German court throws out Peruvian farmer's climate case against RWE
HAMM, Germany May 28 (Reuters) - A German court on Wednesday threw out a Peruvian farmer's lawsuit seeking damages from RWE (RWEG.DE), opens new tab for the German energy utility's alleged role in putting his home at risk through climate change.
The court said no appeal was possible in the decade-old case of farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya claiming that RWE's emissions have contributed to the melting of Andean glaciers and to higher flood risk to his home.
Using data from the Carbon Majors database which tracks historic emissions from major fossil fuel producers, Lliuya has said that RWE is responsible for nearly 0.5% of global man-made emissions since the industrial revolution and must pay a proportional share of the costs needed to adapt to climate change.
For a $3.5 million flood defence project needed in his region, RWE's share would be around $17,500, according to Lliuya's calculations.
The 44-year-old farmer, whose family grows corn, wheat, barley and potatoes in a hilly region outside Huaraz, has said he chose to sue RWE because it is one of the biggest polluters in Europe - rather than any particular company projects near his home.
RWE, which is phasing out its coal-fired power plants, has said a single emitter of carbon dioxide cannot be held responsible for global warming.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
32 minutes ago
- The Independent
Will the ban on water industry bonuses get flushed away?
'The era of profiting from pollution ends today,' declared environment secretary Steve Reed, taking aim at our deeply dysfunctional water industry. Big talk – and it was backed up with a ban on bonuses for 10 top bosses as a result of the scandalous level of sewage pollution consumers have had to put up with. Over the last 10 years, execs at the nine biggest water companies have had their wallets fattened by a combined £112m for running regional monopolies – badly. In just the last year, they've pocketed nearly £8m. No wonder people are cross. If you want an example of why monopolies are a thoroughly bad thing, you've got it here. If you want a case study of why bosses' bonuses make people blow a gasket, you've also got it here. The nearly 2,500 'sewage events' recorded over the 12 months can in part be traced to profoundly misaligned incentives. And also, it should be said, to Ofwat's continued failure to properly regulate the sector. If these companies received effective oversight, the current mess would not have been allowed to happen. But back to the government's order, which will hit executives at the stricken Thames Water, Yorkshire Water, Anglian Water, Wessex Water, United Utilities, and Southern Water where it hurts: in the pocket. 'While it is for water companies to set their own remuneration, new standards published by Ofwat that come into force today mean bonuses will not be permitted to be handed out in specific cases when a water company fails to meet core environmental standards,' the government said. Future bans will be imposed if a water boss 'presides over serious pollution offences, fails to meet basic financial resilience standards (e.g. meet minimum credit rating requirements), fails to meet core consumer standards (e.g. failure to operate and maintain sewage networks, is convicted of a criminal offence'. This will be a popular move from a government that needs to find a few winners. However – and you can call me a cynic if you want – there is a potential problem here. Remember the EU's bankers bonus cap, limiting payments to 100 per cent of salary, or twice that with shareholder approval? The net result of that rule, since jettisoned by the UK, was that affected institutions sharply increased the base salaries of their leading rainmakers. Some of them actually found they were really quite keen on having (much) larger pots of guaranteed money coming to them. Executive pay is a multi-headed hydra. Cut off one of those heads – the bonus, in this case – and the others (basic pay, benefits, pensions) typically get bigger. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some of the water companies attempting to push through big increases in basic pay for their execs, or more likely still, quietly increasing benefits and especially pension contributions. This will merit close attention. Water bosses being handed fat pay rises will, of course, go down like a cup of cold sewage and generate an overflowing storm drain of controversy. But, given the tin ear the water industry has turned to its critics in the past, would anyone be all that surprised if one or two of these companies tried this? I wouldn't. You can, nonetheless, file the bonus ban under 'easy win' for Mr Reed, who was out tub thumping on TV on the back of the announcement. He puffed out his chest, made himself look big and tough, and talked about promises being delivered. It might be me, but isn't it just a little bit early for him to be saying that? Yes, he's had a good start on this one. I'm not denying that. But turning the water industry into something that works for both consumers and investors is a much tougher nut to crack. Reed touted a £104bn pot of private investment – 'the largest ever since privatisation' – which, we are told, will be ring-fenced 'to cut sewage discharges by nearly half over the next five years', as opposed to being used for 'shareholder payouts'. Things that make you go hmm. The money is certainly welcome. It is much needed. But what you have to remember is that private investors are not charities. They don't pump money into companies without the prospect of a return. They will require payouts at some point otherwise the money will dry up quicker than the water pouring out of a leaky Thames Water pipe on a hot summer's day. The other thing to remember, with the water industry being in such a godawful mess, is that it's going to take some smart people to fix it. Preferably new people, untainted by previous scandal. These people tend to demand very high salaries. If their incentives are properly aligned with the delivery of the services these companies are supposed to provide, it ought to be possible to deliver something that hasn't happened to date: an industry that works for all its stakeholders. But Mr Reed, and a beefed up Ofwat, still have work to do on that front.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
US tariff policy could cost Germany 90,000 jobs within a year, says labour office chief
BERLIN, June 6 (Reuters) - U.S. tariff policy could cost Germany 90,000 jobs within a year, the country's labour office head told Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper in an interview released on Friday. Federal Employment Agency chief Andrea Nahles was citing the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) and other institutes, which conducted research on the effect of a 25% tariff rate. "The problem is this lack of predictability, which is doing us massive damage - it prevents companies from investing, hiring and training people," Nahles told the newspaper. "The erratic trade policy of the USA is a burden on the German labour market." Last month, unemployment in Europe's largest economy rose at a faster pace than expected, with the number of people out of work approaching the 3 million mark for the first time in a decade. Economic malaise in Germany has put pressure on the job market even against a backdrop of long-term labour shortages, adding to pressure on conservative Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who has vowed to pull the economy out of a two-year decline. U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs could deal a major blow to those efforts - possibly putting the German economy on track for a third straight year of recession for the first time in the country's post-war history.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Planet-warming emissions dropped when companies had to report them. EPA wants to end that
On the ceiling of Abbie Brockman's middle school English classroom in Perry County, the fluorescent lights are covered with images of a bright blue sky, a few clouds floating by. Outside, the real sky isn't always blue. Sometimes it's hazy, with pollution drifting from coal-fired power plants in this part of southwest Indiana. Knowing exactly how much, and what it may be doing to the people who live there, is why Brockman got involved with a local environmental organization that's installing air and water quality monitors in her community. 'Industry and government is very, very, very powerful. It's more powerful than me. I'm just an English teacher,' Brockman said. But she wants to feel she can make a difference. In a way, Brockman's monitoring echoes the reporting that the Environmental Protection Agency began requiring from large polluters more than a decade ago. Emissions from four coal-fired plants in southwest Indiana have dropped 60% since 2010, when the rule took effect. That rule is now on the chopping block, one of many that President Donald Trump's EPA argues is costly and burdensome for industry. But experts say dropping the requirement risks a big increase in emissions if companies are no longer publicly accountable for what they put in the air. And they say losing the data — at the same time the EPA is cutting air quality monitoring elsewhere — would make it tougher to fight climate change. Rule required big polluters to say how much they are emitting At stake is the Greenhouse Gas Reporting program, a 2009 rule from President Barack Obama 's administration that affects large carbon polluters like refineries, power plants, wells and landfills. In the years since, they've collectively reported a 20% drop in emissions, mostly driven by the closure of coal plants. And what happens at these big emitters makes a difference. Their declining emissions account for more than three-quarters of the overall, if modest, decline in all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions since 2010. The registry includes places not usually thought of as big polluters but that have notable greenhouse gas emissions, such as college campuses, breweries and cereal factories. Even Walt Disney World in Florida, where pollution dropped 62% since 2010, has to report along with nearly 10,600 other places. "We can't solve climate change without knowing how much pollution major facilities are emitting and how that's changing over time," said Jeremy Symons, a former EPA senior climate adviser now at Environmental Protection Network, an organization of ex-EPA officials that monitors environmental policies. The group provided calculations as a part of The Associated Press' analysis of impacts from proposed rule rollbacks. Symons said some companies would welcome the end of the registry because it would make it easier to pollute. Experts see a role for registry in cutting emissions It's not clear how much the registry itself has contributed to declining emissions. More targeted regulations on smokestack emissions, as well as coal being crowded out by cheaper and less polluting natural gas, are bigger factors. But the registry 'does put pressure on companies to ... document what they've done or at least to provide a baseline for what they've done,' said Stanford University climate scientist Rob Jackson, who heads Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tally national carbon emissions yearly. Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator under Obama, said the registry makes clear how power plants are doing against each other, and that's an inducement to lower emissions. "It is money for those companies. It's costs. It's reputation. It's been, I think, a wonderful success story and I hope it continues.' The potential end of the reporting requirement comes as experts say much of the country's air goes unmonitored. Nelson Arley Roque, a Penn State professor who co-authored a study in April on these 'monitoring deserts,' said about 40% of U.S. lands are unmonitored. That often includes poor and rural neighborhoods. "The air matters to all of us, but apparently 50 million people can't know or will never know'' how bad the air is, Roque said. EPA seeks to cancel money to fund some air monitoring The EPA is also trying to claw back money that had been earmarked for air monitoring, part of the termination of grants that it has labeled as targeting diversity, equity and inclusion. That includes $500,000 that would have funded 40 air monitors in a low-income and minority community in the Charlotte, North Carolina, area. CleaneAIRE NC, a nonprofit that works to improve air quality across the state that was awarded the grant, is suing. 'It's not diversity, equity and inclusion. It's human rights,' said Daisha Wall, the group's community science program manager. 'We all deserve a right to clean air.' Research strongly links poor air quality to diseases like asthma and heart disease, with a slightly less established link to cancer. Near polluting industries, experts say what's often lacking is either enough data in specific locations or the will to investigate the health toll. Indiana says it 'maintains a robust statewide monitoring and assessment program for air, land and water,' but Brockman and others in this part of the state aren't satisfied. They're installing their own air and water quality monitors. It's a full-time job to keep the network of monitors up and running, fighting spotty Wi-Fi and connectivity issues. Fighting industry is a sensitive subject, Brockman added. Many families depend on jobs at coal-fired power plants, and poverty is real. She keeps snacks in her desk for the kids who haven't eaten breakfast. 'But you also don't want to hear of another student that has a rare cancer,' she said. ___ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
