Saul Luciano Lliuya is suing German energy company RWE for climate justice, seeking 17,000 euros to protect his community in Huaraz, Peru, from flood risks due to climate change. His lawsuit argues RWE’s carbon emissions contribute to the rising glacier lake threat. The case has evolved through various courts, drawing support from environmental groups who emphasize the need for accountability among emitters. RWE contends a ruling against them could set a precedent for responsibility under German law for international environmental impacts.
Saul Luciano Lliuya, a farmer from Peru, is pursuing legal action against German energy company RWE, advocating for “climate justice” and seeking compensation for the impact of climate change. He believes that RWE, a major emitter of carbon dioxide, should contribute 17,000 euros ($18,400) to bolster flood defenses for his town of Huaraz, threatened by a rising glacier lake. Lliuya asserts that RWE’s fossil fuel usage links the company to the flood risks faced by his community, which is home to over 50,000 individuals.
The case, initially filed in 2015, faced dismissal from a German court but was revived in 2017 by the Hamm court. Proceedings are expected to conclude by the end of next year following public hearings. The focus of the current hearing is on determining if Lliuya’s property is indeed in danger of flooding, backed by evidence from experts who surveyed the region in 2022.
Lliuya’s claim is supported by a study indicating that RWE is responsible for 0.47 percent of global carbon emissions since the industrial revolution. He insists that RWE should proportionally contribute toward the 3.5 million euros required to manage the flooding at Lake Palcacocha. RWE has historically not operated in Peru and disputes the legality of holding it accountable for environmental impacts abroad.
Germanwatch, an environmental advocacy group, backs Lliuya’s case. Christoph Bals from the organization highlighted that local farmers oppose the notion of suffering the consequences of climate change, despite having contributed minimally to its development. Meanwhile, RWE maintains that a favorable ruling for Lliuya would set an inconvenient legal precedent regarding accountability for foreign climate damages, an argument previously upheld by the Essen court.
This case illustrates the ongoing struggle for accountability among major carbon emitters and vulnerable communities affected by climate change. As legal proceedings continue, the outcome may potentially reshape the dialogue surrounding climate responsibility and the repercussions of industrial emissions.
Original Source: www.cnhinews.com
