For nearly a decade, a court in Hamm, Germany has been considering a case brought by a Peruvian farmer, Saul Luciano Lliuya, against the giant German utility RWE. The legal claim was novel: Lliuya said because RWE had caused a percentage of climate change because of its share of past fossil emissions, and that climate change threatened his farm by potentially collapsing a glacial lake, RWE should have to pay a pro rata percentage of the adaptation costs of protecting the farm against potential flood.

Judges flew to Peru, took testimony from dozens of experts, heard the defence by RWE. And as their press release noted, the claim in its particulars was dismissed:

Climate case against RWE: Hamm Higher Regional Court rejects Peruvian plaintiff’s appeal as unfounded

The court held there was “no imminent danger” to Saul’s farm.

But that’s not the whole story. As an Ancient Greek king supposedly once said: “If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.” Because in its 25th May ruling the court also held - for the first time, anywhere - that fossil fuel emitters can be held accountable financially for damages, anywhere.

Three days later, as if to make a point, the Swiss village of Blatten 500 miles south of Hamm in Germany was destroyed by a glacial collapse. One person was reported missing - but most of the area’s 300 residents had been moved out of danger in time.

So is the RWE case a blow to climate litigation or is it a Pyrrhic victory that could set in motion a whole range of new claims that could run to the tens of trillions of dollars, in the kind of law case even Americans can understand: “You broke my fence, you pay to fix the fence.” Or in this case: “You broke my climate.”

Dana Drugmand covers climate cases around the world and we talked about the precedent this might set - and we also discuss some of her coverage of plenty of other US climate cases that continue to roll on despite the best efforts of the Trump Administration and oil & gas companies to stop them.

Wicked Problems is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

In this Conversation

00:00 Introduction and Guest Welcome

00:31 Overview of Climate Litigation

01:51 The German Court Ruling: Saul Luciano Lliuya vs. RWE

02:39 Significance of the RWE Case

06:37 Implications for Global Climate Litigation

10:15 US Climate Lawsuits: Boulder, Colorado vs. Exxon and Suncor

14:37 Federal Preemption and State Law Claims

15:43 Hawaii's Climate Deception Case

17:23 Trump Administration's Legal Counterattacks

22:14 Youth Climate Lawsuit: Lighthouse Review vs. Trump

23:47 Montana's Constitutional Right to a Healthy Environment

25:19 Challenges in Federal Court

27:14 The Role of Climate Litigation in the US

30:17 California's Clean Air Act Battle

31:56 Conclusion and Future Outlook

It’s a good listen - and if you’re a subscriber you can find links to get these episodes ad-free at wickedproblems.earth.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.