Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya is suing German company RWE, claiming its emissions contribute to glacier melting and flood risks to his hometown. The case, ongoing for a decade, hinges on legal accountability for climate impacts, with significant implications for future climate litigation. RWE disputes the claims, asserting that no single emitter can be solely responsible for global warming.
A landmark legal case initiated by Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya against the German energy company RWE has drawn significant attention. Lliuya argues that RWE’s greenhouse gas emissions have contributed to the melting of Andean glaciers, resulting in increased flood risks to his hometown, Huaraz. He seeks to hold RWE accountable for its emissions and is requesting approximately 21,000 euros to support a flood defense project estimated at $3.5 million.
Lliuya has been backed by the activist group Germanwatch since he filed his lawsuit in 2015. His claims suggest that RWE is responsible for about 0.5% of global human-made greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial revolution, and thus should pay a proportionate share of the flood defense costs in Huaraz. The case has been in the legal system for ten years, traversing various courts before reaching the Higher Regional Court of Hamm.
Originally dismissed by a court in Essen, attorneys argued that numerous emitters contribute to carbon emissions globally and that RWE should not be solely liable. However, Hamm’s court accepted the appeal and requested evidence, leading to a recent expert opinion that will be reviewed in the upcoming hearing.
The legal framework for Lliuya’s case is grounded in the Civil Law Code, specifically section 1004, which allows property owners to compel disturbance removal. The court must determine if RWE’s emissions have indeed contributed to the flood risk before deciding the extent of the company’s accountability.
The case is significant because a ruling in favor of Lliuya could establish a legal precedent, allowing similar lawsuits against corporations for their environmental impact. Considered by legal experts, the case holds potential beyond its monetary value, as it could inspire further litigation in climate accountability. Roda Verheyen, Lliuya’s lawyer, emphasized that irrespective of the outcome, the decision will inform future cases related to climate change.
Scientific support for Lliuya’s position stems from research indicating that man-made climate change is linked to glacier melting in the Andes. Notably, a study from 2021 corroborated that global warming has indeed precipitated increased flooding risks in the region. Climate scientist Friederike Otto asserted that there is substantial evidence to support the claims surrounding the effects of climate change in the Andes.
RWE has countered Lliuya’s lawsuit, claiming that attributing global warming responsibility to a single emitter is unfounded. The company has initiated a transition from coal-based energy sources, significantly reducing CO2 emissions in the process. RWE aims to fully phase out lignite production by 2030, continuing to engage in efforts to lower its environmental impact.
The case of Saul Luciano Lliuya against RWE represents a critical turning point in climate litigation, potentially holding corporations accountable for their contributions to climate change. With scientific backing demonstrating the link between emissions and environmental impacts, the outcome could encourage future legal actions against major polluters. As the court deliberates, the implications of the ruling may extend beyond this singular case, redefining corporate responsibility in the context of climate change.
Original Source: www.stabroeknews.com
