logo
How One Farmer's Climate Lawsuit Could Lead To A Win For The Planet

How One Farmer's Climate Lawsuit Could Lead To A Win For The Planet

Forbes01-06-2025
17 March 2025, North Rhine-Westphalia, Hamm: Peruvian mountain farmer and mountain guide Saul ... More Luciano Lliuya (r) arrives at the Higher Regional Court for the hearing of his climate lawsuit against energy company RWE and talks to journalists. Geoscientists and structural engineers appointed by the court are to present their expert opinions. The issue at stake is the danger posed to the plaintiff's house in South America by a tidal wave or mudslide. The plaintiff accuses the German company of being partly responsible for climate change due to the CO2 emissions it produces. Photo: Rolf Vennenbernd/dpa (Photo by Rolf Vennenbernd/picture alliance via Getty Images)
A farmer's climate lawsuit is a win for the planet. Recently, a German court quietly ended a landmark legal battle that had spanned nearly a decade. In Lliuya v. RWE, a Peruvian farmer and mountain guide, Saúl Luciano Lliuya, sued Germany's largest utility company, RWE, over its historic carbon emissions and the resulting impact on his hometown of Huaraz.
Though the Higher Regional Court of Hamm ruled against Lliuya, stating that he had not sufficiently demonstrated imminent danger or direct causation, the case represents something far more significant than a legal loss. It marks another pivotal moment in the evolving global discourse on climate accountability, climate justice, and how courts will address the issue of liability in an era of planetary risk.
Lliuya first went to court in 2015. He claimed that glacial melt driven by global warming had swollen a lake above his town, threatening a catastrophic flood. He asked RWE, a company responsible for roughly 0.47% of global historical emissions, to pay for protective measures proportional to its emissions. It was a novel request, but one that resonated with growing legal and ethical arguments about polluters' responsibilities to communities on the frontlines of climate change.
HUARAZ, PERU - MAY 23: Saul Luciano Lliuya (41), Peruvian farmer and mountain guide who filed a ... More lawsuit against the German electricity consortium RWE, visits the lake Palcacocha in Huaraz, Peru on May 23, 2022. (Photo by Angela Ponce for The Washington Post via Getty Images)
In many ways, this case echoed others around the world, including youth-led lawsuits like Held v. Montana. In that case, a state court ruled that Montana had violated young residents' constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment by promoting fossil fuel development. While Lliuya v. RWE did not secure a similar victory, it represents a similar trend of individuals and communities using the legal system to seek remedy and accountability in the face of government inaction and corporate pollution.
Climate litigation of this kind presents unique legal challenges. How do courts trace global emissions back to individual corporations? Can one company be held liable for incremental damage when the crisis is collective?
The court in Lliuya v. RWE essentially said no, at least not with the evidence presented. But the fact that the case advanced as far as it did is noteworthy. Most climate lawsuits do not survive procedural hurdles, let alone reach a stage where climate science and corporate responsibility are discussed in depth.
This case forced a European court to consider whether a corporation could be liable for climate-related damage across borders. Even without a favorable ruling, the legal framework it helped shape may influence other jurisdictions. Just as U.S. courts are beginning to take youth-led climate lawsuits more seriously, international courts may one day revisit Lliuya's argument with a different outcome.
The decision may be a disappointment to many climate advocates, but it is not a dead end. It is a milestone in what some legal scholars call "strategic litigation.' This is the use of the legal system not just to win individual cases, but to influence policy, raise awareness, and build momentum for broader change.
The RWE decision also arrives at a moment of heightened scrutiny for corporate climate commitments. Even as some fossil fuel companies tout their decarbonization plans, many continue to invest heavily in fossil infrastructure.
Policymakers and regulators now have an opportunity to step in where courts have hesitated. The legal questions raised by Lliuya's lawsuit could inform new laws or treaties addressing transnational environmental harm. As the world approaches COP30 and new rounds of climate finance negotiations, Lliuya's effort may serve as a moral and rhetorical guidepost.
The Higher Regional Court of Hamm may have ruled against Saúl Luciano Lliuya, but the larger movement for corporate climate accountability has gained steam. As Lliuya's case moved along in Peru, activists in Canada pushed for stronger climate disclosure standards. The legislative measure failed, but the Canadian courts issued a ruling in favor of youth climate litigants alleging government responsibility for climate change impacts. Both groups vowed to fight on, 'We were significantly disappointed with Canada's first-ever sustainability disclosure standards released last month. These new regulations are a welcome step forward, but they still fail to respond to crucial problems for our specific context in Canada. In 2025, we will continue the fight for strong sustainable finance regulation that meets international standards.'
If nothing else, Lliuya's decade-long fight reminds us that the climate crisis is personal, political, and legal. Each lawsuit, whether it ends in victory or not, helps redraw the boundaries of responsibility. In that sense, this case was never just about a glacial lake in Peru. It was about charting new paths to justice on a warming planet.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Michigan Supreme Court sides with gambler in $3.2M lawsuit against BetMGM
Michigan Supreme Court sides with gambler in $3.2M lawsuit against BetMGM

CBS News

time15 hours ago

  • CBS News

Michigan Supreme Court sides with gambler in $3.2M lawsuit against BetMGM

A Michigan woman whose online gambling account showed that she won over $3 million but was later told her account had no money remaining has won the right to seek damages against the gambling company through Wayne Circuit Court. The Michigan Supreme Court handed down the ruling Tuesday in the case filed as Davis v. BetMGM. According to court documents, Jacqueline Davis started playing an online game called "Luck O' the Roulette" with $50 deposited into her BetMGM account on March 18, 2021. Her first wager on the game was $4.50. She played off and on for the next several days, incurring winnings that she used as subsequent plays while increasing the wager amounts, according to court records. "In gambler's parlance, plaintiff went on a 'heater' of epic magnitude," the justices wrote. "As her account grew, she pressed her bets." Davis requested a payout of $100,000 on March 21, 2021, and was sent an email in response to coordinate those details. She received that money. By March 23, 2021, her wagers had increased to $5,000 per play, and her account reached a balance of $3,289,500.75. About that time, the legal affairs office from BetMGM Casino Operations contacted her to explain they had "identified unusual activity and an improbable balance associated with Ms. Davis's account." The company claimed a malfunction began around play 28, and that her account should have read zero at play 368. "Pursuant to the relevant Michigan Gaming Laws and Regulations, Luck O' the Roulette has since been removed from the Michigan market and the Michigan Gaming Control Board was notified of the malfunction," the company's investigation said. Davis subsequently filed a dispute with the circuit court and the Michigan Gaming Control Board in pursuit of the winnings she expected. The Michigan Gaming Control Board eventually noted that BetMGM failed to notify the gaming board for several days that there may have been a malfunction with the game, and added that the company did not fully cooperate with the investigation into the incident. Despite noting those violations, the board decided not to take formal disciplinary action against BetMGM. The circuit court concluded that the gaming board's action preempted other legal action. In a split decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals sided with the lower court. But at the Michigan Supreme Court, a unanimous ruling concluded that procedures spelled out in Michigan's Lawful Internet Gaming Act did not take away the player's right to seek legal action. The case has been remanded back to the circuit court "for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." CBS Detroit has reached out to BetMGM, which declined to comment further on the lawsuit.

Trump administration still hopeful about a Harvard deal after Columbia reaches settlement
Trump administration still hopeful about a Harvard deal after Columbia reaches settlement

CNN

time16 hours ago

  • CNN

Trump administration still hopeful about a Harvard deal after Columbia reaches settlement

The Trump administration is still optimistic about the possibility of reaching a deal with Harvard University after it announced a $200 million settlement with Columbia University on Wednesday. 'While there's a lawsuit pending with Harvard, and I'm sure that lawsuit will play out, I do hope that Harvard will continue to come to the table with negotiations. Those talks are continuing, and we'd like to have a resolution there, outside of the courts,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a phone interview with CNN on Thursday. Harvard faced off with the Trump administration in court on Monday, arguing that the administration's $2 billion freeze in federal funding for research was in violation of the school's First Amendment rights. The case has become a flashpoint in a major clash over academic freedom, campus oversight and federal funding. The judge has not made a final ruling in the case, but Harvard has asked for a decision to be made no later than September 3, when it says some of the funding cuts could become more permanent. McMahon pointed to some recent actions taken by Harvard as positive steps, including the departure of the heads of the Middle Eastern Studies center. She described the current state of talks with the university as 'ongoing' but declined to provide additional details. She also declined to provide information about the scale of any settlement the administration hopes to achieve with Harvard, which has a larger endowment than Columbia. In a statement shortly after the Columbia deal was announced, McMahon described the move as a 'seismic shift' for higher education that could serve as a 'roadmap' for other schools. She said that 'other universities are already looking at' the template provided by the Columbia agreement. 'Colleges and universities are understanding at this particular point that they have some issues they need to address, and I think that they are coming to the table to do that,' she said. McMahon added that there are 'other investigations that are going on' and that the Trump administration has sent letters to some other universities 'letting them know that we are investigating … but I would prefer that we will not go public with those right now.'

Amazon faces UK lawsuits worth up to $5.4 billion from retailers, consumers
Amazon faces UK lawsuits worth up to $5.4 billion from retailers, consumers

Yahoo

time16 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Amazon faces UK lawsuits worth up to $5.4 billion from retailers, consumers

LONDON (Reuters) -Amazon faces two mass lawsuits from retailers and consumers worth up to 4 billion pounds ($5.4 billion) for allegedly abusing its dominant position, after a London tribunal on Thursday certified the cases could proceed. Andreas Stephan, a competition law academic, is bringing one of the cases on behalf of over 200,000 third-party retailers, worth up to 2.7 billion pounds. His lawyers allege that Amazon manipulates the "Buy Box" feature on its website to its own advantage and favours products that use Amazon's own logistics centres and delivery network. Consumer advocate Robert Hammond is separately bringing a case valued at up to 1.3 billion pounds on behalf of millions of Amazon customers for similar alleged abuses of dominance. Amazon argued that the Competition Appeal Tribunal should certify the cases to proceed, an early step in the proceedings, including because the economic methodology for proving the cases was flawed. But the tribunal certified both cases on an opt-out basis, meaning members of the claimant class will be part of the case unless they decide otherwise. An Amazon spokesperson said: "These claims are without merit and we're confident that will become clear through the legal process. "Amazon has always focused on supporting the 100,000 businesses that sell their products on our UK store, and more than half of all physical product sales on our UK store are from independent selling partners." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store