German court to rule on Peruvian farmer versus RWE climate case
May 28 (Reuters) - A German court is due to decide on Wednesday whether a lawsuit brought by a Peruvian farmer against German energy giant RWE (RWEG.DE), opens new tab 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.
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 U.N. 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.
($1 = 0.8809 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Earth doesn't recognise national boundaries – we must collaborate for Net Zero
Almost sixty years ago, in 1966, I arrived at St John's College, Cambridge, on a scholarship from BP to study physics. This would turn out to be a golden period for the oil and gas industry. Two new frontiers – the North Sea and Alaska – were on the cusp of opening up, and the industry's reputation as a source of innovation, diplomacy and prosperity was strong. How times change – both in obvious and less obvious ways. The North Sea peaked long ago, with Britain sadly ever more reliant on energy imports. A fuller understanding of climate change has laid bare the duality of hydrocarbons, with most energy companies far too late in taking action. The focus in most developed countries is now on how to produce more and more energy from zero-carbon sources. This is all part of what is commonly meant by the 'energy transition', which is essential if we are to save humanity from the uncontrollable and destructive impact of climate change on health, food supplies and migration. But a less obvious energy transition has been taking place, right in front of our eyes. In 1966, the UK consumed more energy than it does today, despite decades during which both the economy and the population have grown. And the UK now no longer consumes any coal to speak of. If someone had told me this as an undergraduate, I would have scarcely believed them. Some of this change is down to deindustrialisation, but much of it can be attributed to steady gains in energy efficiency. The direction of travel is the same in the US, Canada and the EU. This should give cause for great optimism. The energy transition is a serious challenge which will take years to complete, but it is underway, and it is inextricably linked to energy security. The idea that energy security can be based solely on oil and gas is wrong and dangerous. So too is the view that we can achieve an overnight transition simply by setting net zero targets. Countries need a diversity of sources of energy so that when one source is attacked or interrupted, the supply can be made up by another. UK supplies are much more secure when they are domestic and do not rely on long-distance supply chains. Those such as renewable sources and nuclear fission also happen to be carbon-free. To make progress in the energy transition, we need serious and realistic plans, driven forward by a sense of common purpose and supported by the necessary resources. Plans will vary from country to country, but if they are to succeed, they should have four things in common. The first is to start by working out what will be needed in 25 years. It is clear to me that we will need carbon-free flexible electricity from renewables and nuclear power, both fission and perhaps fusion. At present, electricity accounts for about 20 per cent of global total energy demand; by 2050, it could be closer to 50 per cent. We will continue to need liquid fuels to power heavy transportation such as ships, trucks and long-haul flights, but may be able to create them – and other materials – by transforming waste, wood and crops using enzymes created by AI. And we could use the inevitable super-intelligence of AI to become more efficient everywhere. This future of low-carbon and mostly domestic secure energy is very possible if we commit now to the right level of consistent R&D investment in areas of highest potential. But, of course, we cannot afford to wait, so we must deploy the technologies already available and capable of continuous improvement. This is the second pillar of any successful approach. Electricity from wind and solar is already competitive with the lowest-cost hydrocarbon alternative. What is needed is better long-duration storage and the infrastructure to bring supplies to market. The efficiency of energy use can be dramatically improved by deploying more advanced software and strengthening economic incentives. New nuclear power, including the exciting potential of small modular reactors, can be deployed. Greater deployment of EVs reduced oil demand, but because we are still using oil and gas as 70 per cent of the UK's energy and will continue to do so long into the future, we must use them cleanly. Eliminating methane emissions is feasible and commercially viable. Capturing carbon and storing it is possible, but it needs further deployment and improvement before it is economically feasible to do so. Third, it is important to remember that no one country can achieve all these goals on their own. Competition is a good thing, but in a time of tight budgets, it is better to work in collaboration with other willing partners. The Earth's climate does not recognise national boundaries. We cannot wait for everyone to join in or allow ourselves to be forced to work at the pace of the slowest. Those who are able must act. For governments, that means putting in place internationally coordinated regulations and incentives, and directing funds to the necessary research. There is a strong case in the UK for creating a central national direction of the science and engineering required for the necessary breakthroughs, because efforts are currently too fragmented. It is also essential that we get a grip on a malfunctioning electricity market in which prices are too high, for which green energy is wrongly blamed, undermining efforts to secure public support for the energy transition. But it should be obvious that governments cannot do everything. That is why the contribution of the private sector is so important, and is the fourth pillar of any successful approach. Companies can bring the organisational capacity and international reach to take discoveries from the laboratory to the market. They cannot run away from the issue because they are part of society, serving its needs. But their success must also be nurtured, supported and celebrated. History shows that the private sector is the engine of human progress. We forget this at our peril. There is much that can be done, and no reason to despair. A major transformation of the way we live and work will take time. Industrial revolutions are complex processes replacing established embedded systems with something new and better. But in this case, the necessary changes will only come if we have a clear plan and a visible path to a world which is truly Beyond Petroleum.
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Calls for Tories to strip the whip from ex-minister George Freeman over 'cash for questions' row
Kemi Badenoch is facing calls to strip the Tory whip from an MP who is alleged to have been paid by a company that helped him write questions to the Government. George Freeman, the Mid Norfolk MP and a former science minister, is reported to have submitted queries to Labour ministers about the sector the firm operates in. According to his register of interests, Mr Freeman was paid £60,000 between April last year to March this year to be an adviser to GHGSat Limited. The firm uses satellites and aircraft sensors to measure greenhouse gas emissions directly from industrial sites. The Sunday Times published what is said were leaked emails that suggested Mr Freeman submitted questions to the Government with the help of the firm's boss. He is said to have asked the company's managing director what to ask about as he prepared written parliamentary questions related to space data and emissions tracking. Mr Freeman reportedly tabled the question to the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. The appointments watchdog Acoba previously advised the Tory MP that in taking up the role with GHGSat, 'there are risks associated with your influence and network of contacts gained whilst in ministerial office'. 'In particular, this is a company that is interested in government policy and decisions relating to the civil space sector and emissions,' Acoba added. 'You noted you have made it clear to the company that you will not lobby government on its behalf, and this will not form part of your role.' Mr Freeman told the newspaper: 'As a longstanding advocate of important new technologies, companies and industries, working cross-party through APPGs (All-Party Parliamentary Groups) and the select committee, I regularly ask experts for clarification on technical points and terminology, and deeply respect and try to assiduously follow the code of conduct for MPs and the need to act always in the public interest. 'Throughout my 15 years in Parliament (and government), I have always understood the need to be transparent in the work I have done for and with commercial clients and charities and am always willing to answer any criticism. 'I don't believe I have done anything wrong but I am immediately referring myself to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and will accept his judgment in due course.' A Conservative Party spokesperson said: 'George Freeman MP has referred himself to the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. 'It would be inappropriate for the Conservative Party to comment further whilst the Commissioner's inquiries are ongoing.' But the Liberal Democrats and Labour both called for Mrs Badenoch, the Conservative leader, to suspend him. A Labour spokesperson said: 'Cash for questions was a hallmark of Tory sleaze in the 1990s, and three decades on the same issue has raised its head again. 'George Freeman has referred himself for investigation so now Kemi Badenoch must suspend him from the Tory whip.' Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said: 'This looks like the same old sleaze and scandal people have come to expect from the Conservative Party. 'Kemi Badenoch should immediately suspend the whip from George Freeman while this is investigated. 'Failure to act would confirm that even after being booted out of government, the Conservatives are still hopelessly out of touch.' Mr Freeman is currently on the science, innovation and technology committee and a trade envoy. He was responsible for the UK space agency in his previous role as a minister in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology under former PM Rishi Sunak. A spokesman for GHGSat said: 'GHGSat retained George Freeman MP for a brief period to help GHGSat understand and navigate the geopolitical environment in the UK and Europe. 'GHGSat signed a services agreement with Mr Freeman that did not include any lobbying activities and was concluded on the basis of the terms laid out by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba). 'GHGSat takes all applicable laws and regulations concerning lobbying extremely seriously.'
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Over a third of people on sinking Tuvalu seek Australia's climate visas
SYDNEY, June 29 (Reuters) - More than one-third of the people in the tiny Pacific nation of Tuvalu, which scientists predict will be submerged by rising seas, have applied for a landmark climate visa to migrate to Australia, according to official figures. Tuvalu's ambassador to the United Nations, Tapugao Falefou, told Reuters on Sunday he was "startled by the huge number of people vying for this opportunity", and the small community was interested to learn who the first lot of climate migrants would be. Tuvalu, one of the countries at greatest risk from climate change, which experts say is boosting sea levels, has a population of 11,000 on its nine atolls scattered across the Pacific between Australia and Hawaii. Since applications for Australia's visa lottery opened this month, 1,124 people have registered, with family members bringing the total seeking the visa to 4,052 under the bilateral climate and security treaty. Applications close on July 18, with an annual cap of 280 visas designed to ensure migration to Australia does not cause brain drain from Tuvalu, officials said when the treaty was announced in 2023. The visa will allow Tuvalu residents to live, work and study in Australia, accessing health benefits and education on the same basis as Australian citizens. "Moving to Australia under the Falepili Union treaty will in some way provide additional remittance to families staying back," Falefou said. By 2050, NASA scientists project daily tides will submerge half the main atoll of Funafuti, home to 60% of Tuvalu's residents, where villagers cling to a strip of land as narrow as 20 metres (65 feet). That forecast assumes a 1-metre rise in sea levels, while the worst case, double that, would put 90% of Funafuti under water. Tuvalu, whose mean elevation is just 2 metres (6 feet 7 inches), has experienced a sea-level rise of 15 cm (6 inches) over the past three decades, one and a half times the global average. It has built 7 hectares (17 acres) of artificial land, and is planning more, which it hopes will stay above the tides until 2100.
