A German court on Wednesday dismissed a Peruvian farmer’s lawsuit seeking damages from German utility RWE for allegedly putting his home at risk through climate change, as the judge ruled that a damage-risk estimate was too small to take the case further.
But legal and scientific experts working on climate change – who have closely followed the pioneering case – hailed its wider significance, arguing that the judgement affirmed that major emitters of planet-heating gases can be held liable for their contributions to climate change, even from overseas.
Experts say the precedent could encourage impacted communities to seek justice through the courts.
“The ruling confirmed that climate science can provide a basis for legal liability, which is a critical precedent in the broader push for climate accountability,” Dr Delta Merner of the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union for Concerned Scientists said in a statement. The green group noted that dozens of similar cases are globally working their way through the courts.
Comment: The Peruvian farmer who has changed the climate litigation landscape forever
The German court in the western city of Hamm said that no appeal was possible in the widely followed, decade-old case of farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya, who claimed that emissions from coal giant RWE contributed to the melting of Andean glaciers and to a higher flood risk for his home.
Presiding judge Rolf Meyer said experts’ estimate of the 30-year damage risk to the plaintiff’s house of 1% was not high enough to take the case further.
Nonetheless, had there been a larger adverse effect, a polluter could have been made to slash emissions or pay damages, Meyer said.
The judge added that the plaintiff’s case was argued coherently and that it was “like a microcosm of the world’s problems between people of the southern and the northern hemisphere, between the poor and the rich.”
RWE questions legal precedent
Germanwatch, an environmental and human rights advocacy group supporting the litigation, cited Lliuya’s lawyer Roda Verheyen as saying the case would encourage more lawsuits.
“What the court said today means that other people can bring other cases, other people who are affected by climate change, and can draw on that principle,” Noah Walker-Crawford, a researcher at London School of Economics Grantham Research Institute, said after the verdict.
However, RWE, which is phasing out its coal-fired power plants, 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.
Scientists predict global warming of more than 1.5C for 2025-2029 period
RWE said it was on track to become climate neutral by 2040 and that the German industrial sector overall had progressed well in cutting CO2 emissions compared with other countries.
Using data from the Carbon Majors database, which tracks historic emissions from major fossil fuel producers, Lliuya has previously claimed RWE was responsible for nearly 0.5% of global man-made emissions since the industrial revolution and must pay a proportionate share of the costs 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.
‘Polluter pays’ principle
The 44-year-old farmer, whose family grows corn, wheat, barley and potatoes outside Huaraz, was not in court on Wednesday. He has said he chose to sue RWE, rather than any company projects near his home, because it is one of the biggest polluters in Europe.
Speaking to reporters from a hotel in his hometown of Huaraz, Lliuya said that even though the court threw out the case, it was a step forward for climate justice.
“From the beginning we wanted to set a precedent to hold companies responsible,” Lliuya said. “We didn’t get everything, but this was a big step forward for other lawsuits.”
ClientEarth, an environmental law non-profit, said in a statement that under the ‘polluter pays’ principle, the ruling meant future legal cases could demand remedial action from companies – for example, funding action to reduce flood risks.
“This ruling could light the fuse on litigation that holds the most untouchable-seeming businesses to account for their climate destruction,” said Adam Weiss, ClientEarth’s Chief Programmes and Impact Officer.
“This should be a tense day for those relying on business models centred on fossil fuels. Legal consequences are snapping at their heels,” he added in a statement.
Hamm’s regional court has not yet made public the full ruling in their official platform, but NGO Germanwatch has uploaded an English-language version of the verdict.
