 |
|
|
|||||
As a crucial climate lawsuit heads to trial in Germany next week, experts say the case brought by Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya against German energy giant RWE could set a significant precedent in the fight to hold major polluters accountable for climate change.“This is one of the first cases of its kinda case brought by someone directly affected by climate change against a major greenhouse gas emitterthat has made it all the way to trial,” said Noah Walker-Crawford, a research fellow at the London School of Economics and an adviser to the non-profit Germanwatch, which has been advising Lliuya.Lliuya’s lawsuit against RWE argues that the company’s historical greenhouse gas emissions have fueled global warming, accelerating glacial melt above his hometown of Huaraz, Peru. As a result, Lake Palcacocha has swelled to dangerous levels, threatening the community with the risk of catastrophic flooding.RWE, which has never operated in Peru, denies legal responsibility, arguing that climate change is a global issue caused by many contributors. Concern over melting glaciers “It’s very sad and painful to see the glaciers melting,” Lliuya, 45, told the Associated Press in a video call from Germany. “There is a lot of concern from people in my community about the future, about the issue of water, because all the rivers that come down from the mountains are used for farming.”Walker-Crawford said of all these cases around the world, this is the one that’s gone the furthest.“It has already set a partial precedent in that the courts found it admissible in 2017, which means that the judges said the case is solid in legal terms,” he said. “Now, the court is hearing evidence, and we’ll see whether the company’s responsibility can be proven in this specific case.”Sebastien Duyck, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, says the reason why the case is so significant is not the decision itself or the amount of damages sought, but the precedent it would set.“If we could use tort law to say that any fossil fuel corporation that has contributed significantly to climate change can be held liable for climate-related costs in proportion to their emissions, it could open the door for many similar cases worldwide,” he said. Case could be a ‘game changer’ The case could be “a game changer,” according to Murray Worthy, from Zero Carbon Analytics, a research group on climate change.“This case is absolutely crucial,” Worthy said. “While this is just one case focused on this one place in Peru, the wider implications are huge. The costs and damages from climate change could run to tens of trillions of dollars a year, and if fossil fuel companies at large are found to be responsible for those and need to pay those costs, it would completely change the finances and outlook for the entire fossil fuel industry.”RWE is one of Germany’s largest energy companies, historically recognized as a major producer of electricity from fossil fuels.RWE says the lawsuit is legally inadmissible and that it sets a dangerous precedent by holding individual emitters accountable for global climate change.“In our view, there is no legal basis for holding individual issuers liable for global phenomena such as climate change. Due to the large number of global emissions of greenhouse gases from both natural and human sources, as well as the complexity of the climate, it is not possible, in our opinion, to legally attribute specific effects of climate change to a single issuer,” the company said in response to questions posed by the AP.The company insists climate solutions should be addressed through state and international policies, not the courts.Walker-Crawford said the court is entering the evidence-gathering phase, examining whether Lliuya’s home actually faces a significant risk of flooding.“If the court decides that the risk is high enough, it will then assess whether RWE’s emissions can be scientifically linked to that risk,” he said.Regardless of the case’s final outcome, Walker-Crawford said it’s likely to reinforce the legal foundation for future lawsuits.“Even if the specific risk in this case isn’t deemed high enough, the precedent that companies can be held liable for their climate impacts would still stand,” he said.The case’s outcome could also have financial repercussions. Climate litigation could impact financial markets “We’re already starting to see the impact of climate litigation on financial markets,” Walker-Crawford said. “Research has shown that when climate cases against corporations move past major hurdles, it negatively affects the stock market value of the companies being sued. Investors are starting to take note of the significant financial liability climate litigation can pose.”Lliuya, who also works as a mountain guide for tourists, said he started the lawsuit with little hope. Ten years on, that hope has grown.“When the German judges visited my home and the lake in 2022, it gave me hopehope that our voices were being heard and that justice might be possible,” he said. “Whatever the outcome, we have come a long way and I feel good about that,” he said.The hearing will begin Monday. Franklin Briceno in Lima, Peru, contributed to this report. The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. Steven Grattan, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Poppers have always operated in a legal gray zone. Now the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is cracking down on their production. This week, many major poppers brands began wiping their websites and social media presences. On Friday, Double Scorpio, a popular isobutyl nitrite brand, posted a statement on its website. Double Scorpio has stopped all operations following a search and seizure at our offices by the FDA, it wrote. Poppers, which are packaged in liquid form and inhaled for a brief euphoric effect, generally need to be prescribed. Still, many manufacturers skirt the law by using alternate chemical formulas and advertising as nail polish remover and leather cleaner. The drug is most popular with LGBTQ+ consumers, something Robert F. Kennedy Jr., current head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has taken aim at. In his 2021 book, Kennedy spread the lie that poppers caused AIDS. Now his department oversees the FDA, which is part of HHS. ‘We don’t have a lot of information to share’ In its statement, Double Scorpio signaled an industry-wide crackdown. We dont have a lot of information to share but we believe that the FDA has performed similar actions towards other companies recently, the brand wrote. Two merchants who spoke with Fast Company anonymously to discuss information that wasn’t public confirmed that additional producers have also been affected by the apparent crackdown. As a matter of policy, the FDA does not comment on possible criminal investigations, an FDA spokesperson wrote to Fast Company. Meanwhile, other brands have gone entirely silent or wiped their web presence. Pac-West Distributing (PWD), one of the producers of Rush, has replaced its website with a single graphic. It also shut down its phone number. Nitro-Solv, an online poppers retailer that advertised on PWDs site, has also since shut down. AFAB Industrial, another producer of Rush, has been the most public-facing of these producers. Its owner, Everett Farr, sat for an interview with BuzzFeed News in 2021, even as business associates worried about an FDA warning. (Why bring attention to yourself? one asked the outlet.) But AFAB has gone radio silent, too, shutting down its email and denying a request for comment over the phone. Are poppers legal? Once prescribed for chest pain to increase blood flow, poppers grew popular with LGBTQ+ people starting in the 1960s. Since then, their influence has ballooned, also becoming a popular party drug. While the United States has some rules about the production and distribution of poppers, they are rarely enforced. In the late 1960s, the FDA classified amyl nitrites as a prescription drug after observing recreational use. Many producers pivoted to producing butyl nitrites, which were banned over a decade later in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988. Isopropyl nitrites were banned two years later, but with an exception for commercial purposes, hence why many sellers masquerade as VCR cleaners or liquid incenses. But the FDA has been sparse with its crackdowns, save for a few advisories. In 2021, the FDA posted a warning for consumers not to ingest or inhale poppers. Two years later, it launched a social media campaign advising consumers on the difference between Rush and 5-Hour Energy bottles. This lack of enforcement has led many poppers brands, like Rush, Double Scorpio, and Jungle Juice, to create yearslong market dominance. What has RFK said about poppers? Robert F. Kennedy Jr. now runs the Department of Health and Human Services, which the FDA sits under. But Kennedy has long been spreading scientific misinformation about LGBTQ+ people, including that chemicals in the water are affecting childrens sexualities. Some of these falsehoods also concerned poppers. In his 2021 book The Real Anthony Fauci, Kennedy cited Peter Duesberg, a leader in AIDS denialism. Duesberg theorized that heavy recreational drug use caused immune deficiency in gay men, specifically linking the spread of AIDS to the usage of poppers. This theory has long been discredited; in 2008, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering that HIV causes AIDS.
Category:
E-Commerce
In his February 2025 cover story for The Atlantic, journalist Derek Thompson dubbed our current era the anti-social century. He isnt wrong. According to our recent research, the U.S. is becoming a nation of homebodies. Using data from the American Time Use Survey, we studied how people in the U.S. spent their time before, during, and after the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic did spur more Americans to stay home. But this trend didnt start or end with the pandemic. We found that Americans were already spending more and more time at home and less and less time engaged in activities away from home stretching all the way back to at least 2003. And if you thought the end of lockdowns and the spread of vaccines led to a revival of partying and playing sports and dining out, you would be mistaken. The pandemic, it turns out, mostly accelerated ongoing trends. All of this has major implications for traffic, public transit, real estate, the workplace, socializing, and mental health. Life inside The trend of staying home is not new. There was a steady decline in out-of-home activities in the two decades leading up to the pandemic. Compared with 2003, Americans in 2019 spent nearly 30 minutes less per day on out-of-home activities and eight fewer minutes a day traveling. There could be any number of reasons for this shift, but advances in technology, whether its smartphones, streaming services, or social media, are likely culprits. You can video chat with a friend rather than meeting them for coffee; order groceries through an app instead of venturing to the supermarket; and stream a movie instead of seeing it in a theater. Of course, there was a sharp decline in out-of-home activities during the pandemic, which dramatically accelerated many of these stay-at-home trends. Outside of travel, time spent on out-of-home activities fell by over an hour per day, on average, from 332 minutes in 2019 to 271 minutes in 2021. Travel, excluding air travel, fell from 69 to 54 minutes per day over the same period. But even after the pandemic lockdowns were lifted, out-of-home activities and travel through 2023 remained substantially depressed, far below 2019 levels. There was a dramatic increase in remote work, online shopping, time spent using digital entertainment, such as streaming and gaming, and even time spent sleeping. Time spent outside of the home has rebounded since the pandemic, but only slightly. There was hardly any recovery of out-of-home activities from 2022 to 2023, meaning 2023 out-of-home activities and travel were still far below 2019 levels. On the whole, Americans are spending nearly 1.5 hours less outside their homes in 2023 than they did in 2003. While hours worked from home in 2022 were less than half of what they were in 2021, theyre still about five times what they were ahead of the pandemic. Despite this, only about one-quarter of the overall travel time reduction is due to less commuting. The rest reflects other kinds of travel, for activities such as shopping and socializing. Ripple effects This shift has already had consequences. With Americans spending more time working, playing, and shopping from home, demand for office and retail space has fallen. While there have been some calls by major employers for workers to spend more time in the office, research suggests that working from home in the U.S. held steady between early 2023 and early 2025 at about 25% of paid work days. As a result, surplus office space may need to be repurposed as housing and for other uses. There are advantages to working and playing at home, such as avoiding travel stress and expenses. But it has also boosted demand for extra space in apartments and houses, as people spend more time under their own roof. It has changed travel during the traditional morningand, especially, afternoonpeak periods, spreading traffic more evenly throughout the day but contributing to significant public transit ridership losses. Meanwhile, more package and food delivery drivers are competing with parked cars and bus and bike lanes for curb space. Perhaps most importantly, spending less time out and about in the world has sobering implications for Americans well beyond real estate and transportation systems. Research were currently conducting suggests that more time spent at home has dovetailed with more time spent alone. Suffice it to say, this makes loneliness, which stems from a lack of meaningful connections, a more common occurrence. Loneliness and social isolation are associated with increased risk for early mortality. Because hunkering down appears to be the new norm, we think its all the more important for policymakers and everyday people to find ways to cultivate connections and community in the shrinking time they do spend outside of the home. Brian D. Taylor is a professor of urban planning and public policy at the University of California, Los Angeles; Eric Morris is a professor of city and regional planning at Clemson University, and Sam Speroni is a PhD student in urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||