Latest news with #CarbonMajors
The Star
6 days ago
- Business
- The Star
German court to rule on Peruvian farmer versus RWE climate case
Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya, who is suing German energy utility RWE, arguing that the company's emissions have contributed to the melting of Andean glaciers, poses for a photo in front of Lake Palcacocha, before the verdict of the high regional German court in Hamm, in Huaraz, Peru May 27, 2025. REUTERS/Angela Ponce (Reuters) -A German court is due to decide on Wednesday whether a lawsuit brought by a Peruvian farmer against German energy giant RWE can continue, in a landmark case that is setting a precedent for future climate change litigation. In a case that began a decade ago, farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya argues that RWE's emissions have contributed to the melting of Andean glaciers, increasing the flood risk to his home. Using data from the Carbon Majors database, which tracks historic emissions from major fossil fuel producers, Lliuya says 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, says he has chosen 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, says a single emitter of carbon dioxide cannot be held responsible for global warming. In two days of hearing in March, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm examined a 200-page report by experts it had appointed to determine whether melting glaciers were raising the water levels in Lake Palcacocha and posing a direct risk to Lliuya's home in Huaraz over the next three decades. Lliuya's lawyer Roda Verheyen in March raised concerns about the assessment of risks by the court experts, who found a 3% flood risk, and said she was ready to challenge their findings. The verdict was originally due in April, but the court had to postpone it because Verheyen filed a motion to disqualify one of the court's experts. Verheyen said the arguments were clear. "In my view, we cannot lose," she told a media briefing last Thursday. The amount that industrialised countries should contribute to mitigating the effects of global warming, including rising sea levels, extreme storms and heatwaves, has been fiercely debated at successive U.N. climate summits. If the court on Wednesday finds a specific flooding risk to Lliuya's home, it will then examine the impact of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions on Andean glaciers melting and increasing the risk. Whatever the outcome on Wednesday, climate academics said the case was a game-changer as the court's legal reasoning would be used by future cases. "Even if the case is dismissed, we expect to get this legal precedent, which would be a massive step forward," Noah Walker-Crawford, a researcher at London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute, said. ($1 = 0.8809 euros) (Reporting by Riham Alkousaa; editing by Barbara Lewis)
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
German court rejects Peruvian farmer's climate case against RWE
A German court has thrown out a Peruvian farmer's lawsuit seeking damages from RWE for the German energy utility's alleged role in putting his hometown at risk through climate change, but set a potentially important precedent on polluters' liability for their carbon emissions. The higher regional court in the western city of Hamm on Wednesday blocked the landmark complaint brought by Saul Luciano Lliuya, 44, who argued that RWE's historical emissions meant it was responsible for the higher flood risk caused by the melting of the Andean glaciers his hometown was facing. But the judge in the case ruled that companies 'may be obligated to take preventive measures' to counter their emissions, according to a statement from the court. 'If the polluter definitively refuses to do so, it could be determined, even before actual costs are incurred, that the polluter must bear the costs in proportion to their share of the emissions,' the court concluded. The ruling supported arguments made by Saul Luciano Lliuya, who claimed that RWE should pay towards the cost of protecting his hometown near the city of Huaraz in northern Peru from a lake glacier swollen by melting snow and ice. RWE has never operated in Peru, but the 44-year-old farmer argued that, as one of the world's top emitters of carbon dioxide, the firm was partly responsible for the flood risk. The court, however, rejected Lliuya's claim against RWE, saying that there was 'no concrete danger to his property' from a potential flood. The ruling was nonetheless a 'milestone' for climate litigation, Lliuya's lawyer Roda Verheyen said in a statement. 'This is an extraordinary case,' said Al Jazeera's Step Vaessen, reporting from Hamm, Germany. 'For the first time, a person from the Global South is filing a legal case against a company from the Global North, holding it responsible, accountable for global warming and effects of it' on their home country. Presenting data from the Carbon Majors database, which tracks historical emissions from chief fossil fuel producers, Lliuya said RWE, Germany's largest energy company, is responsible for nearly 0.5 percent 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 $3.5m flood defence project needed in his region, RWE's share would be about $17,500, according to Lliuya's calculations. The Peruvian farmer, whose family grows corn, wheat, barley and potatoes, has said he decided to sue RWE because it is one of Europe's biggest polluters – 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 climate change. It also said the attempt to create a legal precedent had failed. 'We regard it as an entirely misplaced approach to turn courtrooms into a forum for NGOs' demands on climate protection policies,' the utility said in a statement. Prior to Wednesday's decision, the farmer's lawyer had previously said 'this was a historic verdict' regardless of outcome, as the case notes consisted of 180 pages, meaning the judges took the case 'very seriously', travelling to the affected area in Peru with experts to examine the 'exact effects of global warming on this particular community', said Vaessen. The presiding judge told RWE it 'should have been aware of the effects of their emissions', Vaessen added. This trial 'could be a serious precedent for other people living in the Global South who are suffering a lot more from climate change than in other parts of the world to potentially file cases in the future'.
Al Jazeera
6 days ago
- Business
- Al Jazeera
German court rejects Peruvian farmer's climate case against RWE
A German court has thrown out a Peruvian farmer's lawsuit seeking damages from RWE for the German energy utility's alleged role in putting his hometown at risk through climate change. The higher regional court in the western city of Hamm on Wednesday blocked the landmark complaint brought by Saul Luciano Lliuya, 44, who argued that RWE's historical emissions meant it was responsible for the higher flood risk caused by the melting of the Andean glaciers his hometown was facing. 'This is an extraordinary case,' said Al Jazeera's Step Vaessen, reporting from Hamm, Germany. 'For the first time, a person from the Global South is filing a legal case against a company from the Global North, holding it responsible, accountable for global warming and effects of it' on their home country. 'What is interesting in this case is what will be the legal reasoning' as to why the presiding judge decided to throw out this case, said Vaessen. Presenting data from the Carbon Majors database, which tracks historical emissions from chief fossil fuel producers, Lliuya said RWE, Germany's largest energy company, is responsible for nearly 0.5 percent 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 $3.5m flood defence project needed in his region, RWE's share would be about $17,500, according to Lliuya's calculations. The Peruvian farmer, whose family grows corn, wheat, barley and potatoes in a hilly region outside northern Peru's Huaraz city, has said he decided to sue RWE because it is one of Europe's biggest polluters – 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 climate change. Prior to Wednesday's decision, the farmer's lawyer had previously said 'this was a historic verdict' regardless of outcome, as the case notes consisted of 180 pages, meaning the judges took the case 'very seriously', travelling to the affected area in Peru with experts to examine the 'exact effects of global warming on this particular community', said Vaessen. The presiding judge told RWE it 'should have been aware of the effects of their emissions', Vaessen added. This trial 'could be a serious precedent for other people living in the Global South who are suffering a lot more from climate change than in other parts of the world to potentially file cases in the future'.
Euronews
6 days ago
- Business
- Euronews
German court dismisses RWE climate case but opens door to others
A court in the German city of Hamm has dismissed a high-profile lawsuit brought by Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya against energy giant RWE, ending a ten-year legal battle that sought to link one of Europe's biggest emitters to climate change unfolding in the Andes. Lliuya, a farmer and mountain guide from Huaraz, argued that RWE's historic carbon emissions had contributed to the melting of nearby glaciers, raising the risk of deadly flooding from the swollen Lake Palcacocha above his home. He sought partial damages in line with the company's share of global emissions, estimated at nearly 0.5 per cent since the industrial era by the Carbon Majors database. The court ultimately ruled that the risk to Lliuya's property was not sufficiently imminent to justify damages and dismissed his case without the possibility of appeal. But experts say the ruling from the Higher Court established that communities that can demonstrate a concrete threat of harm induced by climate change can seek compensation from fossil fuel majors under German civil law. Despite the outcome, Lliuya called the ruling a step forward for climate accountability. 'Today the mountains have won,' he said in a statement. 'This ruling shows that the big polluters driving the climate can finally be held legally responsible for the harm they have caused… This case was never just about me. It was about all the people who, like us in Huaraz, are already living with the consequences of a crisis we did not create. This ruling opens the door for others to demand justice.' The judges said they couldn't award damages in this specific case because the flood risk to Lliuya's home wasn't high enough. But they also made several important points that could help future lawsuits in countries with similar legal requirements, such as Japan and the US. They confirmed that big polluters like RWE can, in principle, be held responsible for their role in climate change, even if their emissions are a relatively small share of the global total. They also pushed back on a common defence used by fossil fuel companies that only governments can deal with climate change. 26/⚡️⚖️🎉What a stunning victory for climate justice: the Higher Court has established that communities that can demonstrated a concrete threat of harm induced by climate change can seek compensation from fossil fuels major under the regime of civil liability. The case was among the first to try to hold a single fossil fuel company financially responsible for specific climate damages. Although it was ultimately dismissed, the implications of this ruling are already rippling outward. Germanwatch, the NGO that backed Lliuya's case from the start, called the decision 'ground-breaking' and noted that more than 40 similar lawsuits are ongoing worldwide. 'The court's decision … is actually a historic landmark ruling that can be invoked by those affected in many places around the world,' the NGO said in a statement.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
German court throws out Peruvian farmer's climate case against RWE
HAMM, Germany (Reuters) - A German court on Wednesday threw out a Peruvian farmer's lawsuit seeking damages from RWE 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.
