German court to rule on Peruvian farmer versus RWE climate case
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
Highlights:
- Court case began a decade ago
- RWE says single emitter cannot be held responsible
- UN climate talks have repeatedly debated historic emissions
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.
Keep updated, follow The Business Standard's Google news channel
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 UN 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.
