German Court Confirms Civil Liability for Corporate Climate Harms (cri.org)
- Reference: 0177870471
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/25/05/30/1741255/german-court-confirms-civil-liability-for-corporate-climate-harms
- Source link: https://cri.org/germany-court-confirms-civil-liability-for-corporate-climate-harms/
> In a landmark ruling advancing efforts to hold major polluters accountable for transnational climate-related harms, on May 28 a German court concluded that [1]a corporation can be held liable under civil law for its proportional contribution to global climate change, Climate Rights International said today.
>
> Filed in 2015, the case against German energy giant RWE AG challenged the corporation to pay for its proportional share of adaptation costs needed to protect the Andean city of Huaraz, Peru, from a flood from a glacial lake exacerbated by global warming. RWE AG, one of Europe's largest emitters, is estimated to be responsible for approximately 0.47% of global historical global greenhouse gas emissions.
>
> "This groundbreaking ruling confirms that corporate emitters can no longer hide behind borders, politics, or scale to escape responsibility," said Lotte Leicht, Advocacy Director at Climate Rights International. "The court's message is clear: major carbon polluters can be held legally responsible for their role in driving the climate crisis and the resulting human rights and economic harms. If the reasoning of this decision is adopted by other courts, it could lay the foundation for ending the era of impunity for fossil fuel giants and other big greenhouse gas emitters."
[1] https://cri.org/germany-court-confirms-civil-liability-for-corporate-climate-harms/
This Will End Badly (Score:1)
This will either end on appeal, or this will end badly for Germany.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
> This will either end on appeal, or this will end badly for Germany.
Why? Oh right, because a corporation being made to compensate you for the damage they caused when they pumped a truckload of toxic waste into your living room is Sooooo UNFAIR!!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You exhale the same "toxic waste" into your own living room.
regress = progress (Score:2)
Only a few more years until Germany finishes deindustrializing. Good luck!
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
We have had a few similar rulings in the Netherlands. And it's silly. The way this used to work is: government would set boundaries, issue permits, set fees on emissions, and so on. Companies working within those boundaries would be free of liability, except in cases of unforeseen consequences, gross negligence, or efforts to hide harmful effects from regulators. Now that we know that global warming is an issue (for a while now), the thing to do is tighten regulation and review permits, not to allow companies to be sued into oblivion. Especially since those companies do not emit harmful gases for funsies, they do so because we the consumers demand it . I also have some questions about reciprocity: can we expect to successfully sue Peruvian companies for their contribution to global warming, which will likely cost our country a fair bit of money to mitigate?
Collectivist trash (Score:2)
If a business can be held liable for the (very) indirect effects of *their customers'* activities, then the concept of individual agency and individual responsibility for one's actions is meaningless.
I hire a a guy to install a new air conditioner. That guy charges me $10k for the parts and $1k for the labor. He effectively pockets that $1k as profit and then uses them to buy a gun. Years later his business goes under, he loses his mind, and uses that gun to shoot up an ice cream shop.
Is it *my* fault that
Interesting take on the subject (Score:5, Informative)
A little clearer in this report: [1]https://www.dw.com/en/german-c... [dw.com]
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/german-court-rejects-climate-case-against-energy-giant-rwe/a-72693362
Re: (Score:3)
They dismissed the case but "the court did rule that companies can be held liable for the impact of their emissions". It will be interesting to see if this will be cited in other cases in Germany and elsewhere in the EU.
Re: (Score:3)
Germany does not have case law, hence legal precedents are not binding. The only reason they are used at all is to ensure some consistency - the judge might follow a precedent, but doesn't need to, since the actual laws, as they are written in lawbooks, have supremacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The way a law applies to a specific case is not always very clear, thus the need for judges. The precedent may not be binding but it could be cited as justification for future rulings.