This wiki has had no edits or log actions made within the last 45 days and has been automatically marked as inactive. If you would like to prevent this wiki from being closed, please start showing signs of activity here. If there are no signs of this wiki being used within the next 15 days, this wiki will be closed in accordance to the 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% or about $20,000) 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 Palcacocha lagoon and to build new dams or improve existing ones, in order to prevent the risk of flooding of the surrounding area.[1].
Background[edit]
The plaintiff in the case, Saúl Luciano Lliuya is a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide in the Huarez region. As a mountain guide, Lliuya observed glacial retreat in the Andes due to climate change. The German NGO Germanwatch and Lliuya filed a lawsuit against German energy company RWE in German court in 2015. The case was initially dismissed by the lower court (Essen), but later ruled admissible by a court of appeals (Hamm). Court proceedings for the case were delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. A site visit took place in May 2022. Judges of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Hamm (Germany), court-appointed experts and lawyers for both parties travelled to Peru to examine whether the plaintiff's house is threatened by a possible flood wave from the glacier lake Palcacocha above the city. The entire danger zone in Huaraz actually covers an area where around 50,000 people live. The court-appointed experts will now write an expert report and submit it to the court. There will likely be an oral hearing to discuss the expert report in 2023. The proceedings are expected to last until at least 2024.
Relevance[edit]
With its 2017 decision to enter the evidentiary phase, the Higher Regional Court of Hamm has already written legal history: For the first time in the world, a court found that a private company with very large emissions can in principle be held responsible for protecting those affected from climate risks it has provoked - in accordance with its part of contribution to the cause. According to the court, this also applies to damage in the "global neighbourhood", in this case Peru, in view of the worldwide effect of the greenhouse gases released.
Links[edit]
- Up-to-date information on the case
- Sabin Center Database
- Grantham Research Institute
- RWE lawsuit: First test case in Europe to clarify responsibilities of carbon majors for climate change - Business & Human Rights Resource Centre
- Nature Geoscience journal article on increased flood hazard from Lake Palcacocha