Alexandra Binder
Clara Mayer sues VW. The climate activist (20) is far from the only one who is entrepreneurial Climate sinners now in court brings. Will going to the highest judge perhaps replace demos or petitions in the future? And what exactly is the best outcome of such a process?
"I didn't wake up one day and feel like suing VW," Clara Mayer clarifies right away. But now it has to be. Despite their emotional speech at their annual general meeting and many demonstrations, the automotive group still produces 95 percent internal combustion engines. She now wants to take this long-lasting cloak off him. Fight at her side Greenpeace. Not without reason: "It's about the freedom rights of future generations. As a young climate activist, Clara can best demand that herself," says campaigner Marion Tiemann.
This is the first such lawsuit in Germany. In the USA, the principle of active citizen participation has long been combined with legal remedies. There are already over 1.000 climate lawsuits there, and one term for them: climate litigation. In Europe, this type of lawsuit has only been known for a short time because it has set the tone for environmental law for a long time, says lawyer Markus Gehring. The VW case does not come as a surprise to the environmental law expert Lecturer at Cambridge University teaches. He also organizes conferences of the Center of International Sustainable Development Law (CISDL) to exchange ideas with climate protection experts from all over the world.
The vibe has to be right
To be successful, you need a prerequisite. “A lawsuit must reflect the general mood in society. After all, it is a matter of convincing a judge of a relatively progressive interpretation of an existing legal framework,” says Gehring. This is now the case with climate change, not least thanks to the Fridays for Future-Movement and a lot of new knowledge. The social consensus here took almost 15 years. By the way, waiting for laws is not an option. "Companies have to be held accountable before the legislature acts, behind which some of them even hide."
A supreme judge cannot replace the role of the legislator: "But he can point out points where he falls short." And Europe's top law enforcement officers apparently want to do that at the moment. They are implementing the long-term goals of the Paris climate protection agreement in concrete terms. And this despite the fact that it hardly contains any binding obligations. To name just two examples: In England, for example, the Court of Appeal stopped the expansion of Heathrow Airport, which had been approved by Parliament. In Germany, meanwhile, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that the government must improve the climate protection law. Namely, to protect the freedom rights of younger generations. The latter is a fundamental judgment, also with regard to private lawsuits, says Gehring: "Many courts will no longer consider climate change as 'also running'."
law of logic
The fact that more and more climate sinners are now being sued among companies - shortly after VW, BMW and Mercedes also received one, is new, but a logical consequence of it. For NGO representative Tiemann there is a trend-setting verdict: against Shell. In The Hague, the oil company, with the participation of Greenpeace, was obliged to significantly reduce its CO2 emissions by 2030 this year. The best result in the VW case? "If the group stopped selling cars with combustion engines worldwide from 2030 and production would be drastically reduced by then." Tiemann adds that even if only part of the demands were met, the lawsuit can be considered a success: "That doesn't mean to have failed. As a rule, it takes several lawsuits that build on one another in order to make groundbreaking judgments possible in the first place".
Lawyer Gehring expects a declaratory judgment, as in the Shell case. And that means? “The group has to justify the continued production of internal combustion engines in the face of climate change. I already see that as a success.” Apropos: The success of such lawsuits is not pre-programmed: “With the majority, the judges do not see themselves in a position to understand the progressive interpretations of the plaintiffs. We just learn more about lawsuits that have been won,” says the lawyer.
And the future?
Will we no longer need to take to the streets in the future? Does it automatically mean a lawsuit instead of a petition? No, says Tiemann, the objectives are different: "A petition has no legal leverage, but I can use it to make it clear that a lot of people are behind my request. Demonstrations contribute to a topic becoming socially relevant in the first place.” And lawyer Gehring? He says: "We have known the interaction between the citizens' movement and lawsuits for 30 years. Just think of citizens' initiatives, for which taking legal action in the face of environmentally harmful projects such as waste incineration plants is nothing new."
What is new, however, is that in the future even more companies that cause high CO2 emissions will have to account for how they deal with climate change. Who is on the list? "On the one hand the transport sector, shipping, the airlines, on the other hand the energy-intensive production area in which glass, cement, steel are processed and public energy suppliers," says Gehring. And then there is the violation of human rights by inaction on climate change, which could be a basis for even more lawsuits. “You have to be creative, but depending on national law there will always be more points of contact. Companies would do well to implement climate-neutral thinking quickly.” And Clara Mayer? She says it simply: "This lawsuit is just another step in the protest."
CAUSES OF ACTION
"Failure to Mitigate"
Lawsuits arise when states or companies fail to limit climate change. In this case, on the one hand, citizens or NGOs sue governments in order to achieve more climate protection. The Netherlands provides a successful example of this: the supreme court there ruled in favor of a complaint that insufficient climate protection violated human rights. On the other hand, governments or NGOs sue large CO2 emitters for more climate protection or compensation for failure to protect the climate. For example, the city of New York has sued oil companies BP, Chevron, Conoco Phillips, Exxon Mobil and Royal Dutch Shell for knowingly downplaying their responsibility for climate change and causing damage to the city. This also includes the case of the Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya, who is suing the energy supplier RWE with the help of Greenpeace, which is currently receiving a lot of attention in the media.
"Failure to Adapt"
This includes lawsuits about states or companies not preparing adequately for the inevitable (physical) risks and possible damage caused by climate change. An example of this are homeowners in Ontario, Canada, who sued the government in 2016 for not protecting them well enough against flooding.
"Failure to Disclose"
This is about companies that do not provide sufficient information about climate change and the resulting risk for the company, but also for investors. This includes lawsuits by investors against companies, but also lawsuits by companies themselves against their advisors, such as rating agencies.
Photo / Video: Shutterstock.
