Peruvian Farmer’s Landmark Climate Case Against RWE: Implications for Accountability

Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya is suing Germany’s RWE, claiming their emissions have endangered his hometown through glacier melting and flooding risks. He seeks compensation for flood protection measures. The case, gaining attention for its potential implications on corporate accountability for climate change, highlights the scientific backing for human-induced glacier melting. RWE argues it is not solely responsible for climate issues as it aims to reduce emissions significantly by 2030.

In a pivotal climate case, Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya is suing German energy company RWE, asserting that its emissions have contributed to glacier melting and heightened flood risks for his hometown of Huaraz. Set to proceed in the Higher Regional Court of Hamm, this lawsuit could reshape accountability for corporate contributions to climate change, with Lliuya seeking 21,000 euros towards a flood defense initiative estimated at $3.5 million.

Lliuya’s allegations are rooted in a 2015 lawsuit, supported by Germanwatch, stating that RWE’s greenhouse gas emissions have exacerbated melting glaciers, raising the water levels of Laguna Pacacocha. The farmer’s claim holds weight as RWE is estimated to account for nearly 0.5% of global man-made greenhouse gas emissions since the industrial era, compelling the company to contribute proportionately to local flood prevention costs.

Progress was delayed over a decade due to the case’s initial dismissal by a lower court in Essen, which cited multiple global carbon emitters as responsible. Following an appeal, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm recognized the case in 2017. Expert evaluations were postponed until 2022 due to pandemic-related issues, which contributed to the extended timeline before the hearing.

The legal foundation of the case lies in Section 1004 of the Civil Law Code, allowing property owners to demand remediation for disturbances. The upcoming hearing will determine the validity of the flood risk asserted by Lliuya and assess RWE’s contributions to that risk, following the expert evaluations submitted to the court.

The implications of the case are significant. Should the court recognize a flood risk linked to glacier melting and attribute responsibility to RWE, it would establish a legal precedent for holding corporations accountable for climate-induced damages.

Scientific backing for Lliuya’s claims is evident, with research from Oxford and Washington universities attributing glacier melting in the Andes to anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientist Friederike Otto supports this, affirming the consistent applicability of scientific evidence in the region.

Conversely, RWE contests Lliuya’s accusation, claiming individual emitters cannot singularly be held responsible for climate change. The company has taken steps to reduce its coal reliance, with plans to cease lignite operations by 2030, and has reported significant emissions reductions in the past few years.

Saul Luciano Lliuya’s lawsuit against RWE stands as a potential landmark case in climate accountability, illustrating the intersection of environmental science and corporate liability. As the court prepares to hear the matter, its findings may lay crucial legal groundwork for future climate-related litigation, emphasizing the need for corporate responsibility in the face of climate change.

Original Source: www.stabroeknews.com