Arif Pujianto couldn’t rest one fateful night in December 2021. He watched as the waves crept closer to his home on Pari Island, Indonesia. When dawn broke, the island was in ruins. Debris littered the ground, his family’s well was contaminated with saltwater, and his house was crumbling.
Since that night, tidal floods returned repeatedly, making life unbearable. “I feel angry and afraid,” Arif expressed. “If Pari Island sinks, where will we live?”
In desperation, he decided to take action. Arif, along with three other residents, filed a lawsuit against Holcim, a major cement company based in Switzerland, demanding compensation for the damage caused by climate change. On the surface, this might seem strange. Holcim doesn’t operate in Indonesia, and is located 12,000 kilometers away.
However, Arif’s case represents a growing trend in climate litigation. This surge is fueled by advanced climate models that connect carbon emissions from specific companies to local community effects, regardless of distance. Notably, climate expert Noah Walker-Crawford from the London School of Economics noted, “The science is evolving rapidly, allowing for new legal arguments.”
Climate models have been pivotal in predicting global warming since the 1960s. They’re used to inform significant reports by groups like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Recently, researchers began using these models to better understand the effects of specific emissions. By simulating different scenarios, scientists explore what could have happened if certain emissions didn’t exist.
The first significant link between human activity and climate change emerged in 2004 when studies showed how human emissions exacerbated a heatwave in Europe. Since then, links have been established between emissions and various disasters, including floods and wildfires. The initiative called World Weather Attribution now regularly assesses how emissions influence weather events.
In a pivotal study, researchers led by Christopher Callahan from Indiana University and Justin Mankin from Dartmouth College linked the emissions of individual countries to global economic damages. They found that the top five emitting nations collectively cost the world an astounding $6 trillion since the 1990s, with most harm falling on low-income countries.
In 2022, Callahan and Mankin conducted an end-to-end attribution study, connecting emissions from certain companies to extreme heat events. They discovered that the emissions from just 111 of the highest-polluting companies resulted in economic losses between $12 trillion and $49 trillion globally.
Arif’s case against Holcim is groundbreaking, marking the first climate lawsuit against a large corporation accepted for trial in Switzerland. His team claims that human CO₂ emissions were, with 99% certainty, responsible for significant sea-level rise on Pari Island. Legal advisor Johannes Wendland remarked that their findings helped clarify causal links, enhancing legal accountability.
The plaintiffs are seeking compensation and demanding Holcim commits to reducing emissions to keep global warming below 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Holcim responded, claiming that emission regulations should be determined by lawmakers, not in civil courts. They also intend to appeal.
The issue of accountability raises complex questions: who should bear responsibility? The companies emitting carbon, the consumers using their products, or governments failing to enforce regulations? Climate campaigners stress that over 70% of historical emissions can be traced to just 78 companies.
Similar cases have surfaced globally, reflecting a trend toward holding polluters accountable. While the success of this litigation remains uncertain, the continuous filing of cases points toward a significant shift in the legal landscape. As Walker-Crawford noted, litigation could become a crucial avenue for accountability if political mechanisms fail.
The rapid advancements in attribution science could also play a vital role in determining outcomes in court. If even one lawsuit succeeds, it might pave the way for many others, amplifying the call for corporate responsibility in fighting climate change. For now, Arif Pujianto hopes his small step can inspire larger movements toward justice for all affected by climate change.
Source link
climate change,law,fossil fuels,climate action,carbon emissions
