Ten years later, the lawsuit against German energy company RWE, Saúl Luciano, a Peruvian mountaineering guide, finally came close: Lliuya’s losses, but the climate litigants won. In a landmark ruling, the High District Court in Hamm, Germany concluded that greenhouse gas emission companies could be liable for damages caused by climate change, even those suffering losses from the mainland.
The lawsuit stems from an incident in 1941, when floods destroyed the hill town of Huaraz in the Peruvian Andes. A huge landslide on the face of the Palcaraju Glacier fell into the town’s Lake Palcacocha, sending out a gust of water that tore the valley apart and kills at least 1,800 people.
As warm temperatures cause the Palcalaju glacier to melt faster, Huaraz residents (which already accounts for 120,000 people), another glacial lake erupted from flooding (GLOF). To protect his home, Huaraz indigenous resident Lliuya built the embankment and decided in 2015 to sue those responsible for the expenses. But who is responsible for melting the glaciers? For Lliuya, supported by the nonprofit German Observation, RWE is the answer to German energy companies and leading Greenhouse Gas Emitter. Lliuya sued 0.5% of the cost of levee, the same contribution RWE has to global emissions.
Ten years later, the German court dismissed Lliuya’s lawsuit because it believed there was sufficient scale and certainty risk that there was no chance of appeal. Although Lliuya’s scientific experts have found a 30% chance of GLOF in the next 30 years, court-appointed experts have investigated the area and found only 1% of the risk – not enough to get RWE to pay the 17,000 euros required by Lliuya. “He was basically lost because his life was too 50 feet away from the river,” said Noah Walker-Crawford, a former climate litigation consultant to the German observer, who has been in the case since his inception. Other Huaraz residents living by the river face higher GLOF risks. Walker-Crawford added that some people “have come forward and say they want to make their claims.”
This difference in expert opinions has caused controversy. Walker-Crawford said the discovery of the court-appointed experts “a lot of criticism from the scientific community.” Experts have placed rocks outside of considerations for future GLOFs and used past data to predict future risks rather than considering accelerated melting of climate change, which could make such floods more likely.
But despite Lliuya’s losses, it was a milestone ruling for climate litigants. The court elaborated on the possibility that RWE may be liable for climate change damage caused by the launch. “As the process of climate change, it’s a very obvious causal relationship. Legally, it’s a basic property right.”
While simple, the decision was groundbreaking: It was the first time that the court confirmed the company’s liability for climate damages. “This has changed the environment for climate litigation,” Mónica Feria-Tinta, a public international law expert at Essex, said in an interview with Glacierhub.
The cross-border case explores the international historical precedent of the 1938 Smelting Case, in which Canadian polluters must pay for damage caused by the United States. Lliuya v. Rwe v. RWE takes a step further: Peru and Germany are not only separate countries, but also thousands of miles apart. Nevertheless, the principle applies to polluters. As Feria Tinta said, climate change “disrespects the borders. It goes beyond jurisdictions.”
In addition, the case has raised Huaraz and Glacier to a new level of international cognition. Community in the High Andes has faced drought, unreliable growing seasons and pasture losses. “When I talked to lliuya, he explained to me that it was not only a glacier, but all these changes were closely related,” said Feria-Tinta. Lliuya was the “symbol representation” of Peruvians in the broader struggle for climate justice. Locally and nationwide, the verdict is seen as a “great success.”
The effect also makes Peru surpass. “This is not a problem in Peru. Fundamentally, it’s a global problem,” Feria Tinta said. Indeed, a 2023 study published in Nature Communications found that 15 million people were exposed to potential GLOFs. Globally, glaciers are melting and retreating, threatening communities with flooding or water shortages. Now, based on Lliuya’s precedent, the community can seek responsibility from companies located on continents.
The international headlines triggered by Lliuya v. RWE have brought attention to companies and insurance companies. “All of these developments have been observed and they can’t operate as usual,” Feria Tinta said. Of course, if Lliuya wins, it will be the first time that a fossil fuel company will pay climate damages and will “a bigger splash.”
Instead, this case will only be a non-binding comparative precedent for consideration by the court. Nevertheless, this may be important in the young field of climate litigation. “Climate change is not something that courts have been dealing with for a long time, so we’ve seen in the past judges will expect what courts do in other countries,” Walker-Crawford said. In the United States, the effect may be less direct. “The U.S. courts tend not to cite foreign decisions, so I don’t think the case will affect our climate law,” said Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty member of the Sabine Center.
Although it has little direct impact on the U.S. judicial process, the high-profile lawsuit has promoted similar cases in the country. Over the past five years, various communities, cities and states have sparked lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. For example, the town of Carlborough, North Carolina is suing Duke Energy for current and future damage caused by climate change caused by floods and heat waves. In the other 20 cases, pending fossil fuel companies are also being addressed. Spending could reach billions of dollars.
There are also some cases on the national borders, and there may be more lliuya precedents. It is worth noting that in Asmani et al. v. Holcim, four residents of Indonesia’s Pari Island, is suing Holcim, a Swiss building materials company, a major carbon emitter in history. The case was filed in 2022 and requires damages and emission reductions.
The day after Lliuya’s decision, debris from glaciers crushed the entire mountain town of Switzerland. Since residents were evacuated a few days ago, there was no life. For Feria tinta, the incident exposed serious climate injustice. Wealthy countries like Switzerland are able to monitor nearly undetectable glacial changes and save lives, but other remote, poorer alpine communities like Huaraz may not have “the same capability.”
Lliuya’s high-profile lawsuit has begun to raise this inequality to attract international attention. Lliuya himself had better encapsulate the true legacy of the case, saying in a statement following the decision: “This ruling opens the door for others to demand justice.”
