Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya is suing RWE for climate justice, requesting 17,000 euros to address flood risks from a melting glacier lake. His claim argues that RWE’s carbon emissions contribute to these dangers. The case seeks to establish corporate responsibility for climate impacts, potentially setting a legal precedent for environmental accountability.
Saul Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer, is seeking “climate justice” from RWE, a significant German energy producer. His claim stems from RWE’s historical carbon emissions, which he argues have contributed to the dangers posed by a swollen glacier lake near his hometown, Huaraz. Lliuya is requesting 17,000 euros (approximately $18,400) to assist in implementing flood defenses, due to the inherent risks from melting glaciers.
Lliuya’s legal battle began in 2015 but faced initial setbacks, with a court in Essen rejecting his claim. However, the Hamm court later accepted an appeal in 2017. After delays caused by the Covid pandemic, hearings are scheduled, with a primary focus on assessing the flood risk to Lliuya’s property. Evidence has been gathered by experts who assessed conditions in his region last year.
His assertion rests on a landmark 2014 study indicating RWE was accountable for 0.47 percent of global carbon emissions since the start of the industrial era. Lliuya posits that the company should cover that fraction of the estimated 3.5 million euros needed to mitigate the increasing lake levels. RWE, founded in 1898, generates energy from multiple sources, including coal, gas, wind, and solar power.
Germanwatch, an environmental advocacy group supporting Lliuya, discovered his situation through consulting advice. Christoph Bals, the group’s policy head, remarked on the impassioned sentiment among local farmers, highlighting their frustration over being disproportionately affected by climate change without having contributed to it.
RWE counters that a ruling favoring Lliuya could establish a troubling legal precedent by linking German liability for environmental impacts in other countries. Previously, their defense was bolstered by a dismissal from the Essen court, which noted establishing a connection between specific emissions and specific damages as problematic. The Hamm hearing may pave the way for a reconsideration of these arguments, as numerous climate-related legal actions are currently underway.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, representing RWE, cautions that while the immediate financial implications appear limited, the broader ramifications of this case could redefine corporate accountability in relation to global climate issues.
Saul Luciano Lliuya’s quest for “climate justice” against RWE highlights the complexities of attributing responsibility in the context of global climate change. His legal undertaking emphasizes the impacts of corporate carbon emissions on vulnerable communities, potentially setting a critical legal precedent. As global climate litigation continues to rise, this case may significantly influence how accountability is viewed in relation to environmental damages.
Original Source: www.france24.com
