A significant court case in Germany seeks to determine whether large polluters can be held accountable for climate-related damage that occurs across borders.
Saul Luciano Lliuya and his huge court battle
This case is against RWE, the largest energy supplier in Germany, and was initiated by Saul Luciano Lliuya, a 41-year-old farmer and mountain guide from Huaraz, Peru, who has witnessed firsthand the alarming retreat of glaciers in his mountainous region.
Lliuya and his community are deeply concerned about the impacts of climate change, particularly the risk posed by melting glaciers. “Every year I go up into the mountains, and the situation is very scary,” said Lliuya:
It’s getting worse every year, the glaciers are disappearing rapidly.
He has expressed fears that the growing glacial lake, Palcacocha, may burst, leading to catastrophic flooding in Huaraz – a city with over 50,000 residents.
RWE is among the top three carbon dioxide emitters in the European Union’s power sector, making it a focal point in discussions about corporate responsibility for the climate crisis. A verdict is expected from the court on April 14.
Cross-border climate criminals
Lliuya’s legal battle began in 2015 but faced initial setbacks when it was dismissed by a court in Essen, Germany. However, a successful appeal led to a favourable ruling in 2017 by the higher regional court in Hamm, which deemed the case admissible due to Germany’s civil code regarding “neighbour law.”
The court is exploring whether the situation warrants a global interpretation of neighbourly relations given the 10,000-kilometre distance between Huaraz and RWE’s headquarters.
Sebastien Duyck, a senior attorney with the Centre for International Environmental Law, remarked that the case represents a pivotal moment in climate litigation, stating:
A fossil fuel giant being forced to answer in court for its role in climate harm is a seismic shift – signalling the beginning of the end of the era of industry’s impunity.
Duyck also noted that a ruling in Lliuya’s favour could impact more than 40 similar cases globally.
Lliuya’s lawyer, Roda Verheyen, pointed out during the hearings that there is a credible risk to Lliuya’s home from potential flooding due to climate change. The discussions focused on how the court would interpret the necessary level of risk. Verheyen remarked that part of the case was already successful since the court acknowledged its admissibility and altered the burden of proof, shifting some responsibility onto RWE.
Furthermore, scientific studies indicate that the threat from melting glaciers in Peru is increasing.
Peru: on the front lines of the climate crisis
Since 1970, Lake Palcacocha has expanded, raising critical alarms about the risk of flooding. A glacial lake outburst flood could have disastrous consequences for Huaraz, a concern stemming from a similar event in 1941 that resulted in thousands of deaths and extensive destruction.
RWE has rejected the claims, arguing about the reliability of the emissions attributed to them and suggesting that holding them responsible for global climate change is unreasonable.
The company stated that the lawsuit is an attempt to set a dangerous precedent where individual emitters could be blamed for climate effects worldwide. They further argue that addressing climate change effectively should be handled through political channels and intergovernmental solutions rather than through the courts.
Regardless of the outcome, the fact that this case has progressed to court might lay the groundwork for future accountability of major polluters. It could also highlight the threats faced by communities like Lliuya’s, drawing attention to the urgent issues surrounding climate change, driven significantly by industrial activities in wealthier nations.
With the upcoming verdict, many are hopeful, especially in Lliuya’s community, that this case can bring more awareness to their plight and the pressing dangers linked with climate change impacts on their lives.
Featured image via the Canary
