of the lake, the 45-50% glacier melt and Moquillaza from the monitoring centre
“Sceptical observers” (economy & RWE): Focus on the question: “Why is a corporation in Germany to blame for melting in Peru?”
Pupils work on individual assignments in groups and thus deal with the respective perspective. At the end, they formulate questions to be addressed to Saul.
Materials / tools
M3: Background information for the groups
Implementation
Time: 30 minutes
Chairs are placed at the front. Saúl (two representatives from group 1) always sits in the middle.
Groups 2 to 5 step up to the podium one after the other as “teams” or ask their questions from their seats.
Recommendation: fixed order to build narrative tension:
Round 1: The emotional introduction (local government – group 3)
Round 2: Fact checking (scientists – Group 4)
Round 3: The legal offensive (lawyers – Group 2)
Round 4: Cross-examination (Sceptics – Group 5)
To keep the groups that are not currently interviewing attentive, each student receives an “investigation card”:
Write down two facts (numbers/names) that were particularly important today.
Which of Saúl’s arguments did you find most convincing?
Which question from the sceptics was the most difficult to answer?
Materials / tools
M3: Background information for the groups
Evaluation and transfer
Time: 20 minutes
Teacher task: “Write a short commentary (max. 50 words) from the perspective of a student in 2040. How do you look back on the 2024 trial? Was Saúl a pioneer or a failed dreamer?”
Objective: Students understand the historical dimension of the Saúl Luciano Lliuya case.
Students read their comments aloud in class.