Latest News

Why the Peruvian farmer’s loss in court may have been a victory for climate justice

The ten-year court battle between an Peruvian farmer, and German energy giant RWE regarding the global emissions of RWE and their impact on his home town finally ended on Wednesday.

The court dismissed the case without allowing for an appeal. The farmer, his attorneys and environmentalists hail the ruling as a historic victory in climate cases, which could lead to similar lawsuits.

What was the case about?

Huaraz, located in the highlands of Peru, is threatened by a flood caused by a glacial outburst lake. Since 1970 the volume of Lake Palcacocha has increased at least 34-fold. This requires investment in drainage and dam structures.

Saul Luciano Lliuya, a Peruvian farmer, sued the German energy giant RWE claiming that it should pay 0.5% of flood defenses because the company has emitted 0.5% global emissions since industrial revolution even though they do not have a physical presence on the Peruvian soil.

It would have been about $17500.

Why did the court rule against the farmer?

The court's decision was based upon calculating the flood risk that Lliuya faced. A 30-year damage estimate for the plaintiff's home was found to be 1% by an expert. The court decided that this was not sufficient to continue the case.

How does the court's ruling make companies liable for similar lawsuits?

The court found that while the risk to Lliuya’s home did not meet the threshold, companies can be held responsible for their emissions.

In a press conference held after the verdict, Noah Walker-Crawford said, "They established a duty of care, a principle of legal liability for corporate climate, which no other court in the world has done." This is a truly, really historic verdict.

The ruling states that German civil code overseeing property rights is applicable across borders, and that it can be used by litigants from around the globe to file transnational lawsuits against German companies.

The court stated that RWE’s permits did not exempt them from responsibility when they violated the rights of other people and their global emissions made it responsible for the consequences of climate change.

The fact that a company is one of several emitters doesn't shield it from liability.

WHAT DIDN'T THE COURT SAY IN REGARD TO CLIMATE SCIENCES?

The court stated that the link between carbon dioxide emissions and risk dates back to 1958 when U.S. scientist Charles Keeling first published a graph showing the annual variation of carbon dioxide and its accumulation in Earth's atmospheric.

The report of the Presidential SAC from 1965, which found that burning fossil fuels increased atmospheric CO2, also provided companies with enough information to anticipate harmful effects and be legally responsible for them.

The complexity of the science behind climate change does not excuse liability.

What does RWE say about the case?

A spokesperson for RWE told a reporter that the ruling was not a precedent in the UK legal system. Three other regional courts had also taken a different view.

The statement stated that since the case had been thrown out the court has not ruled on whether or to what extent RWE can be held accountable. It also added that the company operated in compliance with the applicable laws, and the climate policy issue should be decided at the political level. (Reporting and editing by Aurora Ellis; Alexander Villegas)

(source: Reuters)