Climate Change: A Real Nuisance

Madyson Brown

Can a single farmer hold a multinational energy company accountable for climate change? That’s the question at the heart of a lawsuit brought by Peruvian farmer Saúl Luciano Lliuya against German energy giant RWE. Lliuya, whose home in the Andean city of Huaraz is threatened by glacial melt linked to global warming, argues that RWE, one of Europe’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, should pay for part of the costs needed to protect his town from catastrophic flooding.

The lawsuit, filed in a German court, is a landmark case in climate litigation. Lliuya claims that RWE’s emissions have contributed to global temperature rise, accelerating the melting of the Palcacocha glacier near Huaraz. If the glacier collapses, it could unleash a devastating flood. He is seeking financial compensation to help fund protective measures, such as reinforcing a local dam. RWE, in turn, denies direct responsibility, arguing that climate change is a complex global phenomenon with countless contributors.

While the court in the case would of course apply German law, there are useful insights to be gained from applying the common law nuisance doctrine from Puritan Holding Co. v. Holloschitz to these facts. In Puritan, a property owner sought to enjoin a neighboring building’s construction, arguing that it created a dangerous and destabilizing condition for the surrounding area. The court recognized that certain private actions, even if lawful on their own, can become a public concern when their cumulative impact harms the broader community. As the court noted, “[h]owever, one bad building may eventually destroy an entire neighborhood. The courts have a duty to examine each situation independently.” The court’s analysis emphasized the principle that seemingly indirect or gradual harm can still constitute a nuisance if it causes “such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort or hurt” to the other party. By applying a case-specific approach, the court acknowledged that some nuisances, though not immediately catastrophic, can erode the safety and stability of a community over time. In Puritan, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, highlighting the judiciary’s role in preventing long-term, community-wide harm through nuisance law.

This doctrine of nuisance provides insights into resolving the dispute over RWE’s liability for climate change damages in Huaraz. For Lliuya’s claim, the key argument is that RWE’s emissions constitute a substantial and unreasonable interference with his ability to safely use his property. Just as a single deteriorating building can eventually degrade an entire neighborhood, widespread carbon emissions can contribute to climate-related destruction in specific communities. Since RWE is among the largest contributors to global emissions, Lliuya contends that the company should bear some responsibility for mitigating the resulting harm.

RWE, on the other hand, can argue that its emissions are not an isolated nuisance but part of a global issue caused by many actors. Unlike a localized nuisance, where a single party’s actions directly impact another’s property, climate change involves complex interactions between countless sources of pollution. Under the Puritan framework, RWE might claim that it is unjust to single out one company for liability when no single emitter is solely responsible for global climate change.

If the court follows the logic of Puritan, it may determine that RWE’s actions, while contributing to climate change, do not meet the legal threshold for a nuisance claim, leading to a ruling in favor of the energy company. However, if the court adopts a broader interpretation of nuisance, it could find that RWE’s emissions substantially interfere with Lliuya’s property rights, setting a precedent for corporate climate liability. If Lliuya loses, it would reflect the difficulty of applying traditional nuisance law to climate-related harms. Courts may be hesitant to extend nuisance doctrine to global environmental issues, leaving legislative action as the more viable path for addressing corporate climate responsibility. If he wins, the ruling could expand the scope of nuisance law, recognizing that widespread but traceable environmental harms can justify liability. This would have significant implications for corporate emissions policies, potentially prompting companies to adopt stricter environmental measures to avoid litigation.

Ultimately, the case highlights the evolving role of nuisance law in addressing modern environmental challenges. Whether through courts or legislatures, legal systems will need to adapt to ensure that those contributing to climate risks bear appropriate responsibility.

Madyson Brown is a student at the American University Washington College of Law and has an interest in Sustainable Development.

Image: Edward Kimmel, Climate March 0172.