
Lawsuits seek to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for climate change. Here's a look at some
Farmer and mountain guide Saúl Luciano Lliuya said glaciers above his hometown of Huaraz are melting, increasing the risk of catastrophic flooding. RWE, which has never operated in Peru, denies legal responsibility, arguing that climate change is a global issue caused by many contributors.
Experts say the case at the state court in Hamm, in western Germany, could set a significant precedent in the fight to hold major polluters accountable for climate change.
Here's a look at other climate cases being watched closely:
An environmental group has asked the Dutch Supreme Court to uphold a landmark lower court ruling that ordered energy company Shell to cut carbon emissions by net 45% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels.
That ruling was overturned in November by an appeals court — a defeat for the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth and other environmental groups, which had hailed the original 2021 ruling as a victory for the climate.
Climate activists have scored several courtroom victories, including in 2015, when a court in The Hague ordered the government to cut emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020 from benchmark 1990 levels. The Dutch Supreme Court upheld that ruling five years ago.
___
The United Nations' top court held two weeks of hearings in December into what countries worldwide are legally required to do to combat climate change and help vulnerable nations fight its impacts.
The case was spurred by a group of island nations that fear they could simply disappear under rising sea waters, prompting the U.N. General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice for an opinion on 'the obligations of States in respect of climate change.'
Any decision in the case, the largest in the court's history, would be non-binding advice and could not directly force wealthy nations to act, though it could serve as the basis for other legal actions, including domestic lawsuits.
In another advisory opinion requested by small island nations, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea last year said carbon emissions qualify as marine pollution and countries must take steps to mitigate and adapt to their adverse effects.
___
Colombia and Chile are awaiting an advisory opinion from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on whether countries are responsible for climate change harms and, if so, what their obligations are to respond on human rights grounds.
A four-day hearing was held this month in the Brazilian state of Amazonas and an opinion is expected by the end of the year.
Much of the testimony focused on indigenous rights in Latin America, including whether industries violate their rights to life and to defend their land from environmental harm.
___
Dozens of US states and local governments have filed lawsuits alleging that fossil fuel companies misled the public about how their products could contribute to climate change, claiming billions of dollars in damage from more frequent and intense storms, flooding, rising seas and extreme heat.
In March the US Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit from Republican attorneys general in 19 states aimed at blocking climate change suits against the oil and gas industry from Democratic-led states.
And state supreme courts in Massachusetts, Hawaii and Colorado have rejected attempts by oil companies to dismiss lawsuits, allowing them to proceed in lower courts.
Even so, the Trump Justice Department recently sued Hawaii and Michigan to prevent the states from seeking damages from fossil fuel companies in state court for harms caused by climate change. The DOJ also sued New York and Vermont, challenging their climate superfund laws that would force fossil fuel companies to pay into state-based funds based on previous greenhouse gas emissions.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Globe and Mail
5 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
Truth will likely be the last casualty of war in Ukraine
Two men, a single maxim: It's the land, stupid. There, the similarities end. Donald Trump thinks of land in real estate terms. Vladimir Putin thinks of it in geopolitical terms. That's why, earlier this year, the U.S. President could conjure up a beachfront resort in Gaza, which he doesn't control. And that's why the Russian President is now demanding Donetsk and Luhansk, Ukrainian land he only partially controls. There aren't going to be Gaza Trump International resort beach bungalows any time soon, and probably never. But when Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky meets with Mr. Trump in Washington Monday, he likely will be pressed to relinquish his 'Never settle' territory pledge – a phrase, coincidentally, that is the motto of the Trump luxury properties. Mr. Zelensky will be joined by an extraordinary high-ranking delegation of European leaders, all deeply troubled about the direction the fast-moving developments are taking. Their swiftly organized visit is both a remarkable symbol of European unity and a clear rebuke to Mr. Trump, who earlier warned Mr. Putin of dire consequences if his assault against Ukraine isn't paused. This group – which includes German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Union's executive arm – is perhaps the largest such impromptu gathering in Washington since world leaders rushed to the 1963 funeral of John F. Kennedy. Though mollified slightly by indications Ukraine will receive security assurances in an eventual peace settlement, they clearly are alarmed that Mr. Trump has swiftly, perhaps impulsively, backed away from putting pressure on Russia – in essence providing the country that began the conflict with a blank cheque while rendering a U.S. President already suspected of Russian sympathies vulnerable to critiques he is rewarding aggression. Putin agreed to let U.S., Europe offer Ukraine NATO-style security guarantees, Trump envoy says Now the pressure has moved from Russia to Ukraine, with Mr. Trump warning that 'Russia is a very big power, and they're not.' He told Mr. Zelensky that if Ukraine relinquished Donetsk, where Russia has had a strong position for more than a decade, Mr. Putin would freeze his troops in place. Mr. Zelensky rejected the notion, which would deliver to Russia a land mass more than twice the size of Nova Scotia. Already Mr. Putin, who appears to have profited the most from the summit, has registered a minor symbolic victory. 'They spent three years telling everyone Russia was isolated,' Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Friday, 'and today they saw the beautiful red carpet laid out for the Russian President in the U.S.' The Trump-Zelensky parley, like the one Mr. Trump held in Anchorage, Alaska, with Mr. Putin, is yet another example of the realpolitik in the line The Rolling Stones inserted 16 times into a 1969 hit song: 'You can't always get what you want.' Mr. Trump wants a swift resolution to the war. He may not get it. Mr. Putin wants a cessation of hostilities but only on his own terms and as part of a broader settlement. He's more likely to prevail. Mr. Zelensky wants a ceasefire before a peace settlement, which Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin now oppose, and he ultimately wants an end to the fighting but only if his country's dignity and sovereignty are preserved and the wartime casualties do not seem to have been in vain. That's the fulcrum of Monday's discussions in Washington. Already the terms of debate have shifted dramatically, just as the momentum in the war has bounced in the last several months between the two colliding armies, now exhausted but still in desperate mortal combat. Trump tells Zelensky that Putin demands more control of Ukraine, urges Kyiv to make a deal Mr. Trump has delivered several deadlines to Mr. Putin, all ignored, defied or forgotten. The U.S. President assured Mr. Macron that a ceasefire was the goal of Friday's conversations at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson and then began his journey to the 49th state insisting he was working to win a ceasefire. By the time Mr. Trump was back in Washington, he was disavowing a ceasefire in favour of a broader settlement. ('The best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.') That was congruent with the view of Mr. Putin, who first wanted an unconditional military triumph and the annexation of Ukraine but apparently now will settle for the territorial gains he last week proscribed were the conditions for a 'promise' to end the war. One of the reasons the terms of diplomatic engagement (and military engagement) are constantly changing: the historical nature of Russia, a country itself constantly undergoing convulsive change and dramatic reversals. Russia was czarist before it was communist, then was capitalist and now is a one-man proto-dictatorship. It was allied with Nazi Germany before it was battling Nazi Germany. It was the clear leader in the Cold War space race (with the 1957 Sputnik launch and the pioneering 1961 orbital space flight of Yuri Gagarin, which were celebrated by Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev) before it was the clear laggard to the Americans (with Project Gemini, Project Apollo, and the 1969 redemption of President Kennedy's promise to land an American on the moon). The reprise line of Keith Richards and Mick Jagger's You Can't Always Get What You Want may offer a way for all three parties to view the almost certainly unsatisfying resolution to a war that has stretched well past three years: 'But if you try sometimes, you just might find/You get what you need.' For in the end, whenever it comes, all three parties may claim they got what they needed. It may be that truth is the first casualty of war. But the truth will also likely be the last casualty of the war in Ukraine.


Winnipeg Free Press
a day ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Brazil's former president Bolsonaro temporarily leaves house arrest for medical exams
SAO PAULO (AP) — Brazil's Former President Jair Bolsonaro temporarily left house arrest Saturday to undergo medical exams in Brasilia, after a judge authorized him to spend six to eight hours at a hospital. Doctors at DF Star hospital said Bolsonaro was admitted for evaluation of fever, cough, persistent gastroesophageal reflux and hiccups. Tests revealed residual signs of two recent pulmonary infections, as well as persistent esophagitis and gastritis. He was discharged later in the day and will continue treatment with medication. He has been hospitalized multiple times since being stabbed at a campaign event before the 2018 presidential election. His most recent surgery was in April, for a bowel obstruction. Bolsonaro is on trial at the Supreme Court over his alleged attempt to remain in power after losing the 2022 election to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. A five-justice panel is expected to deliver verdicts and sentences on five counts against him between Sept. 2 and 12. Bolsonaro denies any wrongdoing. The far-right leader has been under house arrest since Aug. 5. Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case, said Bolsonaro violated precautionary measures by spreading content through his three lawmaker sons. A small group of fewer than 20 people gathered outside DF Star hospital Saturday, claiming Bolsonaro is a victim of political persecution. Some thanked U.S. President Donald Trump, who has called the prosecution a 'witch hunt' and linked his decision to impose a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports to Bolsonaro's legal troubles. ___ Luís Rua contributed reporting in Brasilia. Follow AP's coverage of Latin America and the Caribbean at


Edmonton Journal
a day ago
- Edmonton Journal
Fringe Review: How to Pack a Revolution in Your Suitcase charming, poignant
Article content How to Pack a Revolution in Your Suitcase Article content Stage 8, Old Strathcona Performing Arts Centre, 8426 Gateway Blvd. Article content Bremner Fletcher confesses he has an addiction. Before you clutch your pearls, know that the addiction is history. Article content Fletcher is a singer who studied opera at Montreal's McGill University and at the Banff Centre. Article content His show is a hybrid of song and storytelling that comes to the Fringe all the way from the Weimar Republic, which was the name of the German government between 1919 and 1933, preceding the rise of Hitler. Article content Article content Through a collection of historical tidbits and tunes written between 1923 and 1941 by German artists from Bertolt Brecht to Kurt Weill, Bremner describes the Weimar period, characterized by political and social upheaval, but also artistic ambition and democratic idealism. Article content Throughout the show, Fletcher draws chilling comparisons between the Weimar Republic and the United States under Donald Trump. He sprinkles in enough haunting parallels and word-for-word quotes between German leadership of the day and the U.S. president to make his quite-depressing point. Article content But the strength of Fletcher's show is in his passionate and professional delivery of the music (opening show glitches and errant cell phones notwithstanding) and the stories of German talents forced to flee the country, including filmmaker Samuel (Billy ) Wilder, scientist Albert Einstein and composer Kurt Weill. It's a charming performance, but also a poignant reminder of all that can, and will, be lost. Article content