F Four Indonesian women may fight for their homeland in Switzerland. For the Cantonal Court in Zug has admitted their lawsuit against the Swiss cement company Holcim. The plaintiffs live on Pari Island, which is threatened by climate change: they report floods that destroy their houses and algae farms, and wells becoming saline.
And the rise in sea level due to global warming is responsible for the island becoming increasingly uninhabitable. And two-thousandths of the blame lies with Holcim.
Denn der Konzern ist einer der größten Zementproduzenten der Welt und hat Berechnungen des Projekts Carbon Majors zufolge zwischen 1990 und 2023 3,2 Milliarden Tonnen CO₂ ausgestoßen, 0,18 Prozent aller CO₂-Emissionen aus dem Verbrennen von Kohle, Öl und Gas sowie aus der Zementproduktion.
Indonesian plaintiffs, aided by international NGOs, sue a Swiss company that manufactures concrete worldwide for schools and luxury buildings, for tunnels and the Zurich Zoo. The case—in advance—will not revolutionize global climate protection. But it shows: the climate crisis is increasingly and inexorably entering every aspect of our lives, and with it the balance sheets of gigantic corporations. Their past and present climate sins catch up with them.
Plaintiffs feel harmed in their personal integrity
The four island inhabitants demand that Holcim reduce its CO₂ emissions, pay damages, and assist the island inhabitants in adapting to the rise in sea level. They argue that they are being harmed in their personal integrity. For, in the Swiss Civil Code it states: “Who is unlawfully harmed in their personality may call upon the court for protection against anyone who contributed to the harm.”
The Swiss jurisprudence has derived from this among other things the right to private and family life as well as personal liberty and physical integrity, economic livelihood and the right to life, explains Theresa Mockel, who supports the lawsuit for the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.
Holcim itself does not deny its share in global warming, but who should bear the consequences is a political and not a legal question. Moreover, Holcim already invests a lot in climate-friendly concrete alternatives. Besides: there are still other cement manufacturers; what about their responsibility?
The court does not agree to that: “Every single contribution is essential to counteract climate change,” it writes. And the case does not replace democratically legitimized climate protection policy, but complements it.
Climate lawsuits will not solve the climate crisis
Holcim and the other gigantic climate polluters have known for decades that they are heating the Earth and thus making life on the planet more expensive, dangerous, and deadly. Holcim points to its own investments in CO₂-free construction materials. But as with the other companies, Switzerland could have started in the 1980s to free its business model from CO₂ emissions, not today.
The homeland of the people on Pari is likely to become uninhabitable. The fact that the companies responsible should fear being sued is good: someone will have to pay for the consequences of climate change. It would be fair if the polluters pay.
But that will probably not spur more ambitious climate protection. A similar case in Germany between a Peruvian and the energy company RWE lasted eight years: The judges and experts flew to Peru to see the glacier lake that threatened the plaintiff’s house. Expert reports had to be requested, criticized, and revised. Observers likewise expect a similar amount of effort in the Holcim case.
On the plaintiffs’ side are lawyers and legal experts from NGOs who cannot simultaneously attend to equally plausible climate lawsuits by Nigerian herders against coal companies or Vietnamese rice farmers against car manufacturers.
Climate lawsuits against companies will not solve the climate crisis. But they show how far-reaching the consequences of global warming are. And for the four Indonesian women, they can help achieve something like climate justice.
Transparency note: In an earlier version of this text, the value of 3242 million tonnes CO₂-equivalent was mistakenly given as 3.2 million tonnes. The correct figure is 3.2 billion tonnes CO₂-equivalent.
