Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya is suing German energy giant RWE, claiming the company should fund climate change defense measures for his hometown. The case has progressed slowly since 2015, with hearings scheduled to examine flood risks linked to RWE’s carbon emissions. A ruling could set a legal precedent about corporate responsibility for environmental damage.
A Peruvian farmer, Saul Luciano Lliuya, is engaged in a significant legal battle against the energy giant RWE in a German court, asserting that the company should contribute to climate change mitigation efforts. Specifically, Lliuya seeks 17,000 euros ($18,400) to help finance flood defenses for his hometown of Huaraz, which is threatened by a glacier lake at risk of overflowing due to climate change. He attributes part of this risk to the fossil fuels RWE uses for electricity generation.
Lliuya’s legal struggle began in 2015 when he first filed a lawsuit, only to have it dismissed the next year by a court in Essen, Germany. However, an appeal was granted by a higher court in Hamm in 2017. Delays due to the Covid pandemic have postponed hearings, which are currently scheduled from Monday to Wednesday, during which Lliuya’s presence is expected. He expressed surprise at the lengthy process, stating, “I would never have thought that it would all take so long.”
The upcoming hearings will determine whether Lliuya’s property faces substantial flooding risks, based on expert evidence collected from the Ancash region in 2022. If the risk is confirmed, the court will next consider RWE’s accountability, with Lliuya citing a 2014 study attributing 0.47% of global carbon emissions to the company. He argues RWE should pay a corresponding share of the estimated 3.5 million euros needed to lower the lake water levels.
RWE, which began operations in 1898 and utilizes various energy sources, including solar and wind, contends that a judgement in favor of Lliuya could create a harmful precedent for corporate liability associated with environmental damage. A spokesperson stated, “We think that is legally inadmissible and the wrong way to address this issue socially and politically.”
In its previous ruling, the Essen court noted difficulty in establishing a direct causal link between specific emissions and individual harm. The current Hamm hearings thus represent a potentially pivotal moment in legal contexts connecting environmental damages with corporate responsibility, amidst a global backdrop of 43 ongoing climate-related lawsuits.
Saul Luciano Lliuya’s court case against RWE highlights the increasing intersections between corporate accountability and climate change. By seeking financial support for local flood defenses, Lliuya challenges legal frameworks that traditionally isolate environmental responsibility. The outcome of this case could reshape future corporate liability standards, underscoring the broader implications for energy companies worldwide amid a growing focus on climate justice.
Original Source: www.rfi.fr
