German court rejects Peruvian farmer's landmark climate case
A court in Germany has rejected a lawsuit brought by a Peruvian farmer against German energy giant RWE in a long-awaited decision. Saúl Luciano Lliuya had argued that the firm's global emissions contributed to the melting of glaciers in Peru - threatening his hometown of Huaraz with flooding.He was seeking €17,000 (£14,250) in compensation - money he said he would use to pay for a flood defence project to protect the city.However, the higher regional court in the German city of Hamm on Wednesday blocked the case from proceeding further and ruled out any appeals, putting an end to Mr Lliuya's 10-year legal battle. RWE said it was not active in Peru and questioned why it was singled out.
It also pointed to its plans to phase out its coal-fired power plants and become carbon neutral by 2040. In their ruling on Wednesday, judges deemed that the flood risk to the property of Mr Lliuya was not high enough for the case to proceed.However, in what climate change groups have hailed as a win, they did say that energy companies could be held responsible for the costs caused by their carbon emissions.
While the sum demanded by Mr Lliuya was very low, the case had become a cause celebre for climate change activists, who hoped that it could set a precedent for holding powerful firms to account. The 44-year-old mountain guide and farmer said he had brought the case because he had seen first-hand how rising temperatures were causing glaciers near Huaraz to melt.He said that as a result, Lake Palcacocha - which is located above the city - now has four times as much water than in 2003 and that residents like him were at risk of flooding, especially if blocks of ice were to break off from Palcacocha glacier and fall into the lake, causing it to overflow. He alleged that emissions caused by RWE were contributing to the increase in temperature in Peru's mountain region and demanded that the German firm pay towards building a flood defence.Mr Lliuya also said that he chose the company because a 2013 database tracking historic emissions from major fossil fuel producers listed the German energy giant as one of the biggest polluters in Europe.
Mr Lliuya's original case was rejected by a lower court in Germany in 2015, with judges arguing that a single firm could not be held responsible for climate change. But in a surprise twist, Mr Lliuya in 2017 won his appeal with judges at the higher regional court, which accepted there was merit to his case and allowing it to proceed.His lawyers previously argued that RWE was responsible for 0.5% of global CO2 emissions and demanded that the energy firm pay damages amounting to a proportional share of the cost of building a $3.5m-flood defence for Huaraz.
Germanwatch, an environmental NGO which backed Mr Lliuya's case, celebrated the court's ruling saying it had "made legal history"."Although the court dismissed the specific claim - finding flood risk to Luciano Lliuya's home was not sufficiently high - it confirmed for the first time that major emitters can be held liable under German civil law for risks resulting from climate change," it said in a statement. The group said it was hopeful that the decision could positively influence similar cases in other countries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 hours 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
6 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
7 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.
