Monica Feria-Tinta is a barrister at the Bar of England & Wales, and a leading advocate in environmental and climate change litigation both in English and international courts.
What do melting glaciers in the Cordillera Blanca, a mountain range in Peru, have to do with RWE, a fossil fuel giant based in Germany? The answer could have profound consequences for the role of climate litigation in tackling the climate crisis.
Saul Luciano Lliuya is a farmer from Huaraz, a city in the foothills of the Peruvian Andes. He and 120,000 other local residents live in constant danger. The melting of glaciers caused by climate change is causing the water levels in Lake Palcacocha above their home, to rise.
In 1941, a huge chunk of glacier fell into the lake. The resulting avalanche claimed between 1,800 and 7,000 lives. Peru’s disaster management agency warns that a flood could occur at any moment.
A trailblazing lawsuit, which a German court is due to rule on this week, has already set a global precedent for corporate climate liability by seeking to hold RWE accountable for its role in the accelerating glacial melt that threatens Lliuya’s hometown of Huaraz.
Global forest loss hits “frightening” record high with climate-fuelled fires
Liability of fossil fuel companies
Scientific studies link RWE’s emissions to glacier melt, increasing the risk of catastrophic flooding posed by a rapidly expanding glacial lake above the city.
After filing a case against RWE in 2015 for a portion of the costs required to prevent a future flood, an appeals court in Hamm ruled in 2017 that the case was admissible. This was hugely significant – a landmark decision.
In principle, it means that RWE could be held liable for a share of climate change damages, thereby establishing an historic precedent that fossil fuel companies can be held liable in court for such damages.
RWE is now phasing out its coal-fired power plants as part of efforts to reach net zero emissions by 2040 and argues that a single emitter of carbon dioxide cannot be held responsible for global warming. “If such a claim were to exist under German law, it would also be possible to hold every motorist liable,” it said in a recent statement on the case – an assertion the judge went out of his way to dismiss in March during his opening remarks.
Protection from flood risk
Given how significant this case is to climate litigation, I have been following it closely from the beginning. The 2017 ruling already shifted the dial in terms of holding major emitters accountable for the harms they cause.
The last round of hearings in March this year, focused on the scientific evidence of the risk of flooding for the plaintiff’s property. A key question before the court was the extent to which Lliuya’s home and family are at risk. His lawsuit argues that RWE should contribute its fair share to protective measures, given its role in driving the climate impacts endangering his community.
During the hearings, scientists representing the plaintiff challenged key findings of a court-appointed expert report, highlighting critical “blind spots.” They argued the report severely underestimated the risk of rockfalls triggered by thawing permafrost and failed to fully account for climate change’s accelerating impacts. The plaintiff’s legal team warned that the flood risk to Huaraz is much higher than acknowledged and urged the court to act accordingly.
Now a final decision in this landmark case, which could cement its significance for future climate damages litigation, is awaited.
Transboundary harm
While climate litigation is a relatively new area of the law, the basis of Lliuya’s case is nearly 90 years old. “Transboundary harm”, or harm that is not contained by geographic borders, is the notion that links pollution originating from one state to the impact it has on property in another.
The concept was introduced in the 1938 Trail Smelter case where, for the first time ever, a party was held liable for damages caused by fumes carried over to another country by the winds from a privately owned factory. It established the principles of transboundary harm and polluter pays.
Lliuya’s case is the first case to apply this principle in the climate change context, making it a definitive moment in the history of climate litigation.
RWE has stated in its defence that it could not be held accountable for providing electricity to the German people, a lawful act. But the courts in Germany held that you can be held accountable if you knew of the deleterious effect, and that since 1958 it has been foreseeable to an optimal observer that increasing C02 emissions would lead to global warming.
‘David versus Goliath’
Speaking to Lliuya’s lawyer, Roda Verheyen, brought into sharp focus the ‘David vs Goliath’ nature of the case. With RWE possessing vast amounts of resources to litigate, the company has embarked on a strategy of deconstructing the case to a painfully granular level. “Death by detail” is how Verheyen put it to me.
This asymmetrical dynamic is typical of climate litigation cases. Yet despite the disadvantages faced by Lliuya and those supporting him, the precedent already set in 2017 has changed the legal landscape forever.
Greenpeace’s $660m damages ruling a ‘wake-up call’ to climate movement
To date there have been 68 lawsuits filed seeking financial redress for the impacts of climate change. The fossil fuel industry, including oil and gas majors ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and BP, has been the target of 54% of them.
Whatever the outcome of Lliuya’s case, we have entered a new age of corporate accountability, one in which major polluters that cause serious harm to the environment can no longer escape the legal consequences.
The post The Peruvian farmer who has changed the climate litigation landscape forever appeared first on Climate Home News.
The Peruvian farmer who has changed the climate litigation landscape forever
Climate Change
‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry, citing homegrown renewables as path to energy security
CANBERRA, Tuesday 21 April 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing today as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Greenpeace’s submission and full opening remarks can be found here.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
HOW WOODSIDE’S BROWSE GAS PROPOSAL THREATENS SCOTT REEF’S GREEN TURTLES AND PYGMY BLUE WHALES
Woodside’s Browse to NWS gas project is under assessment by the WA and Federal Governments right now. This is a project that involved drilling up to 50 gas wells around Scott Reef off the coast of WA. Gas would be extracted directly underneath Scott Reef and Sandy Islet and pumped through a 900-kilometre subsea pipeline to the NWS gas processing facility.
Woodside’s Browse gas project’s impact on Scott Reef’s marine habitats?
Scott Reef is one of Australia’s most ecologically significant marine environments, where green turtles breed, pygmy blue whales feed, and an array of at-risk species, including sharks, dolphins, whale sharks, rays, sawfish and sea snakes thrive. It is home to many threatened species, including some found nowhere else on Earth or in genetically isolated groups, magnifying its importance from a conservation perspective.
This delicate reef’s ecosystem faces multiple threats if Woodside’s Proposed Project goes ahead, including seismic blasting, gas flaring, noise pollution, artificial lighting, pipe laying and fast-moving vessels. The reef also faces the risk of a gas well blowout, which could have catastrophic and irreversible consequences for the region’s reefs and marine parks.
Woodside’s woeful marine impacts management plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles and endangered pygmy blue whales if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodsides management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Their assessment found that Woodsides management plans for these species misrepresents or does not assess the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s pygmy blue whales and green turtles. They’ve also surmised that if the project goes ahead the impacts contradict the Australian government’s own recovery plan for turtles and Conservation Management Plan (CMP) for Blue Whales.
The State and Federal Governments now have the opportunity to define their legacies on nature protection and save Scott Reef from Woodside’s dirty gas.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia with Dr Olaf Meynecke of Griffith University.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital feeding, foraging and resting habitat for pygmy blue whales.
Pygmy blue whales feed, forage and rest in the Scott Reef region every year. Scott Reef is recognised as a Biologically Important Area for the pygmy blue whale and is an important stop-over on their annual migration.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
- Woodside’s management plan claims of “no credible threat of significant impacts” are not supported by scientific evidence.
- The management plan relies on outdated whale population information.
- Woodside has claimed it is unclear whether Scott Reef is a foraging habitat for pygmy blue whales, despite the presence of pygmy blue whales and significant concentrations of krill being documented in the area.
- The PBWMP ignores the impacts of industrial noise on whale-to-whale communication. This is especially concerning as mother-calf pairs migrate through the Scott Reef Biologically Important Area shortly after calves are born. Mother-calf pairs rely on continuous, uninterrupted communications to maintain their connection.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Prepared for Greenpeace Australia Pacific by Dr Ben Fitzpatrick of Oceanwise Australia.
The full technical assessment is available HERE
Scott Reef is a vital nesting ground for unique green turtles.
The green turtles that nest at Scott Reef’s low-lying Sandy Islet sand cay and nearby Browse Island are genetically unique and are classified as ‘Extremely Vulnerable’ in Australia’s Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
- The Browse project would operate within 20 kilometres of nesting habitat that’s critical to the survival of Scott Reef’s genetically unique and vulnerable green turtle population.
- Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan (TMP) misrepresents the risks the Browse project poses to Scott Reef’s green turtles.
- Claims in Woodside’s TMP about Scott Reef’s green turtle population size, nesting success and hatchling numbers are not backed by scientific evidence.
- The TMP proposes gathering updated data after the Browse project is approved.
- Woodside’s TMP proposes adding sand sourced elsewhere to Sandy Islet to counter subsidence and erosion, but fails to properly assess the associated risks.
To save Scott Reef and protect our oceans and animals, the State and Federal Governments must reject Browse.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits