I owe the title of this post squarely to Arie Van Hoe. The sentiment which Arie taps into, is that of most of the immediate commentary on Lliuya v RWE at the Hamm regional court, acting as court of appeal. Most of the immediate commentary notes the significant legal points scored by Mr Lliuya, even if his claim was ultimately dismissed. Consequently even in losing, the determination of the claim by the Hamm court may inflict long-lasting injuries on big greenhouse has emitters.
Background to the case is on the Sabin Center’s climate litigation database. In essence, claimant’s home is situated in the Peruvian Andes, right below a glacial lake. The gradual melting of the ice threatens to flood his home as well as that of many others. Claimant requests in essence a contribution by RWE to the costs of putting up a protective flood barrier. RWE is historically and currently an electricity generator, having used and continuing to use mostly fossil fuels in its production process. Hence it is undeniably a contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, adding to climate change.
Continue reading “Lliuya v RWE. Germany’s historic climate ruling: A pyrrhic loss for claimants?”
Corporate Finance Lab 