Landmark climate change lawsuit moves forward as German judge arrives in Peru

Landmark climate change lawsuit moves forward as German judge arrives in Peru

Lake Palcacocha in 2014. A siphon was installed in the glacial lake to lower the water level.Photo: Cooperación Suiza COSUDE/via Flickr CC

Historic Climate Change Litigation, Luciano Liua v. Revel AG, to accelerate again. Peruvian indigenous farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya is suing German energy company RWE AG for payments to prevent the glacial lake Palcacocha from flooding his hometown of Huaraz. Following the COVID-19 delay, the case moved forward again as German officials, including judges and court-appointed experts, arrived in Peru on May 25 to assess the level of risk posed by Lake Palcacocha.

Located 4,650 meters above the regional capital Huaraz, the lake has been growing in volume due to the input of meltwater from receding glaciers. The lake poses a significant threat to the towns below, as the increased water volume could cause the lake to overflow and flood it.

German multinational energy company RWE is the 297th largest listed company in the world in 2020.according to Carbon Professional Database, RWE is responsible for 0.47% of global post-industrial revolution carbon emissions, so Lliuya is suing for that portion of the flood defense bill. In an interview with Noah Walker-Crawford, a consultant on the case, he explained that if Lliuya wins the money, it will be based on a partnership with the Ancash Regional Government (which is responsible for security at Lake Palca Cocha).

Accepting this settlement would set a groundbreaking precedent that companies could be held responsible for their contributions to global climate change. If Lliuya were to receive a total of 17,000 euros ($18,239) in damages, it would be a tiny expense for the large company, but it would lay the groundwork for larger lawsuits against other heavy polluters.

Saúl Luciano Lliuya speaking in Essen, Germany, 2016. Photo: Alexander Luna/via Wikimedia Commons

with the help of german watchesGermany Climate Justice, the case was filed on November 24, 2015 at the District Court of Essen, Germany.Although the case was initially dismissed in December 2016, an appeal in 2017 brought it to the discovery and evidence-gathering stage. As in Previous GlacierHub reporting case, but with the arrival of Peruvian court experts, the case has moved forward. Lliuya argues that RWE violated his rights by preventing him from using his land because he was partly responsible for the threat posed. Lliuya had to show that the glacier decline was attributable to climate change and that it posed a sufficiently specific threat to RWE to be held accountable.

peer review Report The paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, said greenhouse gas emissions have accelerated the retreat of the Palkaraju Glacier on the lake, putting the town at greater risk of devastating flooding.independent Report Going a step further, pointing out that the glacier retreat is “entirely attributable” to global warming. The statement confirms Lliuya’s assertion that the flood risk is caused by climate change and that RWE is therefore partly responsible.

German court-appointed experts are currently assessing whether the flood threat is “Real and Imminent Risksto Lliuya’s property. Lliuya’s attorney Roda Verheyen explained that while attributing climate change was one of the main issues at the evidentiary stage, court-appointed experts were actually investigating personal risk To Liu Ya’s house on the flood road. Verheyen elaborates that “no one actually questions the fact that there is a risk”, the question is whether the risk is legally imminent enough.

The threat to the town has been known for years. In 1941, flooding from the same lake killed 1,800 people and destroyed much of the city. Today, Valáz is much larger, with 50,000 residents living within the flood channel. In addition, the lake has 34 times as much water as it did in 1970. Flood protection measures have been put in place. In 2011, a siphon was installed to lower the water level.Video surveillance continues, and a team called “Glacier Guards” has been stationed near the glacier lake. In addition, the town has installed sirens just in case flood. This will give residents about half an hour to evacuate before the floodwaters reach their homes.However, this early warning system is not sufficient to protect residents from flooding, as video surveillance often has question.

Lake Palcacocha in the Cordillera Blanca Mountains.Image credit: SDC Swiss Partners / via Flickr CC

In an interview with GlacierHub, Oxford Sustainable Law Project researcher Rupert Stuart-Smith, who contributed to the Nature Geoscience report, explained how the expanding volume of lakes not only increases glacial lake outburst flood, but how receding glaciers increase the likelihood of a “trigger scenario” that could lead to lake overflow and subsequent flooding. Stuart-Smith asserts that there is “sufficient scientific evidence” for these triggering scenarios. These scenarios include avalanches or landslides entering the lake and creating waves that allow water to overflow its boundaries and erode them. As the glacier recedes up the mountain, it allows the permafrost to thaw, destabilizing the soil, he explained.unstable soil increased avalanche or landslide This also increases the risk of flooding.

The case initially sought to obtain a declaratory judgment, monetary damages and an order requiring RWE to stop its emissions. The court rejected Lliuya’s declaratory judgment request that the courtnature of legal affairs,” along with his demands for monetary damages and a court order. The court dismissed the monetary damages, saying penalty for damages, because the bonus does not solve Liu Ya’s problem.Court cease and desist order, also known as Injunctive reliefRejected because ordering RWE to stop emissions now won’t stop the effects of climate change from continuing to cause glaciers retreat.

Despite these rulings against Lliuya, the core arguments of his case are moving forward, providing both new opportunities for climate change litigation and good news for environmental groups and indigenous communities who insist on fighting fossil fuel companies . Walker-Crawford explained that the case has set an exciting precedent that companies could potentially be held responsible for their contributions to climate change simply because an appeals court accepted the case. If successful, the case would open the door to more climate change lawsuits. Fossil fuel companies will have to start “pricing” the cost of these lawsuits, which is likely to be much more expensive than the $18,239 here.

Ultimately, fossil fuel companies may have to set aside millions for potential litigation-related costs, which will encourage companies to divest. Also, if climate change litigation becomes more successful, it could spur political action, the ultimate goal of these cases. Walker-Crawford described the climate change lawsuit as an “act of desperation” in the absence of government action. But if Lliuya’s lawsuit is successful, we could suddenly see these cases become avenues for climate change action and a much-needed victory for our planet.