Pakistani farmers sue German firms for flood damage: ‘no borders in sky’

The farmers are seeking damages for losses caused by the catastrophic 2022 floods in Pakistan. Their lawsuit argues that emissions from major German companies contributed to climate change, which increased the intensity of the rainfall. They want polluters to help pay for the resulting destruction.

The claim comes from 39 farmers in Sindh province. The floods wiped out crops, livestock and homes, and affected communities long after the waters receded. Abdul Khalique Laghari said he lost about US$14,000 in assets, including his house, crops and livestock. Munawar Khatoon lost her family’s wheat harvest.

The companies deny wrongdoing and call the claims unfounded. The lawsuit is part of a growing effort to seek climate damages from corporations, rather than only from governments. A successful claim could establish that companies may owe compensation linked to their share of global emissions, although the civil case could take years.

The farmers are suing German energy firm RWE and cement maker Heidelberg Materials. They are not claiming that either company operated in Pakistan or directly caused a particular flood. Instead, they argue that the companies’ worldwide greenhouse-gas emissions contributed to climate change and intensified the rainfall.

Germany was important because its courts recently moved toward allowing claims based on an emitter’s contribution to global warming. Both companies are headquartered there, so the farmers brought the case through the German legal system. The lawsuit estimates that RWE contributed 0.68 per cent of global industrial emissions and Heidelberg Materials 0.12 per cent.

Both firms reject the claims. Heidelberg Materials says its operations followed German law and should not face later standards retroactively. RWE calls the lawsuit an attempt to move climate-policy demands into German courts. The case therefore tests whether legal responsibility can extend across borders through emissions, not local operations.

The 2022 floods had enormous national consequences. They hit one-third of Pakistan, killed 1,700 people and affected 30 million Pakistanis. The article describes the flooding as apocalyptic, with some residents saying older generations had never seen such weather. Communities also struggled with debt and damaged homes after the water receded.

Individual losses were severe. Abdul Khalique Laghari estimated that he lost US$14,000 in assets. That included his house, 16 hectares, or 40 acres, of crops and livestock. Munawar Khatoon said flooding arrived just before the wheat harvest, submerging seeds and removing her family’s main income. Other farmers reported destroyed homes, crops and animals.

The article does not provide a combined dollar total for all 39 plaintiffs. It shows the wider burden through the national figures and personal accounts. Laghari said he still could not repay his debts and described serious mental harm, while farmers feared future rainy seasons.

The connection rests on the claim that greenhouse-gas emissions warm the climate and increase the risk and intensity of extreme weather. Mir Keerio, a development expert, said science shows that climate change is making such events more dangerous. The farmers argue that emissions from companies worldwide therefore contributed to the conditions behind Pakistan’s floods.

The lawsuit combines that climate-science understanding with research documenting what happened to the farmers. The evidence includes records of lost crops, livestock, homes and income. The article also gives personal examples, such as wheat seeds submerged before harvest and 16 hectares of crops destroyed. These records support the scale of harm claimed by the plaintiffs.

The article does not describe a specific scientific attribution model or calculate each company’s exact role in the rainfall. Instead, it presents the legal theory that companies’ shares of global emissions can be connected to increased climate risks, and that compensation could be proportionate to those emissions.

If a German court orders compensation proportional to emissions, it could establish a major new legal principle. Companies might become financially responsible for part of climate-related damage even when the disaster occurred far from their facilities. Lawyers describe such a ruling as a breakthrough for climate litigation.

The proposed mechanism would connect the amount owed to a company’s share of greenhouse-gas emissions. In this case, the farmers estimate RWE contributed 0.68 per cent and Heidelberg Materials 0.12 per cent of global industrial emissions. A court would still need to decide whether those contributions justify liability for the Pakistani losses.

The consequences could extend beyond these 39 farmers. Millions of people in Pakistan and elsewhere could seek damages from major emitters. However, the companies dispute the claims, and the civil process is likely to take years. Even a successful judgment would leave practical and legal challenges for other victims.

The earlier case involved a Peruvian farmer who brought a compensation claim against RWE in Germany. He did not win damages. However, the courts did not close the door completely; they moved toward a principle under which an emitter might be held liable for a share of climate-related harm.

That opening matters because the Pakistani farmers are also suing a company over global emissions rather than a local operation. Their lawyers argue that RWE’s contribution to climate change can be considered alongside the flood damage suffered in Sindh. The new case also names Heidelberg Materials and adds an accusation of “wrongful behaviour.”

Lawyer Roda Verheyen said large companies had known about climate change’s general impacts since the 1960s. She argues they should have exercised due diligence and tried harder to reduce emissions. The earlier ruling therefore supplied a possible legal route, but it did not guarantee success or establish that the Pakistani claims will be accepted.

The greenhouse effect is a natural process in which atmospheric gases retain some heat near Earth’s surface. Human activities add more greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, strengthening that heat-trapping effect. The article does not define the process in detail, but it describes the resulting climate change as increasing the risks and intensity of extreme weather.

Carbon dioxide emitted in Germany does not remain confined to Germany. It mixes through the atmosphere and adds to the overall concentration of heat-trapping gases. A warmer climate can alter weather patterns and make extreme rainfall more likely or more intense. This is the scientific basis for the farmers’ argument that distant emissions contributed to Pakistan’s flood risks.

That global mechanism explains why the lawsuit targets companies for emissions rather than Pakistani operations. The article quotes Khoso saying pollution in the sky has no borders. The legal question is how that shared climate effect should translate into company responsibility, and whether damages can be linked to each emitter’s contribution.