The claimant, a Peruvian farmer, filed a lawsuit against RWE AG, a German company that produces energy, for emitting greenhouse gases (GHGs) that contribute to climate change and thereby cause major flood risks to his residence in Huaraz, Peru. His residence sits below the Palcaraju Glacier and next to Lake Palcacocha. The glacier’s meltwater accumulates in this lake and only drains to a limited extent. If the lake overfills, water will flood his residence. The claimant believed there is a causal link between the flood risks, the increase in the lake’s water volume, and the emission of GHGs and subsequent climate change that is melting the glacier. Since RWE AG has contributed 0.47% of global GHG emissions, the claimant argued that the company has also contributed 0.47% of the risks to the current state of the local flooding. The claimant considered the specific causational contribution of the defendant to climate change to be calculable and measurable according to scientific models. Seeking a declaratory judgment and damages through several motions, including through nuisance under national German law, the claimant argued that the company was obligated to bear the costs for preventative measures to protect his property against flooding and that the costs should be proportional to the company’s contribution to the damage. The Court did not find a link between RWE AG’s actions and a supposed flood risk and dismissed the claim. This case is currently on appeal at the Higher Regional Court in Hamm, Germany.

Environmental Legal Questions:

• Was RWE AG liable for the increased flood risks in Huaraz? The Court found the claimant’s primary motion and first two alternative motions to be illegitimate. The primary motion did not concretely specify how removing or desisting RWE AG’s GHG emissions was necessary for the enforcement of the law, nor specifically identify a detrimental legal relationship since the scope of legal pendency and effect were not sufficiently defined. The claimant’s first and second alternative motions were similarly found to be illegitimate due to a lack of specificity. However, the Court found the third alternative motion to be legitimate, but unfounded. This motion was legitimate in that RWE AG could be liable for damages done. However, the causal link was unfounded because of the Court recognized that there are billions of GHG emitters worldwide contributing to anthropogenic climate change and removing RWE AG’s contribution would not remove the flood risks. The Court found it impossible to attribute specific damages and impairments to individual causes.