Lliuya v. RWE

In this case, it is argued that RWE has been a main emitter of greenhouse gases, causing the glacier to melt, and therefore increasing the risk of flooding in the Huaraz area, at the foot of the Palcacocha lagoon in Peru. In this case, the calculation of the Institute of Climate Responsibility was used to know the % of carbon emissions that RWE has produced from 1751 to 2010, and said calculation estimated that it had contributed 0.47% of total man-made carbon emissions. Likewise, calculations of the estimated repair costs in the event of flooding were carried out. In this sense, the argument seeks to show the courts that although RWE is not responsible for all carbon emissions, it is responsible for one part (0.47%), and there must be responsibility for the damage it is causing, and for this reason, it is fair that they pay the proportional part (0.47%) of the cost that the damage caused to the environment will generate. That is, under this legal logic, it is being sought that the companies that pollute must have a responsibility to repair the damage they have caused. In this lawsuit it is established that the compensation would be invested in the installation of an early warning system for a sudden melting of the glacier, that drains the Palcocha lagoon and to build new dams or improve existing ones, in order to prevent the risk of flooding of the surrounding area.

Up-to-date information on the case: https://germanwatch.org/es/caso-de-huaraz Also see: http://climatecasechart.com/non-us-case/lliuya-v-rwe-ag/

Nature Geoscience journal article on increased flood hazard from Lake Palcacocha: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00686-4