Image: Viktoria Spokojna via Unsplash
Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya saw his case dismissed by a German court in Hamm. He had sought to hold the energy company RWE partly responsible for climate change and the rapid glacier melt endangering his village. The court rejected the claim, pointing to expert assessments that placed the risk of a major flood within the next 30 years at just 1%, reported the Financial Times.
The judges suggested, however, that the case could have had a different outcome if there had been more compelling evidence of an immediate risk or of previous climate-related harm.
Climate-related litigation is gaining momentum, with more than 30 active cases worldwide, according to the London School of Economics. In Belgium, a farmer is suing TotalEnergies over weather-linked damage, while residents of a flood-hit Indonesian island have filed a claim in Switzerland against the cement giant Holcim. In the US, similar lawsuits are being brought by state governments and families affected by extreme heat events.
In November, a Dutch court issued a ruling that drew mixed reactions. It overturned a previous decision requiring Shell to cut its carbon emissions by 45% from 2019 levels by 2030, stating that setting such specific targets was beyond the court’s authority.
However, it reaffirmed that major emitters like Shell have a general duty of care to address climate change, and the Financial Times suggested that the company’s continued investment in fossil fuel expansion could be at odds with that responsibility.
While courts have largely approached these cases with caution, some legal experts see recent rulings as providing valuable guidance for future claims. Still, many judges remain hesitant – a concern the Financial Times suggests may stem from fears of widespread litigation that could significantly impact entire industries.
