Lawsuits aim to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for climate change. Here's a look at some
A German court is expected to rule Wednesday in a landmark climate lawsuit brought by a Peruvian farmer against energy company RWE that claims global warming fueled by the firm's historical greenhouse gas emissions puts his home at risk.
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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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.
___
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 AP.org.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court allows DOGE team to access Social Security systems with data on millions of Americans
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Southern California air regulators weigh a plan to phase out gas furnaces and water heaters
Air quality regulators in Southern California heard impassioned public comments Friday before an anticipated vote on proposed rules that would curb harmful emissions from gas-powered furnaces and water heaters. The rules aim to reduce emissions of smog-contributing nitrogen oxides, also called NOx, a group of pollutants linked to respiratory issues, asthma attacks, worse allergies, decreased lung function in children, premature death and more. Burning natural gas is also one of the primary drivers of climate change. The South Coast Air Quality Management District estimates that the rules, if passed, will lower NOx emissions from gas-fired furnaces, preventing about 2,490 premature deaths and 10,200 new asthma cases over a 26-year period in the region. The district regulates air quality for 16.8 million people in Southern California, including all of Orange County and large areas of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties — one of the smoggiest areas in the U.S. The proposals come as California moves aggressively to reduce the state's reliance on planet-warming fossil fuels and ahead of a 2045 mandate for the state to have net-zero carbon emissions. The rules would set targets that aim to phase out the sale of gas-powered furnaces and water heaters starting in 2027. It does not apply to gas stoves. The sales target would start at 30%, then grow to 50% in 2029 and end at 90% in 2039. The rules would not be mandated, but manufacturers would have to pay fees ranging from $50 to $500 if they sell gas-powered appliances. That's a significant rollback from the original proposal, which would have required residential buildings to meet zero-emissions standards beginning in 2029 when appliances need to be replaced. The agency amended the rules after strong opposition from Southern California Gas and other businesses. The regulations would impact more than 10 million appliances in an estimated 5 million buildings, most of them residential. Officials and supporters say the rules would reduce air pollution and substantially improve public health. But opponents — including property owners, industry professionals and natural gas companies — fear they could raise costs for consumers and businesses, and strain the power grid by adding more electric appliances. During a packed board meeting Friday, clean air advocates held signs reading 'Clean Air Now," 'Vote 4 Clean Air, Vote 4 Justice" and 'Let SoCal Breath!' Before public comments, board chair Vanessa Delgado thanked the more than 200 people who signed up to speak about the rules, which took more than two years to craft. 'I don't believe that there's necessarily a good or right answer about these rules. I believe that it is very complicated and I know that every single one of these board members are doing what is right to move forward air quality goals in our region," she said. Lynwood City Councilmember Juan Muñoz-Guevara said the rules would be a long-overdue step toward environmental justice for communities like his. 'I've seen firsthand how families in my community are forced to live with the health consequences of dirty air. Our children grow up with asthma, our elders struggle with respiratory illness, and too many lives are cut short," he said. "Gas appliances in our home are one of the largest sources of smog-forming pollution in the region. We cannot meet clean air goals without tackling this.' Peggy Huang, a member of Yorba Linda's City Council, urged the board to reject the rules. 'As someone who's been advocating for affordable housing, this will increase costs for us to meet those goals,' Huang said. Chino's mayor pro tem, Curtis Burton, echoed some of Huang's concerns. He said the rules would 'create an additional financial burden on residents and businesses.' But air quality regulators say the rules would save consumers money by reducing energy bills.
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
U.S., Chinese officials to meet in London next week for new round of trade talks
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
