Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya, 44, is leading a lawsuit against the German energy giant RWE in a German court.
Lliuya demands that the company, one of the largest CO2 emitters in the world, contribute to the cost of protecting his hometown, Huaraz, due to the risk of the overflow of the glacial lake Palcacocha affected by climate change, as reported by the AFP agency.
A unique and pioneering case
Lliuya argues that RWE’s use of fossil fuels has contributed to the melting of the Andean glaciers, endangering more than 50,000 people in the region.
Based on a 2014 study, he claims that RWE is responsible for 0.47% of global carbon emissions since the industrial era and requests that the company cover an equivalent share of the costs to mitigate the risk of flooding, estimated at 3.5 million euros.
“What I’m asking is for RWE to take on part of the costs of building a dam,” said Lliuya at a press conference before traveling to Germany. The amount demanded is around 17,000 euros.
A long legal battle against an energy giant
Since filing the lawsuit in 2015, the legal process has been slow. Initially dismissed by a court in Essen in 2016, a 2017 appeal allowed a higher court in Hamm to order evidence to be presented. German experts and judges visited the Huaraz area in 2022 to assess the impacts of climate change in the region.
This week, the German court is analyzing the collected evidence, including those related to the risks of overflowing of Lake Palcacocha. If it is determined that Lliuya’s property is at substantial risk, a future hearing will assess RWE’s direct responsibility.
A case with global implications
Organizations like Germanwatch, supporting Lliuya, believe that the case sets an important precedent in corporate responsibility for climate-related damages. Francesca Mascha Klein from Germanwatch stated, “It is time for companies like RWE to fairly contribute to the costs of the damages they have caused.”
On the other hand, RWE denies the accusations, arguing that establishing a direct link between specific emissions and concrete damages is legally inadmissible. The company warns that a decision against them could set a precedent with global consequences.
