Peruvian Farmer Sues RWE Over Climate Emissions and Flood Risks
Saul Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer, is suing RWE for emissions contributing to glacial melting, which threatens his hometown. He seeks €21,000 for flood defenses. The case could set a precedent for corporate responsibility in climate change litigation. The legal basis depends on emission contributions to flood risks, with critical scientific backing confirming human-induced climate effects.
A Peruvian farmer named Saul Luciano Lliuya is pursuing a significant legal case against the German energy company RWE regarding climate change issues. The case, which is set to be heard by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, revolves around Lliuya’s assertion that RWE’s emissions have accelerated the melting of glaciers in the Andes, which in turn have raised water levels in a nearby lake to perilous heights. Lliuya seeks compensation of approximately 21,000 euros to assist with flood defense measures in his hometown of Huaraz.
Initially filed in 2015, the lawsuit gained traction with the support of the activist group Germanwatch. The legal claims were based on the argument that RWE has contributed to nearly 0.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions since the onset of the industrial revolution. The farmer contends that RWE should therefore be liable for a proportional share of the flood defense costs necessary to mitigate the risks posed by a potential flood.
The journey to this hearing has taken nearly a decade due to various procedural challenges. A regional court in Essen first dismissed Lliuya’s claims, suggesting that the multitude of carbon dioxide emitters worldwide made it unreasonable to pinpoint RWE’s responsibility. After appealing, Lliuya’s case was accepted by the Hamm court in 2017, although expert evaluations regarding the risks were delayed for years due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Legally, the case is grounded in Section 1004 of the Civil Law Code which allows property owners to demand the cessation of interference with their property. If the court verifies that a flood risk exists, it will subsequently assess the extent of RWE’s CO2 emissions contribution to this risk. The forthcoming hearing is expected to primarily involve insights from experts appointed by the court.
This case has attracted considerable attention because a ruling in Lliuya’s favor could set a legal precedent for holding corporations accountable for their contributions to climate change. Legal representatives from Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, which is defending RWE, noted the potential implications of this case for wider corporate liability.
Scientific findings issued in 2021 by researchers from Oxford and Washington universities confirmed that human-induced global warming is responsible for glacier melting in the Andes, thereby increasing flood risks. Climate scientist Friederike Otto stated that existing evidence firmly supports the connection between anthropogenic climate change and the risks posed to local communities in the Andes.
RWE has publicly contested Lliuya’s claims, asserting that it is inappropriate to hold individual emitters accountable for global warming. While RWE has made strides in reducing carbon emissions and transitioning away from coal-fired energy, it continues to operate several lignite power plants and emphasizes its commitment to achieving a complete phase-out of lignite by 2030.
The case between Saul Luciano Lliuya and RWE marks a pivotal moment in the realm of climate litigation. The outcome may determine the extent to which companies can be held accountable for their contributions to climate change and its associated risks. With advancements in scientific understanding and legal frameworks, this case could inspire similar lawsuits worldwide, potentially reshaping corporate responsibility regarding environmental implications.
Original Source: www.stabroeknews.com
